Iran-IAEA technical deal: Would snapback be stopped?

TEHRAN, Sep. 14 (MNA) – Iran’s new technical agreement with the IAEA prevents referral of its nuclear case to the UN Security Council, keeps cooperation channels open, and may reduce the risk of the snapback mechanism being triggered.
The latest agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) comes at a time when Tehran’s nuclear file is facing one of its most complex and sensitive stages. The Cairo Agreement was reached after months of tension and international pressure.
Through intensive diplomacy and special efforts, Iran’s foreign ministry managed to reach a framework for new cooperation with the Agency. The report and agreement not only prevent referral of the case to the UN Security Council but also create an opportunity for further negotiations on cooperation, thereby reducing the likelihood of triggering the snapback mechanism, though some experts remain skeptical about its full effect in that regard.
This understanding is not merely a continuation of technical cooperation, but also a reflection of geopolitical shifts, international pressures, and the need to address legal and security challenges that have emerged in recent months.
Changing Circumstances That Altered the Rules of the Game
Illegal military attacks by the Zionist regime and the United States on Iran’s nuclear facilities posed a serious challenge to previous cooperation frameworks, making continuation under the old arrangements unrealistic. Following these unlawful attacks, Tehran undertook a serious review of its cooperation with the IAEA.
Iran could not maintain cooperation while its nuclear infrastructure was under attack and threatened. This change is a clear application of the international legal principle of “fundamental change of circumstances,” which creates new rights and obligations for parties. These developments paved the way for intensive negotiations and the new understanding with the Agency — a framework consistent with Iran’s new security requirements.
Iran also emphasized that parliamentary legislation, which conditions cooperation on approval by the Supreme National Security Council, provides a clear and legitimate roadmap for engagement with the IAEA.
This approach reflects Tehran's determination to preserve its sovereignty and national security against foreign pressure and interference.
Intense Diplomacy in a Complex Game
Iran’s case at the IAEA had been on the brink of being declared “non-compliant,” particularly after the Agency’s controversial report in June 2025. But by activating its diplomacy, Tehran managed to prevent a negative resolution and opened the way for a new cooperation framework.
The Cairo Agreement was the result of complex negotiations between Iranian representatives and the Agency, rooted in Iran’s security needs and domestic legal requirements. It showed that Tehran seeks to uphold its international commitments while using legal and diplomatic tools to counter unfair pressure.
Key Features of the Agreement
Some features of this agreement include:
Compliance with parliamentary law;
Addressing the realities of illegal attacks on Iranian nuclear sites;
Recognition of Iran’s legitimate security concerns;
Keeping cooperation channels open while ensuring Iran’s security;
Differentiating between attacked and non-attacked facilities with tailored conditions;
Conditioning each step on approval by the Supreme National Security Council.
Possible Challenges and Future Outlook
Amid the realities on the ground and international requirements, one of the key points of this understanding is the distinction between facilities that have come under attack and other facilities. This approach shows that while Iran accepts the necessity of cooperation and transparency, it emphasizes the protection and safety of its nuclear facilities and does not intend to remain defenseless in the face of unlawful aggression. Moreover, the new agreement has made the path of cooperation conditional upon the approval of the Supreme National Security Council, which guarantees close oversight and the safeguarding of Iran’s national interests.
In fact, this mechanism is a response to external pressures and internal political complexities. Despite this achievement, the implementation of the understanding faces challenges ahead, including the historical mutual mistrust between Iran and the Agency and concerns about protecting classified nuclear information. In addition, the return or non-return of the “snapback” mechanism remains uncertain, and the reaction of European countries to this agreement will be a key factor in future developments. Still, the strength of this agreement lies in demonstrating Iran’s serious determination to preserve diplomatic processes and prevent escalation of tensions—an effort that could reduce international pressures and pave the way for broader negotiations.
Ultimately, the new understanding is not only a response to a legal and security crisis in Iran’s nuclear dossier, but also an example of Tehran’s active and intelligent diplomacy in the face of international pressures and domestic challenges. The path ahead is difficult, but this agreement can be regarded as a starting point for rebuilding trust and easing tensions in Iran’s nuclear case, provided that the other parties also adopt a constructive and balanced approach.