That simultaneity is no coincidence; it is a symbol of two opposing approaches to world order: one that passes through dialogue, understanding, and engagement, and one that remains trapped in violence, instability, and lawlessness.

In such circumstances, Iran’s nuclear diplomacy in Cairo takes on heightened significance. At one of the most sensitive junctures in its relations with the Agency—after attacks on its nuclear facilities and amid a wave of accumulated mistrust—Iran chose the path of dialogue. This was not from a position of weakness but from a standpoint of interest-driven realism: a realism that seeks both to safeguard the country’s nuclear capabilities and to prevent the nuclear dossier from becoming a fresh pretext for political and security pressures.

Diplomacy as an instrument of power

The choice of Cairo as the venue for these talks also carries symbolic weight. Egypt, as one of the major players in the Arab world, has often mediated complex Middle Eastern files. This time too, Cairo’s hosting offered Iran the chance to send a message to the region: Iran is ready, grounded in its principles and in respect for international rules, to keep the door of cooperation open. This message, at a moment when Israel shuts down political avenues through violence, stands out more than ever.

Iran’s policy on the nuclear file rests on the principle of diplomacy as an instrument of power. This perspective means that talks with the Agency, while creating space for technical confidence-building, also carry a clear political message: Iran is ready for engagement, but will not compromise on its national interests. In this framework, Abbas Araghchi demonstrated in Cairo that Iran not only has the technical will to resolve misunderstandings but also the political determination not to let the West and the Zionist regime find new pretexts for further pressure.

In recent years, Iran has repeatedly stressed that the must remain a technical body, not a tool for political pressure. This point once again took center stage in the Cairo talks. Iran’s realism dictates that instead of cutting off relations or reacting emotionally, it should use the very capacity of this institution to manage crises. Each time dialogue was closed in the past, opportunities for Iran’s adversaries to exploit the situation widened. The experience of the JCPOA and its aftermath has also shown that although trusting the West is naïve, without Iran’s diplomatic initiative rival narratives can dominate global public opinion.

The contrast between Iran and Israel becomes clear here. While Tel Aviv does not hesitate to target Palestinian negotiators and pursues a logic of elimination, Iran uses another language at the negotiating table with the Agency: the language of engagement and balance. For world public opinion, this behaviour carries a message—who seeks instability and who seeks to preserve regional and international security. In other words, through its pragmatic diplomacy, Iran presents a different picture of politics in the Middle East.

Cairo: an opportunity to rebuild trust

A significant part of the Cairo negotiations was devoted to rebuilding trust. The recent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not only a security breach but also a blow to mutual confidence between Iran and the Agency. In this climate, the only way forward was through a new mechanism of cooperation. Reaching agreement on an appropriate framework for cooperation was, in fact, Iran’s strategic response to Israel’s attempts to isolate Tehran: Iran demonstrates that, despite pressures, it remains ready to abide by international rules and stay at the table.

The result of the discussions among Abbas Araghchi, Rafael Grossi, and Badr Abdelatty in Cairo was an agreement to design a new technical–legal basis for cooperation between Iran and the Agency. This fresh framework rested on two principles:

Iran’s adherence to its safeguards commitments and transparent cooperation at the technical level;
Observance of the country’s security and legal red lines in accordance with legislation passed by Parliament.

In other words, Tehran showed that even under continuing pressures and threats, it seeks constructive engagement—but engagement from a position of dignity and national interest.

Over the years, Iran has repeatedly proven that its nuclear policy is guided not by emotional slogans but by rational calculation of interests. In pragmatic diplomacy, the guiding principle is that no concession is given without reciprocal balance; no right of the Iranian people is negotiable; yet no door to cooperation is shut, provided mutual respect is observed. This is the very model reflected in the Cairo agreement: cooperation conditioned on respect, dialogue accompanied by red lines.

The Cairo talks were more than a technical meeting; they symbolized Iran’s choice between two opposing paths: the path of endless confrontation and the path of interest-driven engagement. With its distinct realism, Iran chose the latter. This does not mean Tehran naively clings to Western promises; on the contrary, it means Iran regards diplomacy as a tool for managing pressures and safeguarding national interests.

In a world simultaneously witnessing Israel’s naked violence and Iran’s diplomatic initiative, the choice of Cairo conveys a clear message: Iran seeks to build an order grounded in dialogue and mutual respect, not elimination and violence. And it is here that Iran’s pragmatic diplomacy becomes significant—not only for the future of the nuclear file but also for redefining Iran’s place in the regional and global order.