In a significant development at the 69th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), held in Geneva from September 15 to 19, 2025, Iran’s ambassador to international organizations in Vienna, Reza Najafi, has accused the United States of exerting undue pressure on member states to oppose a draft resolution co-sponsored by Iran and several other nations. The resolution, which seeks to prohibit attacks or threats against nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, has sparked intense diplomatic maneuvering, with Najafi alleging that the U.S. has resorted to coercive tactics to influence voting outcomes.
Allegations of U.S. Pressure Tactics
Speaking at the conference, Najafi revealed that a significant number of IAEA member states had privately communicated to Iran and other co-sponsors of the resolution that they were facing “intense pressure and threats” from the United States to either vote against the resolution or abstain from voting altogether. According to Najafi, U.S. officials have approached these countries individually, issuing warnings that failure to align with Washington’s position could lead to unspecified consequences.
Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Reza Najafi
“Many representatives have confided that their governments are under considerable duress,” Najafi stated. “They have been explicitly told by the United States to cast a negative vote or, at the very least, abstain from supporting our resolution. This is not a reflection of their genuine stance on the issue but rather a response to external coercion.”
Najafi’s remarks underscore a growing tension within the IAEA, an organization tasked with promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and ensuring compliance with nuclear safeguards. The allegations raise questions about the integrity of the agency’s decision-making processes and the ability of member states to act independently in the face of pressure from powerful nations.
The Draft Resolution: A Call for Protection of Nuclear Sites
The draft resolution at the heart of the controversy was jointly submitted by Iran and five other nations, though the identities of the co-sponsoring countries were not disclosed in Najafi’s statements. The resolution calls for a categorical ban on any form of attack or threat against nuclear facilities that are subject to IAEA safeguards. Such facilities, which include reactors, enrichment plants, and storage sites, are monitored by the IAEA to ensure that nuclear materials are used exclusively for peaceful purposes and are not diverted to weapons programs.
The resolution’s proponents argue that it is a necessary step to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime and protect the safety of nuclear facilities, their personnel, and the surrounding environment. The proposal comes in the wake of heightened geopolitical tensions, particularly following what Iran describes as “U.S.-Israeli aggression” against its nuclear infrastructure in June 2025. While specific details of these alleged attacks remain limited, Tehran has repeatedly warned that such actions pose significant risks, including the potential release of radioactive materials, harm to personnel, and long-term environmental damage.
The resolution draws on established international norms, including United Nations Security Council Resolution 487, adopted in 1981 following Israel’s airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. That resolution condemned the attack as a violation of international law and called for measures to prevent similar acts in the future. By invoking this precedent, Iran and its co-sponsors aim to frame their proposal as a logical extension of existing principles, arguing that the protection of safeguarded nuclear sites is a matter of global security.
U.S. Opposition and Alleged Coercion
According to Najafi, the United States has failed to present a compelling case against the resolution, relying instead on diplomatic pressure to sway IAEA member states. “The U.S. has no valid argument to counter the resolution’s objectives, which are firmly rooted in international law and the principles of the IAEA,” Najafi said during a speech on Tuesday, September 16, 2025. He emphasized that the resolution is not directed at any specific country but is intended to uphold the integrity of the non-proliferation regime and ensure the safety of nuclear facilities worldwide.
The allegations of U.S. pressure have sparked concern among observers, who see them as indicative of broader challenges in multilateral diplomacy. The IAEA’s General Conference, which brings together representatives from its 178 member states, is a forum for setting policies and priorities related to nuclear energy and non-proliferation. However, the agency’s decision-making process is often influenced by geopolitical rivalries, with powerful nations leveraging their economic and political clout to shape outcomes.
Some member states, according to Najafi, have expressed reluctance to openly support the resolution due to fears of retaliation from the United States. These countries have reportedly urged Iran and its co-sponsors to defer consideration of the resolution until the 70th IAEA General Conference in 2026. “An abstention from this resolution does not reflect their true position,” Najafi noted. “They are caught in a difficult situation and have asked for more time to navigate the pressures they face.”
Iran’s Response and Strategic Considerations
In response to these concerns, Iran and the other co-sponsors of the resolution are currently deliberating on how to proceed. Najafi emphasized that the sponsoring nations are sensitive to the challenges faced by other member states and do not wish to force them into making “unreal decisions” under duress. “We are consulting with our partners to determine the best course of action,” he said. “Our goal is to advance the resolution in a manner that strengthens international consensus rather than deepening divisions.”
This approach reflects Iran’s broader diplomatic strategy, which seeks to position itself as a responsible actor within the IAEA while countering what it perceives as Western hostility. By highlighting U.S. pressure tactics, Iran aims to rally support from non-aligned and developing nations, many of which have historically been wary of external interference in their decision-making processes.
The decision to potentially defer the resolution to the next conference could serve multiple purposes. First, it would allow Iran and its allies to engage in further diplomatic outreach, building a broader coalition of support. Second, it could reduce immediate tensions at the 2025 General Conference, preserving the IAEA’s ability to address other pressing issues, such as nuclear safety and technical cooperation. However, it also carries risks, as delaying action could weaken the momentum behind the resolution and allow opponents to further consolidate their opposition.
Historical Context: Nuclear Facilities and Military Strikes
The issue of attacks on nuclear facilities is not new and has long been a source of contention in international relations. The 1981 Israeli airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, which prompted UN Security Council Resolution 487, remains a landmark case. Israel justified the attack by claiming that the reactor could be used to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iraq denied. The international community, including the United States, condemned the strike, though Washington’s stance was tempered by its strategic alliance with Israel.
More recently, Iran has accused Israel of carrying out covert operations against its nuclear program, including cyberattacks, sabotage, and targeted assassinations of scientists. The alleged U.S.-Israeli aggression in June 2025, referenced by Najafi, appears to fit into this pattern, though neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has officially acknowledged involvement. Iran’s response has been to strengthen its defenses around nuclear facilities while seeking international support to deter future attacks.
The proposed IAEA resolution can be seen as part of a broader effort by Iran to shift the narrative from its own nuclear activities, which have been a source of controversy, to the actions of its adversaries. By focusing on the protection of safeguarded sites, Iran aims to highlight the risks posed by military actions while reinforcing its commitment to the IAEA’s safeguards regime.
Geopolitical Implications
The controversy surrounding the resolution underscores the complex interplay of power, diplomacy, and nuclear politics within the IAEA. The United States, as one of the agency’s most influential members, has long played a leading role in shaping its agenda. However, its alleged use of pressure tactics risks alienating other member states, particularly those in the Global South, who may view such actions as undermining the principles of sovereignty and equality within the IAEA.
For Iran, the resolution represents an opportunity to assert its influence within the agency while countering what it perceives as a concerted campaign by the U.S. and Israel to isolate it diplomatically. The involvement of five other co-sponsoring nations suggests that Iran is not alone in its concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear facilities. These countries, likely drawn from the Non-Aligned Movement or other regional blocs, share Iran’s interest in reinforcing international norms against military actions targeting nuclear sites.
The broader geopolitical context also shapes the debate. The United States and its allies have expressed ongoing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, particularly its uranium enrichment activities and compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). While the IAEA has not found evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, tensions remain high, with Washington imposing stringent sanctions and Israel maintaining a hardline stance.
The alleged attacks in June 2025 have further escalated these tensions, prompting Iran to adopt a more assertive posture within the IAEA. By framing the resolution as a matter of global security rather than a narrow national interest, Iran seeks to broaden its appeal and challenge the dominance of Western powers in shaping the nuclear agenda.
The Role of the IAEA
The IAEA occupies a unique position in global governance, balancing technical expertise with political realities. Its safeguards system is designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons while promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, the agency’s effectiveness depends on the cooperation and goodwill of its member states, which can be strained by geopolitical rivalries.
The current controversy highlights the challenges of maintaining consensus within the IAEA. While the agency’s General Conference is intended to foster dialogue and collaboration, it can also serve as a battleground for competing agendas. The allegations of U.S. pressure, if substantiated, could erode trust in the agency’s ability to operate impartially, potentially undermining its credibility as a neutral arbiter.
At the same time, the IAEA has a vested interest in addressing the issue of attacks on nuclear facilities. Such actions, whether carried out by state or non-state actors, pose significant risks to nuclear safety and security. A successful attack could result in catastrophic consequences, including the release of radioactive materials, loss of life, and long-term environmental damage. By adopting a resolution to ban such attacks, the IAEA could strengthen its role as a guardian of nuclear safety while reinforcing the principles of the non-proliferation regime.
Potential Outcomes and Future Scenarios
As the 69th General Conference continues, the fate of the resolution remains uncertain. Several potential scenarios could unfold:
Adoption of the Resolution: If Iran and its co-sponsors succeed in building a coalition of support, the resolution could be adopted, either in its current form or with amendments to address concerns raised by member states. This would represent a significant diplomatic victory for Iran and a step toward strengthening protections for nuclear facilities.
Deferral to 2026: Iran and its allies may opt to defer consideration of the resolution to the next General Conference, as requested by some member states. This would allow more time for diplomatic consultations but could weaken the resolution’s momentum.
Rejection or Stalemate: If the U.S. and its allies succeed in rallying opposition, the resolution could be rejected or fail to achieve the necessary support. This outcome would highlight the limits of Iran’s influence within the IAEA and reinforce the dominance of Western powers.
Compromise Solution: A compromise could emerge, such as a watered-down version of the resolution that reaffirms the importance of nuclear safety without explicitly condemning attacks. This would allow member states to avoid a direct confrontation while addressing the issue in principle.
Regardless of the outcome, the controversy is likely to have lasting implications for the IAEA and the broader non-proliferation regime. It underscores the challenges of addressing nuclear security in a polarized world, where competing interests and power dynamics shape the global agenda.
Broader Implications for Nuclear Non-Proliferation
The debate over the resolution also raises broader questions about the future of nuclear non-proliferation. The IAEA’s safeguards system, while robust, relies on the cooperation of member states and the absence of external disruptions. Attacks on nuclear facilities, whether real or threatened, undermine the credibility of this system and create uncertainty about the safety of nuclear programs.
Moreover, the allegations of U.S. pressure highlight the politicization of nuclear governance. While the IAEA is a technical organization, its decisions are inevitably influenced by geopolitical considerations. This dynamic can complicate efforts to address emerging challenges, such as the proliferation risks posed by new technologies or the growing interest in nuclear energy as a solution to climate change.
For Iran, the resolution is part of a broader effort to reshape the narrative around its nuclear program. By focusing on the protection of safeguarded sites, Tehran seeks to shift attention from its own activities to the actions of its adversaries. This strategy may resonate with other nations that feel marginalized within the global nuclear order, potentially strengthening Iran’s position within the Non-Aligned Movement and other forums.
Conclusion
The allegations of U.S. pressure on IAEA member states, as articulated by Iran’s ambassador Reza Najafi, have cast a spotlight on the complex interplay of diplomacy, power, and nuclear security at the 69th IAEA General Conference. The draft resolution, which seeks to ban attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities, represents a significant effort to strengthen global nuclear safety norms. However, its fate remains uncertain amid accusations of coercion and geopolitical maneuvering.
As Iran and its co-sponsors navigate the challenges of building support for the resolution, the controversy underscores the broader tensions within the IAEA and the global non-proliferation regime. The outcome of this debate will not only shape the agency’s approach to nuclear security but also influence the delicate balance of power in an increasingly polarized world. Whether the resolution is adopted, deferred, or rejected, its implications will reverberate far beyond the conference halls of Geneva, shaping the future of nuclear governance for years to come.
