Iran Formally Ends Cairo Agreement After IAEA Resolution Presses Iran for Transparency

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors has adopted a new resolution pressing Iran to provide immediate clarity on the status of its enriched uranium stockpile.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors has adopted a new resolution pressing Iran to provide immediate clarity on the status of its enriched uranium stockpile and to grant inspectors full access to nuclear facilities damaged in recent U.S. and Israeli attacks. The resolution, drafted by Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, passed with 19 votes in favor, 12 abstentions, and three opposition votes from Russia, China, and Niger, and calls on Iran to “without delay” inform the Agency of the condition of its enriched uranium reserves and respond to longstanding safeguards questions.

Tehran’s reaction was swift and categorical. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that Iran is terminating the Cairo Agreement, the cooperation framework he negotiated with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi on 9 September in Cairo.

The Cairo agreement—mediated by Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty—laid out a procedure for oversight and monitoring of Iranian sites. The agreement was already effectively suspended as a result of the snapback of UN Security Council Resolutions on Iran, and may not have been salvageable.

Araghchi said the latest resolution has rendered the understanding “nullified and ended,” and confirmed that an official letter was delivered to Grossi stating that the deal “is no longer valid.” Araghchi accused the United States and the three European states of “undermining the independence and credibility of the Agency” and argued that their actions ignored Iran’s cooperation and damaged the basis of engagement. Araghchi added that Iran “will only cooperate regarding facilities that were not bombed”, and only within the standard framework of safeguards.

Iran’s broader argument centers on the consequences of the U.S.–Israeli strikes on its nuclear infrastructure. Iranian officials maintain that the attacks destroyed centrifuges, equipment, and stored materials that were part of a civilian program, leaving the country without any practical or operational enrichment capacity. According to Tehran, parts of its nuclear material and components are physically inaccessible because they were destroyed or buried during the attacks. Iran therefore argues that it cannot produce detailed technical reports on stockpiles it no longer controls and that the responsibility for this situation lies with the states that carried out the airstrikes. In this view, the resolution demands information that is technically impossible to provide under current conditions.

Tehran also rejects the resolution’s requirement that inspectors be granted access to the bombed sites. Iranian officials argue that these locations, having been transformed into active military and security zones, no longer constitute standard nuclear facilities subject to routine inspections. Allowing IAEA access, they contend, would effectively legitimize the attacks and compromise Iran’s security. Araghchi reiterated that cooperation will continue “only at facilities that were not bombed.”

A central element of Iran’s position is the longstanding allegation that IAEA-sourced information was leaked to Israel, enabling attacks on Iranian nuclear centers and contributing to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Iranian officials argue that the Agency failed in its obligation to protect sensitive data, and that these breaches justify strict limitations on inspector access. Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, argued this week that the precision of one of Israel’s strikes during the 12-day war could only be explained by the “misuse” of information that was “in the possession of the IAEA.” Eslami, referring to Israel’s attack on the “fuel plate production facility of the Tehran Research Reactor,” stated that “only the laboratory room was targeted — the very room that had been equipped with the Agency’s cooperation.”

This claim forms a crucial part of Iran’s argument that the resolution is politically motivated, not technically grounded, and that its implementation could endanger Iran’s national security. Yet, it also seems possible that Israel obtained this information by other means, including informants or hacking of Iranian systems.

Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, called the resolution an “illegal action” and stressed that it would not alter the current level of safeguards implementation, though he warned that the decision “will have consequences.” The Deputy Foreign Minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, had earlier signaled that the passage of such a resolution would lead Tehran to undertake “fundamental policy revisions.” In remarks to KhabarOnline, Araghchi added that Iran would never accept “zero enrichment,” calling enrichment a matter of national pride and national dignity.

The resolution builds on earlier Board actions. On 12 June 2025, the Board passed a resolution declaring that Iran had not fully cooperated with safeguards investigations, raising issues that could justify referral to the UN Security Council. While the European trio and the United States initially suggested they would pursue such a referral in September, they have thus far abstained from such action.

Following the latest vote, Iran joined Russia, Belarus, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe in a joint statement condemning the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and arguing that the international community should first address these violations before demanding additional access from Iran. Meanwhile, Director General Grossi insisted that the Agency must clarify “immediately” the status of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and reaffirmed the need for inspectors to verify the location and condition of nuclear material.

The adoption of the resolution and Iran’s termination of the Cairo Agreement mark a continuation of the tense standoff between Tehran and the Agency. While the IAEA seeks greater clarity and access to uphold the global non-proliferation system, Iran argues that the Agency cannot demand cooperation without addressing the military attacks on its facilities, the destruction of its equipment, the loss of access to stockpiled materials, and the alleged security breaches involving Israel. The confrontation underscores the gap between technical expectations and political realities, continuing the deep mistrust, limited verification, and ongoing regional tension shaping the nuclear file.