IAEA Press Conference: International Atomic Energy Agency

The United Nations Office at Geneva

Multimedia Newsroom

Edited News Press Conferences Statements Images B-roll Conferences Upcoming All Stories

UNOG RUSH NEWS IAEA Grossi-Continuity

36:23

MP4

2.3 GB

18-06-2026

Press Conferences , Edited News | IAEA

IAEA Press Conference: International Atomic Energy Agency

ENG FRA

Shotlist Story

Iran-US accord - IAEA Rafael Grossi

TRT: 2 min 53s
SOURCE: UNTV CH
RESTRICTIONS: NONE
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH / FRENCH / NATS
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
DATELINE: 18 JUNE 2026 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Speaker:

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi

SHOTLIST

1. 1. 1. Exterior wide, UN Geneva flag alley.
    2. Wide, podium speakers, UN Geneva.
    3. SOUNDBITE (English) — IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: “We believe the fact that the indispensable role of the IAEA is recognized is a sound point of departure. And now it's for us to sit down with our American colleagues, our Iranian colleagues and start formulating the concrete steps that will have to be taken. So, I think it's good that the memorandum is there. Now the technical work starts.”
    4. Wide, Press room, TV screens, technical booths, journalists.
    5. SOUNDBITE (French) – IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: « Vous avez vu que les textes mentionnent, oui, la possibilité d'un travail technique d’abaissement de niveau d'enrichissement. Mais à partir de cela, il y a plusieurs, plusieurs possibilités qui s'ouvrent. »
    6. Wide, podium speakers, journalists.
    7. SOUNDBITE (French) – IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: « Il y a certaines inspections qui se passent encore, pas au niveau et dans les endroits où l'on devrait être. Mais il y a des contacts ; moi-même, je suis en contact avec les autorités iraniennes. Mais c'est maintenant qu'on peut commencer, je dirais pour de vrai, ce travail technique. »
    8. Wide, journalists.
    9. SOUNDBITE (English) – IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: “Having to speculate about what could cause a problem or not is not wise at this point because we are about to start and we have to initiate any negotiation on the assumption that we are all in good faith, that we want to be successful. And this is what we need to stress at this point.”
    10. Wide, podium speakers, journalists.
    11. SOUNDBITE (English) – IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: “So at this point, I wouldn't be able to tell you here, now, what are the specific things, places, that we need to access. We have a pretty good idea, of course, but it is incorrect being correct on my part to, you know, step ahead of the process.”
    12. Wide, podium speakers.
    13. SOUNDBITE (English) — IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: “There are many different alternatives, as I said. There are different ranges of enrichment in the current Iranian inventory and we will see what is agreed.”
    14. Medium, journalist.
    15. Medium, journalists.
    16. Medium, journalist.

US-Iran deal: technical work can begin, says atomic energy agency chief

The head of the UN’s atomic energy agency on Thursday welcomed the signing of an initial Iran-US memorandum aimed at ending the war, before proposing “to sit down” with both parties to assist with concrete measures including verification of Iran’s nuclear programme, a critical sticking point.

“We believe the fact that the indispensable role of the IAEA is recognized is a sound point of departure,” said Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in reference to the reported text of the memorandum. “Now it's for us to sit down with our American colleagues, our Iranian colleagues and start formulating the concrete steps that will have to be taken. So, I think it's good that the memorandum is there. Now the technical work starts.”

According to media reports, the memorandum of understanding provides for a maximum of 60 days of negotiations to achieve a “final deal” on issues including uranium enrichment by Iran which must also reaffirm that it does not intend to develop a nuclear weapon.

Other requirements listed in the memorandum’s text include the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping and an easing of US and UN Security Council sanctions on the Middle East nation.

The “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” also features prominently in the first of 14 points of the memorandum.

Speaking at the UN in Geneva, Mr. Grossi refused to speculate about spoilers “because we are about to start and we have to initiate any negotiation on the assumption that we are all in with faith, that we want to be successful.”

Responding to a question about a possible agreed reduction in the level of uranium enrichment by Iran, the IAEA chief noted that “many, many possibilities” could be explored.

“There are many different alternatives…There are different ranges of enrichment in the current Iranian inventory and we will see what is agreed.”

The agency’s access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities is “not at a level and in all the locations it should be”, he stressed, but contact with the authorities is ongoing and the agency has “a pretty good idea” of the “specific things, places, that we need to access”.

Mr Grossi added: “It’s now, I’d say, that the technical work can start for real.”

The IAEA was established in 1957 to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is an autonomous part of the United Nations system – meaning that it is not under the direct control of the UN Secretariat, but instead reports to the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

The agency has 180 member countries and is mandated to monitor nuclear facilities objectively, report on nuclear activities, oversee safety, promote peace through diplomacy and the use of nuclear technologies for good.

ends

Teleprompter

Well, good morning, everyone.

Thank you for joining us this morning.

We have the press conference, the press briefing with DG Crossy, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency here in Geneva.

We are ready to take your questions.

So please identify yourselves and and address the DG.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, Laurence News Agency.

Thanks for that briefing.

Director General, in the agreement that was signed last night, the your institution is mentioned in the .8.

So first, what is your reaction to the signing and then how are you going to prepare, prepare for the different scenarios including the down blending of the enriched uranium in Iran, which is supposed to be LED under the supervision of IAEA?

[Other language spoken]

Yes, good morning, everybody.

It's very good to hear.

Well, I think it's good when an agreement is signed after war.

So that is a principle that it's important to be recalled.

Now I think at this point speculating would not be a good idea.

There's there's work to do, there's work to be done, as you say, we believe the fact that the indispensable role of the IEA is recognised is the sound point of departure.

And now it's for us to sit down with our American colleagues, our Iranian colleagues and start formulating the concrete steps that will have to be to be taken.

So I think it's good that the memorandum is there.

And now the the technical work starts.

Short throw if I may, are you going to be tomorrow at the Birkenstock for the launch of the technical?

That's a possibility.

[Other language spoken]

This is my appliance from the brief.

[Other language spoken]

And my question is regarding also your career as a diplomat.

You are now postulating for the Post Office UN Secretary General.

How do you see that your career as a diplomat informs and strengthens your position as a candidate?

Oh, yeah, Sorry for that.

Well, of course it's more than 40 years of diplomatic work, a good part of which took place under this roof, the Conference on Disarmament, many, many years.

I think in particular more than than a lifetime of diplomatic professional work when it comes to leadership of the United Nations.

I think what is more decisive than anything else is what I am doing now at the IAEA, which as we just heard is at the centre of very important processes which are crucial for international peace and security.

For real.

Talking about Iran, talking about the war between Russia and Ukraine, where we have been doing important work, talking about the Gulf where we are protecting nuclear power plants for from attacks.

So these are real situations, these are not imaginary or scenarios.

These are places where the IEA is working, dealing with real and not imaginary crises.

So I think that decisively has inspired me and convinces me that what we are doing at the IEA can perfectly well be extrapolated to the wider scenario of the UN, which needs this type of work so badly.

Yeah, gentleman down the back here and gentleman down the back.

[Other language spoken]

Alternative possibility.

Possibilities on la Selonski on a on a view the memorandum mansion the mania general is a normal case.

Last one comes up as good talk to the travel technique on the clinic to say Principal dodo general down the the the the bacon Crecon budit le Pennsylvania the the the Mansione la alternative possibility the the the travel technique the abyss the responsibility.

The contact and the the control and the collaboration.

And contact avec Yeah.

[Other language spoken]

Yeah, he had the contact.

[Other language spoken]

Gentlemen down the front, please.

[Other language spoken]

Last year, before the 12 day war which US and Israel launched against Iran, your report days before that attack, your report apparently being seen as having caused that particular 12 day war.

In fact, the Iranian Minister Aragachi has severely criticised you immediately after the report was released and that you were playing tilting the scales in what the US and others are asking for.

Are there any serious trust and credibility issues concerning your actions against Iran?

And secondly, you were silent both at the 12 day meeting of war and even now.

[Other language spoken]

A number of things.

You are recalling some opinions that some in Iran had.

Of course, the work of the IEA is an impartial, technical work.

People have views and opinions.

Maybe you have those views and others have those views, but that doesn't affect the fact that the IEA performs an indispensable impartial work.

[Other language spoken]

And of course, in times, and especially in times of war, harsh words like the ones you have just mentioned sometimes are pronounced.

Our our work is to precisely to try to be above that level of political discussion or qualification and concentrate ourselves in our work.

Nobody can ever believe that the report of the IEA is the cause of a war.

I have said it before and, and this is all I have to say about that.

So our work will continue.

And you know the fact that in this memorandum of understanding that has just been signed, the indispensable role of the IEA is recognised, mentioned.

I think it says it all in terms of our credibility and the indispensable role we have to play.

[Other language spoken]

It comes to Israel, which has 100 or Yeah, of course, it's not an MPT number and things like that.

[Other language spoken]

I mean, you're basically a large focus just on Iran trying to, you know, enable the different countries to do the kind of things that it wants to do.

No, you have to have a red light.

Yes, I got the red light here.

Now you have it.

[Other language spoken]

I'm sorry.

You know, coming back to the kind of treatment that is being meted to Iran on one side and of course Israel is a non MPT member but it still has some 100 nuclear warheads.

Can IAEA or will IAEA make a statement that they are more serious than the Iran which has never developed a weapon, which has promised not to develop a weapon?

I mean, generally the question here is the impartiality issue, whether you are very critical about Iran, I mean a country which is causing this whole crisis, Israel, how do you deal with it?

IAEA Well, again you are basing your question or your own assumptions and opinions.

So what I'm telling you is the objective legal and technical situation.

We we have we don't have opinions on countries, OK, Or they are intentions.

We don't we have legal basis upon which we do our work.

The Iran is a party to the NPT and has a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IEA, and it has to comply as every other nation that has to do that.

Israel does not, as other countries as well.

Unfortunately, the NPT is not universal and we have very been very clear, I myself been very, very clear on the necessity for the NPT to be universal and for all countries to adhere to the NPT.

So the issue of impartiality because we do not address a country that is outside the NPT, is immaterial.

We we of course wish and exhort every country in every continent to subscribe to the NPT.

This is without without a doubt all the rest is speculation and political opinion and I will not get into that.

The issue here is that an end.

Well, Sir, I think yeah, I'm sorry.

I just last question and an NPT member like the United States which violates the so-called your partner, I mean membership, your US is a member in the IEA which has violated the normal norms by attacking Iran.

Do you criticise US as well in the same way?

Please Sir, I don't know which norms are you referring to.

Again, our role here is to perform work which is which is technical and the issue of having political opinions and condemn, we don't even condemn Iran.

You, you're not, I think reading well what we are saying.

We are referring to what Iran should be doing, their commitments and obligations.

We are not in a in a that's for you analysts, people who comment on international relations.

[Other language spoken]

What we try to do is to make sure that norms are complied with.

When norms are not complied with, we say it and we substantiate that on our technical opinion on why we do it and what is the ulterior motive.

I leave it up to you and you seem to have very strong opinions about that.

Perhaps we can move down the front.

Gentleman at the back, thank you.

Anyway, Many thanks for the briefing with the start of the 60 days.

Before the final agreement is signed.

My question is where does the biggest obstacles lie on the technical part?

Sorry, every time I forget.

No, as I was saying before, I think we will see when we start and and and having speculate about what could cause a problem or not is not wise at this point because we are about to start and we have to initiate any negotiation on the assumption that we are all in good faith, that we want to be successful.

And this is what we what we need to stress at the at this point.

I think if they have signed this, if they can have taken the step of signing this memorandum, this important document, it's because everybody wants this to be a success.

So on the technical aspects we will see it will depend on the different alternatives and, and it is obvious that there might be here and there different positions.

This is why the IEA is there because there are technical requirements sometimes and and of course one or the other may have an A different interpretation.

So I think in the next few days, over the next few days, we will be able to give you a more, I would say substantiated answer, but please bear with us at this point is a point of, as I said, enormous, enormous responsibility for all.

[Other language spoken]

I'm Jamie Keaton from Associated Press.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you again for coming to see us.

[Other language spoken]

The 1st is just very basically, how much does this memorandum of understanding move Iran farther away from a nuclear weapon?

Does it actually make a substantial step away from that?

My second question has to do with the access that your agency may have.

How realistic is it for you that your agency will have access again to to Iran?

And then if I could also just throw in the United States has talked about going in to take the nuclear dust and you mentioned legal basis.

What would be the legal basis of that and would they be able to work with IAEA in that endeavour?

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much for the question.

I think all of this depends on the on the political will of both sides.

Let's not forget that this is a bilateral agreement.

So what they will be doing will be on the basis of their own political will to undertake the steps that are required to do to do all of that.

And the fact, as I said before, the fact that they are mentioning that this will be done under the supervision and control of the IEA is very important because in our conversation, what we are going to be doing is defining what we need to see what we need to access.

So at this point, I wouldn't be able to tell you here now what are the specific things, places that we need to access.

We, we have a pretty good idea, of course, but it is incorrect.

It would be incorrect on my part to, you know, step ahead of the, of the process.

So we are at the gates of the decisive phase of the technical conversations.

Let's have them and then we'll see.

[Other language spoken]

When two sides decide that they want something to be done and they ask the IEA to verify that what we are going to be telling them is what is needed, what is required.

This is this is a very complex operation and it's it's not a secret.

So we will have to be very, very detailed.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you for the briefing, the coming brief for New York Times.

I wonder if your contacts so far have suggested to you a possible timeline for deployment of an IAEA delegation to Iran.

And I'm wondering in relation to the enriched uranium, what do you think is kind of size and range of the IEEE delegation that will be needed to deploy to provide a credible exercise of, of determining the fate of of that enriched uranium?

[Other language spoken]

We will have the necessary technical deployment, nothing more, nothing less.

We know exactly what is needed and we will do it what is needed.

What is needed will depend on the final technical agreement that that that we will have.

As I said, I understand your curiosity, but it's not prudent to jump ahead of facts.

We are going to sit down now and define what we need to do.

Obviously the IEA will do only a process which is technically sound.

If we do not feel that we have the technically sound basis, we would not do it.

But it is obvious that it will be the case because the parties themselves are saying we want to enter into this agreement and we want the IEA to verify it.

So we have, we have been doing this, this is our job.

We have been doing this for decades.

We know everything that needs to be done and, and the the dimension, the magnitude of the of the job is going to be determined by the provisions, the final provisions of the technical agreements we're going to be working on.

There we go.

[Other language spoken]

It's Olivia LaPorte that from Reuter Reuters.

[Other language spoken]

Just a couple of questions from my side.

Are you able to tell us who you're speaking to here in in Geneva today going into tomorrow?

So who are you meeting with and speaking to in Geneva?

You sounded maybe a bit uncertain about whether you're going to be there tomorrow in in Bergenstock.

Can you explain why there's uncertainty or maybe you actually are more certain?

Either way, if you could just explain that'd be great.

And just in terms of the role of of yourself and the IAEA, I mean, what do you expect that role to be in?

Will there be any kind of extra powers that will be needed at your discretion?

I appreciate as you said, one needs to be prudent and there's probably little you can say, but I don't know if already you're expectant of a kind of an enlarged role, be it for yourself or for your agency.

[Other language spoken]

Well, at this point, as I said, it is important not to speculate.

The IEA will have a role there and I think everything will be determined by that, by the conversations we are going to have.

And as I said, I will not get into a speculation about what what the agreement is going to be, what should be there, what shouldn't be there.

[Other language spoken]

I'm going to sit down with with both sides.

We have been doing this also in the past.

So we know each other well.

And you know, in the next few days maybe there will be more clarity.

But at this point in time, today, Thursday in Geneva, when the process has not started, it's not prudent to do that.

And, and we have to be very circumspect.

What I can tell you is that we will, we are very clear as a technical organisation or what needs to be done, what sustains a technically sound process.

And of course this is our point of departure.

Then we will see.

And sorry, just my two other questions at the at the beginning.

If you could tell us who you're meeting with today in Geneva and and tomorrow and just clarity on whether you are or or are not attending tomorrow's meeting in Buckenstock.

[Other language spoken]

Well, today in Geneva, we have a number of activities here on, on my job as my current job as head of the IEA, we're going to be discussing artificial intelligence and nuclear energy in a few minutes with colleagues from UNIDIR.

I will be addressing the graduate institute where I graduated.

I had my PhD there.

So it's a very important moment.

Also personally for for me, I started there a few decades ago so that we will have there a good conversation about international politics and what is happening around the world.

As to the meetings somewhere else, again I will not go into that at this point.

We will be there and then we will see.

Generally speaking, the the agency had a lot on its plate in the last years with Zaparia and and and other France.

So in terms of resources, would you say that the IAEA will be able to face any situation it might be requested to deal with in that Iran affair?

Well, yeah, thank you for the question.

Because of course a lot of this is expected from us as a as an organisation.

And this as in the case of Saporegia and the work, not only Saporegia in Ukraine in general, because as you know, we are deployed at all nuclear facilities in Ukraine.

And also now we have the situation in the Gulf where Baraka was attacked and we might be setting up an operation there as well.

So it is conceivable that if we are successful, but I'm already speculating, you see, which I said I wouldn't, we will, we will need to have support.

Experience shows that when agreements of this dimension and importance are presented to us and we have to do it, we, we do have the resources to do that.

Of course, I will be requesting support and I'm sure, I'm sure because of the importance of this for international peace and security, I'm convinced that many countries beyond those who are directly involved in the process will support the IEE and give us the resources to do our job.

[Other language spoken]

We'll move to questions from Zoom for now.

[Other language spoken]

The first one is from German press Agency.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you for taking my question.

I understand that the final agreement has not been negotiated, but the Memorandum of Understanding says that while it is being negotiated, Iran would maintain the status quo of its nuclear programme.

So my question to you is, is it your understanding or your expectation that the IA will verify that the status quo is indeed not changed?

Again, I will not go ahead of the discussions.

We will have this discussion when we have it.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you for the briefing.

My question is similar to many of my colleagues.

It's about the rich uranium.

And I understand you cannot give a lot of technical details, but talking about it in the memorandum of understanding to be down blended, how complicated is this?

How time consuming is this?

Are we talking about months or years?

Have idea done this before?

Do you have something to compare with?

[Other language spoken]

Well again this will depend on what is agreed.

I'm sorry if I cannot give you more details, but this will depend on what is agreed.

[Other language spoken]

It's very simple.

[Other language spoken]

I think we all need to exercise some patience here and not jump ahead of facts.

[Other language spoken]

John, are you there?

[Other language spoken]

From the point of view of of the International Atomic Energy Agency for civilian purposes would with the enriching uranium of 60% to be in conformity you have to be within 3 to 5% diluted down to 3 to 5% from the point of view of the Atomic Energy Agency.

And secondly, I have a a follow up question.

You're at the Atomic Energy Agency trying to oversee non proliferation.

The latest report from ICANN showed that the nuclear weapons powers increased our expenditure by 19% last year to nearly 119 billion.

What does this tell us for International Security?

[Other language spoken]

On your first question, again that takes us straight into the realm of speculation, right, which I am not going to do.

There are many different alternatives.

As I said, there are different ranges of enrichment in the current Iranian inventory and we will see what is agreed.

So then we will see.

On the second question, I think it's very pertinent.

[Other language spoken]

I think what we are seeing is a process whereby the reduction in nuclear arsenals has stopped and in fact nuclear arsenals are increasing.

I think this is a symptom of a world where there is so much fragmentation and in this context the attacking the the sources of that fragmentation and geostrategic competition is what we all need.

One step is, for example, having an agreement like the one we are trying to have now.

These will decrease anxieties and perhaps the need to have more nuclear weapons and that can reproduce itself into several other conflicts.

What we need is a multilateral system, a UN why not which is more effective in in this area.

We'll take the two more ladies on the middle and gentlemen on the back please.

Yes, thank you very much for taking my question.

My question is regarding Director General, during the crisis, when it started in Ukraine, you were always on the ground, which was a kind of relief for us, you know, the citizens of Europe watching that the someone was actually going on the field to try to deal with the situation.

That was much appreciated, I'm sure by all Europeans.

I would like to know if you could give us a quick appraisal of the situation now in terms of nuclear safety since the war seems to continue in Ukraine.

[Other language spoken]

That work that you saw has never stopped.

I have returned several times and my technical experts are still there.

We have just brokered A6 ceasefire between localised 6 fire of course between Russia and and Ukraine, which is indispensable to have a very, very important repairs of the hyper lines that are feeding the the the nuclear power plant to ensure some essential safety functions.

This was very important to prevent a nuclear accident there.

That being said, we also see an increase in military activity at the front, at that part of the front.

So we continue to be extremely, extremely concerned.

The important thing, as you said, is that the IEA is mobilised.

We we are there.

In fact, this work has been possible because the IEA experts were monitoring the demining.

They're demining at their own, at our own risk, at their own risk of the places where the repairs have to be done and then they are staying on to check that why these repairs are done, are conducted.

There are no attacks mutually.

So on the one hand I can reassure you on the fact that the IEA is not going anywhere.

We are there.

But as to the behaviour of the belligerents, unfortunately, we should exhort them to to act with restraints.

But let's see what happens.

[Other language spoken]

Final question done about yeah.

[Other language spoken]

Yeah, just the technique question.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much for joining us this morning.

This conference is concluded.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.