In a post on his X account on Wednesday, Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi reacted to the latest IAEA report and the media statements of its director general regarding lack of access to some damaged facilities, the status of uranium stockpiles, and the issue of “loss of continuity of knowledge” in Iran’s nuclear program.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi claimed in his latest report to the Board of Governors on Thursday that the agency has received no information from Iran about the status of declared nuclear materials, facilities, and locations outside facilities for safeguards purposes.

He also said that the agency has had access to none of these facilities and locations, with the exception of the Bushehr power plant, to conduct field verification activities.

Therefore, he said, the IAEA has been unable to carry out its safeguards responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at Iran’s declared nuclear facilities and, as a result, cannot verify the status of these facilities and their associated nuclear materials.

Gharibabadi said that Grossi speaks of “ambiguity,” “lack of access,” and “loss of continuity of knowledge,” while this situation did not arise in a vacuum, explaining that Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities were targeted by military attacks by the United States and the Israeli regime.

He added that the IAEA Director General, who he said has shown to be completely under the control of the US and the West, has unfortunately never condemned these attacks.

“One cannot ignore the source of the disruption and then frame the consequences of that same disruption against Iran,” he said.

Gharibabadi stated that the agency cannot simultaneously report the effects of military attacks, overlook the responsibility of those who carried them out, and ask Iran to pay the technical and political cost of the insecurity created by the aggressors.

“This is neither verification nor confidence-building,” he said.

He emphasized that safeguards are not strengthened by military action, threats, or resolutions, but rather, they are strengthened by neutrality, respect for international law, respect for the sovereignty of states, and the explicit condemnation of attacks on facilities under the agency’s supervision.

“One cannot bomb safeguarded facilities, destroy the access and safety necessary for inspection, and then use the consequences of that same attack as an ambiguity against Iran,” Gharibabadi concluded.