Who is going to inspect Iran's nuclear sites now?

RTÉ News​

5 hours ago

While Israel, Iran and the United States fought their 12-day war, a row broke out between Tehran and the UN's nuclear watchdog, casting doubt on future independent oversight of Iran's nuclear programme and raising fears that global non-proliferation guardrails could begin to crumble.
On Wednesday, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and kick its nuclear inspectors out of the country.
The measure needs approval by the country's supreme leaders to go ahead.
But at the same time, Iran is considering withdrawing from the UN's Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
If that happens, it would no longer be under any obligation to comply with international nuclear safeguards (although it would certainly face more sanctions, at the very least).
That would have a chilling effect on global efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, analysts have told RTÉ News, and is likely prompt other countries to quit too.
"There is a real risk Iran could withdraw from the NPT and weaken the treaty," Alistair Burnett, spokesperson for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said, "as Saudi Arabia could follow suit, given its concerns over Tehran's nuclear programme".
Asked during a news conference this week about Iran's possible withdrawal from the long-standing treaty, Rafael Grossi, director General of the IAEA, said it would be "very regrettable".
"I don't think this would help anybody, starting with Iran. This would lead to isolation, all sorts of problems," he said.
He added it would lead to "serious erosion" in the world's nuclear non-proliferation architecture.
At the heart of this dispute is Tehran's perception that the UN's nuclear watchdog is not impartial – an accusation strenuously denied by UN officials.
It began when the IAEA passed a resolution declaring Iran to be in breach of its obligations under the NPT on 12 June.
The watchdog also reported that Iran had a stockpile of 140kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity, a step towards weapons grade.
A day later, Israel bombed Iran's nuclear and military sites.
Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "pre-emptive" strike to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb, from which he said Iran was just "weeks away".
In remarks following the attacks, Mr Grossi said his agency had not found evidence to suggest there was "a systematic effort" by Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon.
But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei took to social media to accuse Mr Grossi of being too late.
"You obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report," Mr Baqaei wrote on X.
The resolution was used as a pretext "to wage a war of aggression on Iran and to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities," he wrote.
As the US administration mulled joining the war, Vice President JD Vance also referenced the IAEA report.
"They've been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a right-wing organization," Mr Vance posted on X on 17 June.
Five days later, the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow.
And Iranian officials continued to direct their ire towards the IAEA.
In a scathing attack delivered during remarks to the UN Security Council during an emergency session last weekend, Iran's ambassador to the UN accused Mr Grossi of "biased conduct".
"Undoubtedly, the United States, the United Kingdom and France - three permanent members of this Council - along with the Israeli regime and the IAEA General Director, will bear full responsibility for the death of innocent civilians in Iran, especially women and children, and for the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure," Amir Saeid Iravani told the 15-member body.
The Iranian envoy also filed a formal complaint to the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary General against Mr Grossi for "a clear and serious breach of the standard of impartiality".
Mr Grossi insisted the IAEA was objective and impartial and said the idea that its reporting on Iran's nuclear facilities was a greenlight for military action was "absolutely absurd".
For years, the IAEA sent weapons inspectors into Tehran's nuclear sites to check if Iran was complying with its NPT obligations.
Additional layers of inspection included CCTV surveillance at key locations, tamper-proof seals and collection of dust and residue for analysis.
Access was significantly scaled back after the US withdrew from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), known as the Iran nuclear deal, and re-imposed sanctions on Iran in 2018.
At that time, the first Trump administration accused Iran of lying about its nuclear programme and said the JCPOA "enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behaviour".
Now, as Iran's animosity towards the IAEA rises, the question is whether any international oversight of Iran's nuclear programme can continue at all.
"It's always harder to do the inspection job of the IAEA if the host country is not hospitable," Erin Dumbacher, nuclear security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations told RTÉ News.
Any country in possession of nuclear material even for energy or medical purposes should be allowing inspectors in, to build the international transparency and credibility of their nuclear programmes, she said.
"You only need three to 5% enrichment of your materials to use it for energy purposes," she said.
"So, any country that has any enrichment capabilities or materials that are enriched beyond that low level need to explain its purpose, so that we can all be confident that there are not additional weapon states looming," she said.
If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT now, it would certainly undermine confidence throughout the region about Iran's nuclear activities, she told RTÉ News.
Of course, not all countries have agreed to nuclear non-proliferation.
Israel is an undeclared nuclear power but not a signatory to the NPT, and therefore not subject to inspections by the IAEA.
India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers and South Sudan, which is not, never signed.
North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 - the only country to do so - preceded its first nuclear test in 2006.
"If other countries think Iran is following that example, we are likely to see more Israeli and US attacks and even tougher sanctions on Tehran – and more conflict is the last thing we want to see in the region," said Mr Burnett.
The danger now, analysts said, is that following the events of the past few weeks, countries may decide that an atomic weapon is the best protection against external aggression, blowing apart the NPT and raising the spectre of a new nuclear arms race.
"I worry that recent events might have a chilling effect on a threshold state or a state that might be sort of "hedging", to use the political science term for it," said Ms Dumbacher.
"They might not see as much value in international transparency and in working with the IAEA," she added.