Senior Iranian officials have descended upon Vienna this week, determined to push a bold new agenda at the 69th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their mission: to secure international backing for a resolution that would prohibit attacks on nuclear installations worldwide—a response to the devastating strikes by the United States and Israel during a 12-day conflict in June that left over 1,000 dead and caused billions of dollars in damage across Iran.
The timing of Iran’s initiative is no accident. The conference, running from Monday, September 15, through Friday, September 19, 2025, comes on the heels of a turbulent summer for Iran’s nuclear program. According to reporting from Al Jazeera, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the country’s top security body, recently endorsed a deal to resume nuclear inspections after they were halted in the wake of the bombings. But the council’s support, and the new push for international protection, has not come without controversy or resistance—both domestically and abroad.
Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), is leading the Iranian delegation in Vienna. Speaking to Iranian state media after his arrival, Eslami made it clear that he views the IAEA’s handling of recent attacks as deeply flawed. “We witnessed the agency’s lack of professional conduct, as this body, without taking any position, did not condemn [attacks on Iran] and instead acted in a very neutral manner – it applied a double standard to perfection,” Eslami said, as quoted by Al Jazeera. He pointedly contrasted this with IAEA Director Rafael Grossi’s repeated and explicit condemnations of attacks on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. “Even if this resolution is not adopted, it shows that the Charter of the United Nations has, in the truest sense of the word, been damaged.”
Iran’s proposed resolution—whose full text has not yet been made public—aims to ban military action against nuclear facilities, not only in Iran but worldwide. The Iranians argue that international law, and specifically the United Nations Charter, already supports such protections, but that explicit reaffirmation is needed in light of recent events. Their case draws on historical precedent. Behrouz Kamalvandi, Iran’s deputy nuclear chief, cited UN Security Council Resolution 487, which was adopted in 1981 after Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, as a clear example of the international community condemning attacks on nuclear sites. Kamalvandi also referenced two IAEA General Conference resolutions from 1985 and 1990, both of which emphasized the importance of safeguarding nuclear facilities and urged member states to universally respect prohibitions on attacks.
The Iranian delegation faces an uphill battle. According to Kamalvandi, the United States is actively pressuring other IAEA member states to block the resolution and has even threatened to cut funding to the organization if the proposal advances. “The US is putting pressure on member states to block the resolution and has even threatened the agency that they will cut off assistance to the organisation,” Kamalvandi told Iranian media, as reported by Al Jazeera. The US, along with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—the European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal—has also threatened to reactivate the so-called “snapback” mechanism, which could reinstate all UN sanctions previously lifted against Iran.
Despite the diplomatic headwinds, Iranian officials are holding negotiations with representatives from some of the IAEA’s 180 member states in Vienna, hoping to build support for their proposal. Yet, as Kamalvandi acknowledged, it’s possible the resolution won’t even be put to a vote. For Iran, however, the effort is as much about sending a message as it is about securing immediate legal protection. “Even if this resolution is not adopted, it shows that the Charter of the United Nations has, in the truest sense of the word, been damaged,” Eslami reiterated.
The domestic picture in Iran is just as complicated. The Supreme National Security Council, which comprises representatives appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the president, parliament and judiciary chiefs, several ministers, and military commanders, has thrown its weight behind the new inspections deal with the IAEA. The agreement, reached last week in Cairo between Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and IAEA officials, will allow for the resumption of inspections at all facilities, including those bombed in June. However, the council stipulated that each inspection must be approved on a case-by-case basis, and it warned that any further hostile action against Iran’s nuclear facilities would lead to an immediate suspension of the arrangement.
“Should any hostile action be taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear facilities – including the reactivation of previously terminated Security Council resolutions – the implementation of these arrangements will be suspended,” the council declared in a statement, as reported by Al Jazeera. This warning was directed squarely at the US-backed effort to reinstate sanctions via the snapback mechanism.
Not everyone in Iran’s political establishment is satisfied with the council’s approach. Hardliners in parliament have been vocal in their opposition to renewed inspections, arguing that increased transparency could invite further attacks by the US and Israel. Their concerns are not unfounded, given the events of June, when Israel launched strikes on Iran a day after the IAEA found Tehran noncompliant with its international nuclear safeguards. The 12-day conflict that followed was devastating, with over 1,000 lives lost and billions of dollars in damage inflicted on Iranian infrastructure.
At present, IAEA inspectors only have access to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Iranian nuclear authorities are currently assessing whether the bombed sites—many of which are buried deep underground—are safe to visit, both in terms of contamination and accessibility. The Supreme National Security Council has emphasized that no further access will be granted until these safety evaluations are completed.
Amid all the accusations and diplomatic maneuvering, one critical point has remained constant: neither US intelligence nor the IAEA has found evidence this year that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Since the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal under President Donald Trump in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, the IAEA Board of Governors has adopted four Western-backed censure resolutions against Iran. Yet, as both Al Jazeera and Reuters have reported, inspections and intelligence assessments have consistently failed to uncover any active weapons program.
For now, the fate of Iran’s resolution—and the broader question of how the world will protect nuclear facilities in an era of rising geopolitical tension—remains uncertain. The coming days in Vienna will be closely watched, not just by diplomats and nuclear experts, but by anyone concerned about the risks of conflict in a nuclear-armed world. With the stakes so high, every word spoken and every vote cast will matter.
As the conference unfolds, the world waits to see whether Iran’s call for protection will gain traction, or whether the cycle of suspicion, censure, and conflict will continue unabated.
