Iran rejects post-strike nuclear inspections, accuses watchdog of bias

Zarif argues that relations between Iran and the United States have long been trapped in a cycle of “securitization,” in which each side responds defensively to the other’s actions.

The Islamic Republic, he writes, has been “forced” to prioritize military spending over development because of attacks by Iraq, Israel, and the United States.

The argument downplays Iran’s own role in shaping that trajectory.

Contrary to Zarif’s account, the theocracy’s turn toward securitization gained pace in the aftermath of the Iran–Iraq war, particularly under the late President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who helped embed the military in politics and the economy as a pillar of postwar reconstruction and state survival.

But Zarif shifts responsibility for Iran’s unbalanced development outward.

Western pressure, not decisions taken by Iran’s leadership, is blamed for a system in which missile programs expanded while welfare sectors such as housing, employment, and healthcare stagnated.

The implication is that Iran’s strategic priorities were imposed rather than chosen.

Zarif further suggests that reduced pressure from Washington would lead Tehran to de-escalate. Yet this claim sits uneasily with his own account of events following the 2015 nuclear deal.

One of the achievements Zarif frequently cited was the lifting of sanctions not only on Iran’s nuclear program but also on arms-related restrictions, including sanctions on Iran Air, allowing the airline to modernize its fleet.

By Zarif’s own account, however, the easing of sanctions did not lead to restraint.

In a 2021 interview with the economist Saeed Leylaz, Zarif acknowledged that Iran Air flights were used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to transfer weapons to Syria, with such flights increasing sharply after the nuclear deal. When Zarif raised concerns with Qassem Soleimani, the then-commander of the Quds Force, he said Soleimani replied that “Iran Air is safer.”

Zarif later described this dynamic as the “dominance of the battlefield over diplomacy,” an admission that key decisions about militarization were made within Iran’s power structure, not imposed from abroad.

Indeed, the period following the nuclear deal saw expanded investment in missile programs and a deepening of Iran’s regional proxy network, financed in part by newly available resources.

Yet in the Foreign Affairs article, Zarif presents increased uranium enrichment and the repression of domestic protest as reactions to Western pressure—once again shifting responsibility for violent crackdowns repression away from the rule in Tehran.

“The external securitization of Iran has fed into a parallel dynamic at home,” he writes, “as the state adopted a stricter approach in dealing with domestic social challenges, responding to these challenges with tighter restrictions.”

A similar pattern appears in Zarif’s account of Iran’s role in Syria.

In the same 2021 interview, he suggested that Iran’s direct military involvement followed a visit by Soleimani to Moscow, framing the escalation as the product of Russian strategy to undermine the nuclear deal rather than a decision taken by Iran’s leadership.

The role of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iran’s own security institutions is largely absent from this narrative.

The tendency to externalize responsibility extends to other areas as well.

After the nuclear deal, the release of several dual nationals and the unfreezing of Iranian assets raised expectations of de-escalation. Instead, a new wave of arrests of dual nationals followed, a pattern widely seen as deliberate leverage rather than a response to external pressure.

Zarif’s article also describes Israeli strikes in June 2025 as “unprovoked,” without reference to decades of official Iranian rhetoric calling for Israel’s destruction or the expansion of armed proxy groups along Israel’s borders.

The broader context of the current confrontation—including Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, praised by Iranian officials—is notably absent.

Iran has had multiple opportunities to break the cycle Zarif describes, from the early years after the revolution to the post-nuclear-deal period. Each time, its leadership made choices that reinforced militarization and repression rather than curbing them.

The question raised by Zarif’s essay is not whether external pressure mattered—but why internal agency continues to be written out of the story.

Speaking during the session, Morgan Ortagus, counselor of the US Mission to the United Nations, said Washington remained open to formal negotiations but only if Iran agreed to direct talks and abandoned uranium enrichment.

“We’d like to make it clear to the entire world that the United States remains available for formal talks with Iran, but only if Tehran is prepared for direct and meaningful dialogue. Direct and meaningful.”

“Foremost, there can be no enrichment inside of Iran, and that remains our principle,” she added.

Ortagus said President Donald Trump had repeatedly pursued diplomacy with Tehran.

“In both administrations, President Trump extended the hand of diplomacy to Iran,” she said. “But instead of taking that hand of diplomacy, you continue to put your hand in the fire. Step away from the fire, sir, and take President Trump’s hand of diplomacy.”

Iran rejected that framing.

“We appreciate any fair and meaningful negotiation, but insisting on zero enrichment policy is contrary to our rights as a member of the NPT," Tehran's UN envoy Amir Saeed Iravani said.

"Iran will not bow down to any pressure and intimidation.”

Iravani argued that the crisis stemmed from Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement and subsequent actions by the United States and its allies.

"The root causes of the current situation are clear and did not emerge overnight or in isolation. They lie in the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA in 2018, the sustained and deliberate non-compliance of the three European countries with their commitments and the subsequent military aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran's peaceful safeguard nuclear facilities.

The remarks referred to the 12-day war in June, when Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran in the middle of nuclear negotiations, drawing in the United States and derailing a planned new round of talks.

Tuesday's Council session revealed deep divisions over whether UN sanctions on Iran have been reinstated under the snapback mechanism of Resolution 2231.

Britain, France and Germany argue that Iran’s nuclear noncompliance has restored sanctions automatically, while China and Russia — backed by Tehran — reject that claim and question the Council’s authority to continue addressing the issue.

Speaking during the session, Beijing and Moscow envoys rejected claims by France, Germany and the United Kingdom that Resolution 2231 remains in force and that international sanctions on Iran have automatically returned.

Both argued that the resolution expired in October and that the Council no longer has a mandate to consider Iran’s nuclear file.

China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, Sun Lei, described the European move as riddled with “legal and procedural loopholes,” noting that the Council had never reached consensus on whether the European trio had the authority to activate snapback.

“Resolution 2231 expired on October 18, and the Council has ceased its considerations on the Iranian nuclear issue,” Sun added.

Russian envoy Vasily Nebenzya said neither the Security Council nor the UN Secretariat had any remaining mandate on Iran, calling the meeting “a blatant attempt” by Western members to create the impression that Resolution 2231 and the snapback mechanism remain in force.

He warned that such efforts would deepen rifts within the Council “not only politically, but also on legal and procedural matters.”

'Not arbitrary'

Britain and the United States rejected those arguments outright.

Archie Young, the United Kingdom’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said the meeting was “fully in line with the decisions and procedure of this Council” and that London, alongside Paris and Berlin, had triggered snapback “in full accordance with Security Council Resolution 2231.”

“We did so because of Iran’s significant non-performance of its commitments under the JCPOA,” Young said, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal.

US representative Jeff Bartos also defended the sanctions' return as a consequence of Tehran's actions.

"These resolutions are not arbitrary or punitive," he said, "but rather narrowly scoped to address a nuclear program that seeks to operate out of view of the international community and in continued noncompliance with its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Mandated Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA,as reaffirmed last month by the IAEA Board."

"The United States continues to prefer a negotiated solution to this matter," Bartos added.

'Masks off'

Russia's envoy accused the United States and Israel of derailing diplomacy by airstrikes on Iran in June.

"There were five rounds of indirect negotiations, and the parties agreed to meet for a sixth round. However, two days before that, Israel opted for a military escalation and struck Iranian territory, including civilian nuclear facilities that were under IAEA safeguards. A week later, Western Jerusalem was joined by the U.S. in this misadventure," he told the council.

"In 2025, Western countries took their masks off once and for all regarding the settlement of the Iranian nuclear program. If anyone still had any doubts as to their real position, then these positions have been revealed now once and for all."

'Deliberate disinformation'

Iran's ambassador to the UN Amir Saeed Iravani echoed his Chinese and Russian counterparts in objecting to the convening of the security council meeting.

What we are witnessing is not a legitimate disagreement over interpretation but a calculated distortion of Resolution 2231 to deliberate dissemination of disinformation regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear program and a cynical attempt to abuse this Council for their narrow political interests," Iravani said.

"The root causes of the current situation are clear and did not emerge overnight or in isolation. They lie in the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA in 2018, the sustained and deliberate non-compliance of the three European countries with their commitments and the subsequent military aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran's peaceful safeguard nuclear facilities."

'Negotiated settlement'

UN under-secretary-general Rosemary A. DiCarlo tried to bring a divided council together with emphasis on continued diplomacy.

"Notwithstanding the significant differences between the relevant parties ... all of them have continued to emphasize the importance of a diplomatic solution and expressed overall readiness to engage with each other for this purpose," DiCarlo said.

"A negotiated settlement that would secure the overall objectives of ensuring a peaceful Iranian nuclear program and providing sanctions relief is the best option available to the international community."

Araghchi said he had previously been in contact with Witkoff over Iran’s nuclear program but that Tehran decided months ago to suspend that channel.

“I had been in contact with Steve Witkoff, but not in recent days, because for several months we decided to stop these contacts,” Araghchi said in an interview with Russian media during a visit to Moscow.

He said Iran and the United States had held five rounds of talks and had scheduled a sixth for June 15, but that the process was disrupted days earlier by Israeli strikes on Iran, followed by US involvement.

“We had even set a sixth round for June 15, but two days before that the Israelis attacked us. This attack was unprovoked and illegal, and the United States then joined it,” he said.

Araghchi said Iran remained willing to reach an agreement through diplomacy but rejected what he described as imposed terms.

“We are ready for a fair and balanced agreement achieved through negotiations, but we are not ready to accept dictates,” he said.

He said Tehran was prepared to provide full assurances that its nuclear program is peaceful, as it did under the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

“We are ready to give full assurances that our program is peaceful and will remain peaceful forever. This is exactly what we did in 2015, and it worked,” Araghchi said.

Araghchi criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for failing to condemn attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities that he said were peaceful and operating under international safeguards.

“It is deeply regrettable that the agency and its director-general did not condemn the attack on a peaceful nuclear facility that was under IAEA safeguards,” he said.

He said Iran remained committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and willing to cooperate with the IAEA, but questioned how inspections should be conducted at sites that had been attacked.

“We are a committed member of the NPT and ready to cooperate with the agency, but we have a simple question: how should a nuclear facility that has been attacked be inspected? There is no precedent for this,” he said.

Iran’s top diplomat repeated that Iran viewed uranium enrichment as both a legal right and a matter of national dignity.

“We have two experiences: one of diplomacy, which succeeded, and one of military action, which failed,” Araghchi said. “The choice now lies with the United States.”

“They are preparing to make the case during an upcoming meeting with Trump that it poses a new threat,” NBC News said, citing a person with direct knowledge of the plans and four former US officials briefed on the matter.

Israeli officials believe Iran is rebuilding facilities linked to ballistic missile production and repairing air defenses damaged in earlier strikes, which they view as more urgent than nuclear enrichment efforts, NBC reported.

“The nuclear weapons program is very concerning. There’s an attempt to reconstitute. It’s not that immediate,” one person familiar with the plans told NBC, referring to Iran’s nuclear activities.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to raise the issue when he meets Trump later this month, including options for US support or participation in any future action, the report said.

Trump's warning

Trump has repeatedly said US strikes in June destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities and warned Tehran against trying to rebuild.

“If they do want to come back without a deal, then we’re going to obliterate that one, too,” Trump said earlier this month. “We can knock out their missiles very quickly.”

A White House spokesperson said the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran had corroborated the US assessment that the strikes “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

June strikes and inspections dispute

Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 13, targeting nuclear facilities, senior military figures and scientists, accusing Tehran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program. The US followed with strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22.

Iran, which denied the accusations, responded with missile attacks including on a US base in Qatar.

The episode comes as the IAEA presses Iran for access to damaged nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, saying it must decide whether the sites are inaccessible, a demand Tehran has rejected as unreasonable.