According to Khabaronline, an Iranian news agency, Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Eslami reacted to recent remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, saying the comments indicate that Grossi is “playing a role in the enemy’s plan.”
Eslami referred to the UN Security Council meeting held the previous night, criticizing the report, statement, and references presented there as “completely unprofessional and non-legal.” He said UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has expired, and even if parties had intended to invoke it, they failed to observe its required procedures.
“No country in history has cooperated with the IAEA as much as Iran and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,” Eslami said. “The most extensive and stringent inspections in history have been imposed on Iran’s nuclear industry, and to date there has not been a single report by IAEA inspectors citing non-compliance or deviation from safeguards standards.”
Emphasizing that Iran’s nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and aimed at national development, Eslami noted that under Article 68 of the safeguards agreement, only damage caused by accidents or natural disasters is addressed. “Military attacks and bombardment are not covered,” he said.
“If the Agency agrees with war and military attacks, it should adopt a resolution and explicitly state that attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities are permitted,” Eslami said. “But if such attacks are not permitted, they must be condemned. Once condemned, it should be clarified what the post-war conditions are.”
He added that if post-conflict procedures exist, the IAEA should formally announce them so Iran can act accordingly. “If they do not exist, then—as we have formally requested and conveyed in writing—there must be a clear definition and framework specifying what actions should be taken if a nuclear industry under IAEA registration and supervision is subjected to a military attack.”
Eslami concluded by reiterating that until this issue is resolved, Iran will not accept or respond to political and psychological pressure or what he described as irrelevant follow-ups seeking renewed inspections of bombed facilities or the completion of “the enemy’s operation.”