The IAEA board adopted a resolution reporting Iran’s nuclear non-compliance to the UN Security Council on September 9, prompting Tehran to reject its legal basis.

The decision escalates the safeguards dispute by asking the agency’s director-general to transmit the resolution, two earlier resolutions and his latest report to the Security Council and UN General Assembly. It also renews demands for Iranian cooperation while explicitly backing a diplomatic settlement.

The resolution, designated GOV/2026/61, passed with 23 votes in favour, three against and eight abstentions on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-country Board of Governors. The United States, Britain, France and Germany sponsored the measure. China, Russia and Niger opposed it.

The board reaffirmed non-compliance findings contained in resolutions adopted in June 2025 and June 2026. It expressed concern about the agency’s lack of information on previously declared nuclear material and its inability to access facilities to verify that material.

It called on Iran to take the steps required for the director general to establish that its declarations were complete and correct, and that safeguarded nuclear material had not been diverted.

The dispute includes a longstanding investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared locations. Separately, the IAEA has been unable to verify the status of Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity since US and Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities in June 2025. The agency’s estimate before those strikes was 440.9 kilogrammes.

Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is peaceful and argues that military attacks and continuing threats have prevented safe access to affected facilities.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei rejected the board’s decision as contradictory, unlawful and political, Jam-e Jam Online reported, citing an interview with Iranian state television.

Baghaei said the resolution demanded compliance with safeguards obligations without acknowledging the US and Israeli attacks that Tehran considers the principal reason inspectors cannot access the sites.

“There is no basis for referral to the Security Council, because Iran has not been in non-compliance,” he said, according to a translation of the supplied Persian report. He argued that the circumstances described as violations resulted from those attacks.

Baghaei also challenged the portrayal of the resolution as an international consensus, noting that roughly a third of board members had opposed it or withheld support. He said the process would further politicise the agency and weaken the nuclear non-proliferation system.

The spokesperson separately reiterated Iran’s rejection of the legality of the sanctions snapback mechanism invoked by Western powers. That objection concerns a distinct process from the board’s decision to report its safeguards findings to the Security Council.

Iran’s mission in Vienna also criticised the resolution, warning that it would undermine the non-proliferation system. Tehran argues that the watchdog’s treatment of the dispute has damaged confidence in its impartiality.

The resolution itself commends the agency’s independence and professional work. It calls on Iran to enter talks seriously and without preconditions to build international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

The referral does not itself impose additional Security Council sanctions. Further substantive council measures would face potential vetoes from Russia and China.

The board also instructed the director general to continue reporting before its regular quarterly meetings on Iran’s safeguards implementation, outstanding questions and verification activities, and to continue providing those reports to the Security Council.