OPEN LETTER: Mr. Grossi, Iran, and the Geneva deadlock — what the world expects from you

Rafael Grossi and the impossible mission of the IAEA

Mr. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), between June 24 and 26, 2026 you said something of remarkable clarity: the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17 between the United States, Iran, and the E4 format states explicitly that the IAEA will supervise Iranian nuclear activities. According to you, the inspections will take place. Your certainty is that of a man who has read the document and believes in it.

The problem, Mr. Grossi, is that Iran does not share your reading of the memorandum. Its Deputy Foreign Minister, Ali Bagheri Kani, declared on June 24 that inspections can only occur within the framework of a final agreement — and only after all sanctions have been lifted. Both conditions — final agreement and total sanctions relief — cannot be fulfilled within the 60-day window of the memorandum. You and he are reading the same text and seeing two opposite things. That is the heart of the Geneva deadlock.

A 60-day window and ten tonnes of unverified enriched uranium

Here is what the world knows — and what makes your mission so urgent. Iran possesses approximately 10 tonnes of enriched uranium whose exact whereabouts are not verified by the IAEA. Your agency has been prevented from accessing enrichment sites since June 2025 — since the onset of Israeli-American airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The IAEA seals on equipment at Isfahan are your first priority: verifying that they are intact, that nothing has been moved, that enrichment has not resumed clandestinely during your forced absence.

This verification is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the difference between an agreement that holds and one that conceals something. The clock is ticking — 60 days from June 17 means August 17. Today is June 26. You have fewer than seven weeks to obtain access that would validate whether the negotiating window rests on a verifiable reality, not on good-faith declarations from a regime that has deceived the IAEA in the past.

I am writing to you, Mr. Grossi, not to criticize you but to remind you of what you already know: you are the only actor in this crisis who has no political agenda to defend. You have a technical and ethical mandate. That is your strength. Use it entirely.

The inspection clause: what the text contains

Based on available information from the parties' communiqués and published analyses, the June 17 memorandum contains a clause that explicitly recognizes the IAEA's supervisory role over Iranian nuclear activities during the negotiating period. You yourself declared that this clause is explicit — not implicit, not subject to interpretation. For you, this means inspections can begin immediately, or at least as soon as a minimal logistical arrangement is reached.

For Iran, this same clause is conditional: it only activates after a final agreement is concluded and all sanctions are fully lifted. This interpretation transforms inspections into a reward for Iranian compliance rather than a prior verification of it. It is a fundamental difference in verification philosophy: the West says inspections first, sanctions relief after. Iran says sanctions relief first, inspections after. These two positions cannot coexist in a viable agreement.

Why Iran refuses prior inspections

Understanding Iran's position does not mean endorsing it. Iran refuses prior inspections for a clear strategic reason: an inspection would reveal precisely what the nuclear program can still do. If inspectors confirm that the Israeli-American strikes destroyed a large share of enrichment capabilities, Iran loses its primary negotiating lever — the threat of rapid weaponization. If inspectors instead discover that capabilities are intact or reconstituted, the West will immediately harden its positions.

In either case, a prior inspection weakens Iran's negotiating position. That is why Tehran resists with such consistency. This is not arbitrary bad faith — it is a calculated strategy to maximize negotiating power. Analyst David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security has warned that this pattern — using memorandums as delaying tactics while advancing the program — is documented Iranian practice spanning more than twenty years.

I do not minimize Iranian strategic sophistication. But there is a point where explaining the rationality of a strategy that consists of blocking verification of a potentially military nuclear program is to become its accomplice. Iran has the right to negotiate hard. It does not have the right to do so by preventing verification of its compliance with its own commitments.

2003, 2013, 2026 — the same pattern

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies and several historians of non-proliferation have documented a recurring pattern in Iranian nuclear diplomacy: conclude memorandums and framework agreements to buy time, advance technical capabilities during negotiating periods, then invoke unfulfilled conditions to justify non-application of agreements. In 2003, under the Paris-Tehran agreement, Iran suspended enrichment for two years — just long enough to perfect the IR-2 centrifuge. In 2013, during the Joint Plan of Action that preceded the JCPOA, Iran advanced its installations at Fordow.

This is not an unfounded accusation. These are documented facts that American, British, French, and Israeli intelligence services explicitly acknowledge. The memorandum of June 17, 2026 structurally fits this same pattern — a text of vague principles, a defined time window, contested verification conditions. The question is whether this time will be different. And the answer depends in large part on your capacity, Mr. Grossi, to obtain real access before the 60-day window expires.

What makes 2026 different from 2003 and 2013

There are, however, elements that differentiate the 2026 situation from previous precedents. Iran in 2026 has suffered military strikes on its nuclear facilities — something neither 2003 nor 2013 experienced. Its enrichment capacity has been partially destroyed. Its economy is more depleted than at any point since the revolution. And the threat of renewed Israeli military operations is credible and immediate — not theoretical. These real constraints could lead Iran to make concessions it did not make in previous cycles.

But these constraints can also lead Iran to negotiate even more opaquely — to seek a window to quietly reconstitute its capabilities while diplomats congratulate themselves on the memorandum. That is precisely what the IAEA seals at Isfahan are meant to detect. Your first mission is not to negotiate an agreement — it is to verify what already exists. And for that, you need access that Iran is currently refusing.

Twenty years of Iranian memorandums that did not stop the nuclear program. If this cycle repeats in 2026, history will record that Iran was given a 60-day window of oil revenues to advance clandestinely. That would be a strategic failure of the first order. Your role, Mr. Grossi, is precisely to prevent that.

Why Isfahan first

You have stated that your first priority is to verify the integrity of the seals at Isfahan. This choice is strategically correct. Isfahan houses the uranium conversion complex — the facility that transforms uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the gas used in enrichment centrifuges. Without access to Isfahan, it is impossible to know whether the flow of fissile material has resumed since the 2025 strikes.

The IAEA seals affixed during the last regular inspection are passive surveillance devices — they record unauthorized openings and disturbances. If they are intact, it is a first positive signal. If they have been compromised — or worse, removed and reaffixed — it is an alarming signal. Modern sealing technology can detect these manipulations with a high degree of precision. But to obtain this information, your inspectors must be physically on site.

The Natanz and Fordow sites — access that cannot be delayed

Beyond Isfahan, the Natanz and Fordow sites are the key enrichment facilities you must access. Natanz houses first- and second-generation centrifuges — IR-1 and IR-2. The 2025 strikes are estimated to have destroyed between 30 and 50% of the installed centrifuges — but precise information is lacking. Fordow is a facility dug beneath a mountain, initially built in secret and revealed by Western intelligence services in 2009. Its resistance to airstrikes makes it potentially the facility where program reconstitution would most likely occur discreetly.

American intelligence services estimate that Iran can reconstitute an operational enrichment capability within a few months if materials and technicians are available. If Fordow is intact and technicians are working, the countdown to a weaponization capability is running — while diplomats negotiate the conditions of an agreement in Geneva. Only your access to Fordow can refute or confirm that scenario.

I am a columnist, not a nuclear verification expert. But I am capable of understanding the logic: if Iran refuses access to Fordow during the 60-day memorandum window, it has something to hide. That conclusion may be unfair in the absolute. It is impeccably rational given the precedents.

American incoherence as an obstacle to inspections

There is an obstacle that you, Mr. Grossi, cannot overcome alone: the incoherence of the American position. Vice President JD Vance supports the inspections and advocates for an agreement. President Donald Trump has posted threatening messages on Truth Social that have cooled the atmosphere in Bürgenstock. This American disunity gives Iran the perfect diplomatic justification to delay: why accept inspections if Washington can blow everything up with a single tweet?

For your inspections to have any chance of being accepted, the Trump administration must speak with one voice — and that voice must credibly promise that sanctions concessions will follow inspections. If Iran does not believe Washington will honor its commitments, it will never accept exposing its residual nuclear capabilities to your scrutiny. The credibility of American guarantees is a prerequisite for inspections — and that is outside your control.

What the IAEA can do without the United States

You are not powerless in the face of this incoherence. The IAEA holds an international legitimacy that surpasses that of any individual government. Your technical authority is recognized even by those who resist your inspections. You can publish reports documenting precisely what you cannot verify — creating international pressure on Iran and on American negotiators. You can engage directly with European governments, which currently maintain more stable communication channels with Tehran than Washington does.

You can also use IAEA mechanisms to formally refer the matter to the Security Council if Iran continues to refuse access beyond the 60-day window — even if this mechanism is paralyzed by Russian and Chinese vetoes. A formal referral has diplomatic value even when it does not lead to a resolution: it documents non-compliance for history and for future legal proceedings. That is not enough. But it is something.

The IAEA is more credible than any other actor in this crisis precisely because it has no geopolitical agenda. Your added value, Mr. Grossi, is your technical impartiality. Protect it at all costs — even in the face of American or Iranian pressure to interpret the memorandum in favor of one party or the other.

Enrichment arithmetic — what the numbers say

The 10 tonnes of enriched uranium whose whereabouts are unverified represent a concrete potential threat. To produce a nuclear implosion device, approximately 25 kilograms of uranium enriched to 90% (weapons-grade) are required. If Iran has enriched a portion of these 10 tonnes to levels approaching weapons-grade — as intelligence services suspect — it would theoretically have enough material to produce several dozen crude nuclear devices, provided the metallurgy and weapons engineering are mastered.

But these theoretical calculations must be nuanced. Possessing enriched uranium is not the same thing as possessing a nuclear weapon. One must also master fissile material metallurgy, design and test detonators, and develop a credible delivery system. Some of these steps — notably high-explosive detonator tests — may have been partially carried out in violation of agreements. Others — notably full-scale tests — would require detection that would be difficult to conceal. The real timeframe between unverified enriched uranium and an operational weapon remains subject to debate among experts — ranging from a few months to a few years depending on the assessments.

Why this ambiguity is itself a danger

The uncertainty surrounding Iran's actual capabilities is itself strategically dangerous. It feeds divergent threat assessments: those who believe Israel must strike preemptively now, and those who believe there is still time for diplomacy. These divergences paralyze decisions — as is visible in Washington's hesitations. The only way to resolve this uncertainty and enable rational decisions is IAEA access to the relevant sites. That is why your mission, Mr. Grossi, is literally a peace mission — not in the rhetorical sense, but in the concrete sense: without verification, the probability of a preemptive military strike increases.

The paradox is cruel: Iran refuses inspections partly out of fear of exposing its vulnerabilities. But it is precisely this refusal that increases the probability that Israel decides it has no choice but to strike. The transparency Iran refuses may be its best protection against a new military offensive. Someone must explain that to Tehran in terms it understands.

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom as intermediaries

The three European powers of the E3 format — France, Germany, United Kingdom — maintain communication channels with Tehran that are more stable than Washington's at this moment. France in particular maintains a tradition of direct diplomacy with Iran — sometimes at the cost of tensions with American and Israeli allies. These channels could be used to convey to Tehran a joint E3 guarantee: if Iran accepts inspections before total sanctions relief, Europe commits to actively pushing for a rapid sanctions-relief timeline as part of a final agreement.

This European guarantee would not replace American guarantees — but it would complement the architecture of trust necessary for an agreement to hold. Iran has more confidence in European commitments than in those of a Trump administration that can contradict itself within 24 hours on Truth Social. A written, official E3 commitment tied to a European legislative implementation mechanism would carry more credibility in Tehran than a verbal White House promise.

What Europe risks if it does not engage

Europe has a stake in the Geneva deadlock being broken. A nuclear-armed Iran is a direct threat to European security — more so than to geographically distant American security. Iranian medium-range missiles already cover targets in southeastern Europe. An Iran with the bomb would fundamentally alter Mediterranean geopolitics, strengthen Hezbollah, and further destabilize the Middle East. Europe cannot afford to be a passive spectator of this deadlock, hoping Washington and Tehran find a solution on their own.

If Europe does not actively engage now — with concrete guarantees, not declarations of support — it will lose all influence over the outcome. And if the agreement fails and conflict follows, it will not be able to say it lacked the capacity to intervene. It will simply have chosen not to. That is a moral and strategic responsibility that European chancelleries cannot avoid behind cautious diplomatic formulas.

Europe has everything to lose in a nuclear-armed Middle East and everything to gain in a functioning agreement. And yet it remains in the background, waiting for Washington and Tehran to reach an understanding. This strategic timidity despairs me. Europe has the tools to weigh in. What it lacks is the conviction that it is worth using them.

The scenario of a negotiating collapse

If negotiations collapse before August 17, 2026 — a possible, perhaps probable scenario according to some analysts — the consequences will be multiple and rapid. Iran will resume full-scale enrichment, potentially declaring publicly that it no longer has any transparency obligation toward the IAEA. It will capitalize the oil revenues collected during the 60 days of the general license. And the pressure for an Israeli preemptive military action, already intense, may become politically irresistible in Tel Aviv.

This scenario would create an escalation spiral whose parameters are difficult to control. An Israeli strike on reconstituted Iranian facilities could trigger a response through Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemeni Houthis, and other Iranian proxies — a multi-front regional conflict whose humanitarian and economic consequences would be catastrophic. Oil prices would spike. Already fragile European economies would be severely affected. Ukraine's reconstruction would be compromised.

Why the failure of Geneva also affects Ukraine

The link between the Geneva deadlock and the war in Ukraine is indirect but real. A generalized conflict in the Middle East would divert the West's political attention and financial resources away from supporting Ukraine. Administrations managing a major Iranian crisis do not have the same capacity to track Ukrainian weapons needs. The experience of the October 7, 2023 crisis had already shown how events in the Middle East can stretch Western defense resources and political attention.

Zelensky and his allies understand this dynamic. They know that every Middle East escalation is an indirect pressure on Western support for Ukraine. That is why the diplomatic resolution of the Iranian deadlock is not only a question of nuclear non-proliferation — it is also a question of maintaining the strategic coherence of the West in the face of multiple simultaneous crises. The dossiers are linked. Weakness on one is paid for with weakness on the other.

Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran — these are three theaters of a single broader conflict between the West and revisionist powers. Treating each dossier in isolation is to lose the big picture. And losing the big picture in this period means handing the adversary the advantage of the system over the isolated problem.

What you can still achieve before August 17

Mr. Grossi, you still have seven weeks before the memorandum expires. In those seven weeks, here is what must be obtained: access to Isfahan to verify the seals, access to Natanz to document the real state of the centrifuges, and ideally access to Fordow to lift the uncertainty over the most opaque facility of the program. If these three accesses are obtained — even partially, even conditionally — you will have provided international diplomacy with the factual basis needed for a durable agreement.

If Iran continues to refuse, document that refusal precisely. Publish your reports. Refer the matter to the Security Council. Ensure the world knows it is not the IAEA that is failing — it is Iran that is blocking. This documentation will not immediately trigger a solution. But it will deepen the diplomatic gap between Tehran and the rest of the world in a way that, over time, will cost Iran far more than the inspections it refuses today.

Non-proliferation as a condition for world peace

I conclude this letter with a conviction I believe is widely shared: nuclear non-proliferation is not just another technical dossier. It is the minimal condition for civilizational survival in a world where geopolitical tensions have reached their highest level since the Cold War. A nuclear-armed Iran would irreversibly alter the regional balance in the Middle East, encourage other states to follow the same path, and fundamentally compromise the international security architecture.

You, Mr. Grossi, are the last technical barrier between that reality and us. You have no army. You have no sanctions at your disposal. You have your mandate, your credibility, your inspectors, and the truth of the facts. That is simultaneously insufficient and irreplaceable. The West must support you with all the diplomatic resources at its disposal. And you must demand that access with all the firmness your mandate authorizes. The free world depends on your success.

I am not naive about the limits of multilateralism and international institutions. But in this crisis, the IAEA is the institution that can make the difference between an agreement that holds and a war that begins. That is enough for me to place whatever hope I have left in your mission, Mr. Grossi. Do not let us down.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.