Times of Israel, on Iran, 13 November 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

UN agency can’t confirm Iran hasn’t diverted nuclear material from peaceful activity

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findingsSee them marked on timesofisrael.com

In confidential report, IAEA says raises urgent proliferation concerns, calls for inspectors to immediately return to key sites, doesn't know location of key plant that may contain nuclear material

The UN’s nuclear watchdog cannot confirm that Iran hasn’t diverted nuclear material away from peaceful purposes, it said in a confidential report on Iran seen by media outlets on Friday.

Because of a lack of cooperation from Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “is not able to conclude that there has been no diversion of declared nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities in Iran,” the report said.

IAEA said it is “increasingly concerned” about a uranium-enrichment plant at Isfahan that Iran declared to it last year but has still not let the watchdog inspect.

Iran has not let IAEA inspectors return to any of its nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States in a 12-day campaign in June 2025 that destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s other uranium enrichment plants, the heart of its nuclear program.

Nuclear facilities have also been hit in the latest war, which erupted on February 28, and the IAEA has repeatedly called for access.

In its report, the agency said that it was “critical” for it to conduct “verification activities in Iran without further delay.”

“The director general encourages Iran to consider technical and gradual measures by which conditions are achieved that allow for the return of agency inspectors to Iran,” the report said.

The IAEA “acknowledged that the military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and sites created an unprecedented situation.”

Still, the agency said the lack of cooperation raised “serious proliferation concern” that “needs to be rectified with the utmost urgency.”

The IAEA board in September referred Iran to the UN Security Council, marking the first time Iran has been referred to the UN top body in 20 years for failing to comply with its nuclear reporting obligations.

Before the June 2025 strikes, the IAEA calculated that Iran possessed approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, nearing the 90 percent needed to make a bomb and well above the 3.67% limit set by a now-defunct 2015 agreement with Iran.

Since June 2025, the fate of Iran’s nuclear stockpile has remained uncertain.

Iran has long denied striving to develop a nuclear bomb.

Isfahan plant’s location, contents unknown

IAEA head Rafael Grossi said in June that the “widespread impression” was that the stockpile remains where it was before June 2025, near the Isfahan Fuel Enrichment Plant (IFEP).

The IAEA had planned to inspect the plant on June 13, 2025, but the bombing campaign started that day, making it impossible.

“The agency does not know IFEP’s exact location, status for safeguards purposes, or whether it contains nuclear material,” the agency said in its new report, expressing concern about the lack of information and access to the plant.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article says the IAEA does not know the Isfahan plant's location, status or contents, but does not report that Iran told the agency in February that the plant itself had come under attack, a claim the agency says it cannot verify. Without it a reader sees the unknown status only as Iranian concealment.

How we know

While the report singles out IFEP, it also reiterates that Iran should inform the IAEA of the status of its enrichment plants as well as its stock of highly enriched uranium, which includes material close to weapons grade, and let inspectors return to the bombed sites and account for the enriched uranium.

IAEA inspectors were able to visit Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant in September, but have had no access to other key facilities.

The report detailed correspondence in recent weeks between the IAEA and Iran.

According to the report, Iran told the IAEA that discussions on restarting inspections in the country cannot resume amid “a series of persistent, explicit, and public threats by the President of the United States of America … to commit further acts of armed aggression” against Iran “particularly targeting its nuclear facilities.”

Iran said the situation won’t resolve “until the root causes of the present situation are addressed and the essential requirements for normal safeguards implementation are restored,” the report added.

It nevertheless reaffirmed its “firm commitment to resume full implementation of its safeguards obligations as soon as the relevant legal and actual conditions permit it.”

Iran also expressed concern in a letter to the IAEA about a recent US offer of a reward of up to $20 million in exchange for information on Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran stressed the importance of maintaining the “confidentiality” of the IAEA’s activities and the need to ensure that information on Iran’s nuclear program is not “disclosed, misused or exploited.”

The IAEA told Iran in a letter on Thursday that it would “protect… all confidential information” after Tehran informed the agency about the United States’ $20 million reward for information on its nuclear program.

Iran on Wednesday hit out at the reward announced by the US military last week and urged the IAEA and the UN Security Council to condemn it.

Read the original article on timesofisrael.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

The Times of Israel reports the IAEA's confidential finding that it cannot verify Iran has not diverted nuclear material, and gives Iran's stated reasons for refusing inspections at some length. But in its own voice it answers Iran's denial of seeking a bomb with an unattributed verdict that the uranium 'has no peaceful purpose'. Its subheadline turns the agency's inability to verify into a fear that Iran may have diverted material.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “However, such highly enriched uranium has no peaceful purpose.”

    Why this matters
    The words 'However, such highly enriched uranium has no peaceful purpose' come in the outlet's own voice, with no source, straight after Iran's denial, and close that section of the article.
    The impression it gives
    The reader comes away believing it is established fact that Iran's stockpile can only serve a weapon, so Iran's denial has been disproved.
    The context
    No source in the article makes this judgement. The IAEA, as the article quotes it, speaks of a proliferation concern and of verification it cannot carry out. It does not rule on the purpose of the material. Iran's position that its programme is peaceful is reported elsewhere as its own account, and the outlet sets its unattributed verdict directly against it.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iran has long denied striving to develop a nuclear bomb. The IAEA says part of the stockpile is close to weapons grade and that it cannot verify where that material is.

  2. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “UN agency fears Iran may have diverted nuclear material away from peaceful activity”

    Why this matters
    The subheadline 'UN agency fears Iran may have diverted nuclear material' recasts the IAEA's statement as a fear that diversion has happened.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes the IAEA suspects Iran has moved nuclear material to non-peaceful use.
    The context
    The report, as the body quotes it, says the agency is not able to conclude that there has been no diversion, because it lacks access and information. That is a statement that it cannot verify, not a stated fear of diversion. The headline S0 states it correctly.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “Tehran's stonewalling”

    Why this matters
    The outlet calls Iran's refusal of access 'stonewalling' in its own summary of the report.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes Iran's position as plain obstruction with no stated reason.
    The context
    The article itself later reports Iran's stated reasons: military attacks on its nuclear sites and US threats of further strikes. The IAEA quote it gives speaks of a 'lack of cooperation', not stonewalling.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“to commit further acts of armed aggression”
    • Elsewhere in the article“the lack of cooperation raised”

    Show it in the article

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article says the IAEA does not know the Isfahan plant's location, status or contents, but does not report that Iran told the agency in February that the plant itself had come under attack, a claim the agency says it cannot verify. Without it a reader sees the unknown status only as Iranian concealment.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Times of Israel

  1. 13 NovUN agency fears Iran may have diverted nuclear material away from peaceful activity7.3
  2. 13 NovTrump says he’d consider it a defeat if Iranian regime not toppled by end of his term3.0
  3. 13 NovIRGC says it targeted US early-warning radar in Bahrain after 'enemy attack' on telecom tower0.0
  4. 12 NovIran says 2 oil tankers carrying 4 million barrels caught fire in Strait of Hormuz3.0
  5. 12 NovReport: Vance weighing direct talks with Iran, Trump sees June MOU as blunder3.0

Everything we scored from Times of Israel