The return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked intense domestic criticism against President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government, with hardline lawmakers and military officials accusing his administration of capitulating to Western pressure while receiving insufficient guarantees against future attacks . IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed on August 26 that a team had re-entered Iran, primarily to monitor fuel replacement at the Bushehr power plant but emphasized that access to sites bombed by the U.S. and Israel (e.g., Fordow and Natanz) remains unresolved. The move comes as European powers threaten to trigger snapback sanctions by August 31, despite Russia circulating a draft UN resolution to extend the deadline by six months.
President Pezeshkian’s decision to allow limited IAEA access, without securing written guarantees against future military strikes or binding commitments to sanctions relief has been condemned by Iran’s Parliament National Security Commission as a "strategic miscalculation". Lawmakers note that the inspectors’ return aligns with European demands but fails to address core security concerns, such as the IAEA’s failure to condemn the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli attacks that killed 1,190 Iranians and destroyed key nuclear infrastructure. Former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezaei asserted that "granting access without tangible concessions reveals a government prioritizing foreign applause over national dignity".
Hardliners argue that the IAEA’s return undermines Iran’s sovereignty, as inspections proceed under the same safeguards agreement that hardliners view as compromised by the agency’s "biased" reporting. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf emphasized that the June suspension law, requiring Supreme National Security Council approval for all inspections should remain in force until the U.S. and Israel are held accountable for their attacks. Critics also highlight that the IAEA’s focus on Bushehr (a civilian power plant) ignores military-damaged sites like Fordow, where satellite imagery shows ongoing reconstruction after U.S. bunker-buster strikes. "Why inspect peaceful facilities while ignoring bombed ones? This is theatrical compliance," argued Kayhan newspaper.
The E3 (Britain, France, Germany) have demanded full inspections and uranium stockpile accounting by August 31 to avoid triggering snapback sanctions. However, Russia’s draft UN resolution, proposing a six-month extension without preconditions has gained traction, with China’s support potentially isolating European powers. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi reiterated that snapback would "kill diplomacy forever," noting that Iran’s compromises (e.g., accepting inspectors at Bushehr) demonstrate good faith. Nevertheless, European officials insist snapback remains "imminent" unless Iran meets all demands, including negotiations with the U.S.
Hardliners rightly question the IAEA’s neutrality, citing its silence during the June attacks and its accelerated resolution accusing Iran of non-compliance days before Israel’s assault. While Grossi claims he seeks access to all sites, Iranian officials note the IAEA has never inspected Israel’s nuclear weapons program, a glaring double standard. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that future cooperation requires a "new framework" prioritizing mutual respect, not unilateral concessions.
Pezeshkian’s gamble risks fracturing domestic unity unless tangible benefits emerge, e.g., sanctions relief or security guarantees. With Russia challenging European ultimatums at the UN, and the IAEA unable to operate freely, Iran’s nuclear dossier remains a geopolitical battleground. Hardliners’ insistence on conditioning cooperation on accountability for the June attacks resonates deeply in Iran, where public trust in Western institutions is shattered. As Parliament debates blocking further inspections, the government must balance diplomatic pragmatism with uncompromised sovereignty.