Araghchi’s promised answer to Washington comes due with an impeachment motion on his file

The National reported on 7 October that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spent three hours answering questions from members of Iran’s parliament — a chamber that could in theory hear an impeachment motion against him, filed by a critical MP — and defended his efforts to end the war as “serious”. A day later, Israel Hayom, citing the Iranian state-affiliated agency Tasnim, reported Araghchi saying Tehran would answer a US proposal within days while indirect contacts continue through mediators, and that Iran had presented a seven-day plan and was reviewing American positions. Both the plan and the timetable are Tehran-sourced claims, relayed by an Israeli outlet, not established facts. The same item repeated reporting that the Pentagon had been ordered to draft plans for renewed war; GlobalSecurity’s 8 October summary attributes that to The Atlantic, which The Files has not read directly.

On the nuclear file, Tasnim reported Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, saying on Saturday that the IAEA has taken a course contrary to its responsibilities under US and Israeli influence and has failed to support peaceful nuclear use. The verification baseline behind that complaint is documented: the IAEA’s own GOV/2026/8 of 27 February 2026 records that the Agency stopped verification activities in Iran when the military attacks began, and warns that the longer it cannot verify declared inventories, the greater the risk it cannot provide assurance. The Institute for Science and International Security, analysing the June 2026 reports, found the Agency unable to verify suspension of enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production, with no reporting possible on stocks, centrifuges or locations. From Islamabad on 6 October, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said: “End the conflict. Return to diplomacy. Fully restore navigational rights and freedoms in accordance with international law.”

Note what is not in this edition. A claim circulating on a self-published blog holds that the IAEA Board voted in September to refer Iran’s safeguards non-compliance to the Security Council. If true it would be the quarter’s central nuclear development. The Files will not report it until a Board resolution document is on the table.

Assessment: Araghchi’s parliamentary exposure is the cleanest available read on Tehran’s intent. A negotiator defending himself against an impeachment motion cannot sign anything that looks like a concession, which argues for delay dressed as process — the seven-day plan, the answer “within days”, the messages through mediators. Read Eslami’s attack on the IAEA the same way: it builds a domestic case for refusing inspectors while leaving the diplomatic track formally alive. The structural problem outlasts any deal. With verification suspended since February, the Agency has no baseline for stocks, centrifuges or locations, so whatever is agreed will have to be rebuilt from zero against an adversary that has spent eight months denying access.