Exclusive: New Iran-IAEA agreement removes agency’s pretexts, says nuclear physicist

The Iranian government has decided to begin working with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) again. This means they are now exploring the specific steps required to allow the agency’s inspectors to re-enter the country and resume their monitoring work.
The new agreement signed between the two sides supposedly takes Iran’ security concerns into account, after its nuclear sites came under attack back in June by Israel and the United States. Cooperation with the IAEA was suspended by Iran’s parliament following the aggression.

In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Dr. Khaled Hussein, a Lebanese nuclear physicist and professor, offered a scientific and strategic reading of the agreement, examined its potential to balance Iran’s sovereignty with international oversight, while also addressing broader geopolitical challenges.

Below is the full text of the interview:
How significant is the new procedural framework for Iran-IAEA cooperation in practical terms?
The framework of the new nuclear agreement reassures the international community and limits the enrichment level to 3.67%. It imposes restrictions for exclusively peaceful uses, eases the pressures on Iran at this stage, removes the pretexts of the Agency, and leads to the gradual lifting of sanctions imposed on Iran within six months. It also allows Iran to export oil, gas, etc., import precious metals and others, and release $400 million of its funds abroad.

How can Iran ensure the integrity of its nuclear materials while resuming inspections?
Iran is sovereign over itself on its land and in its nuclear facilities, and it acts with caution, wisdom, and a distinct sense of security. It does not agree within the Joint Action Plan with the Agency except on what preserves its dignity and ensures the safety of its peaceful nuclear program in terms of quantities of nuclear materials, enrichment levels, electricity production, and the like.

How do the U.S. and Israeli attacks impact the credibility of nuclear inspections and diplomacy?
The American and Israeli attacks are of a security and military nature; therefore, Iran is extremely cautious. No one will be able to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, as they are at a sufficient depth to protect them from strikes unless nuclear weapons are used. This is unlikely and has its dangers, and I rule out that they would undertake it. Diplomatic pressures remain the only path, through the selection of inspectors biased against Iran.

How does this agreement demonstrate Iran’s commitment to the NPT and peaceful nuclear energy?
Iran has long been committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, Iran’s move to increase and raise enrichment levels from 3.67% to above 60% raised suspicions at the Agency and behind it the United States, since Iran has become closer to producing a nuclear weapon, even though this is not part of its doctrine. This was a reaction to the U.S. withdrawal from the 5+1 agreement in 2018. Under the new nuclear agreement, the U.S. will commit to the allowed enrichment level of 3.67% and not exceed it.

What are the key steps needed to ensure that this framework leads to sustainable and verifiable compliance?
The credibility of the International Agency is at stake, and it must act with impartiality and complete transparency without false accusations or uncalculated exaggerations, in return for Iran’s commitment to the enrichment levels that worried its opponents.