PNN – Following biased reports and the Agency’s silence regarding the attack on its nuclear facilities, Iran disrupted the West’s media game with a targeted and deterrent response and challenged Grossi’s path.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency officially has a technical, impartial, and monitoring role in the field of peaceful nuclear programs, developments in the past few weeks have once again shown that this institution, under the management of Rafael Grossi, has become a political tool to increase pressure on Iran, instead of moving along the path of scientific transparency.
Duplicitous behavior, contradictory reports, selective reliance on unreliable sources, and ultimately media preparation for hostile actions by the United States and the Zionist regime have severely questioned Grossi’s record.
Iran has not been a bystander in these circumstances and has provided appropriate and intelligent responses to this political game using legal, diplomatic, and technical means.
Following provocative reports and the subsequent questionable silence of the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding direct military attacks on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, the Islamic Consultative Assembly officially suspended Iran’s level of voluntary cooperation with the Agency by passing a strategic law based on the principles of international law.
Read more:
US B-2 makes emergency landing after violating Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities
This measure, implemented in the form of the “Act to Stop Actions beyond Safeguards Obligations,” was clearly a response to the Agency’s inaction in defending the principles of its Charter and its failure to condemn actions that were considered a clear violation of the sovereignty of a Member State. This decision was made based on explicit clauses in Article 36 of the JCPOA and Article 19 of the NPT, and is completely legitimate and defensible from a technical and legal perspective, because each member has the right to voluntarily suspend the implementation of some of its obligations in the event of a breach of obligations by the other party.
Further, the examination of Rafael Grossi’s personal role as the Director General of the Agency and his biased positions against Iran led to rumors about Grossi being banned from entering the country.
Another key Iranian response to the IAEA’s apparent hypocrisy was the revelation of the targeted leak of classified nuclear documents. According to numerous pieces of evidence, including the early publication of the content of Iranian technical reports in the Israeli media, Tehran vigorously pursued the issue of illegal access to safeguards documents.
These revelations indicated that Iran’s classified information was being provided to foreign actors and then misused as a pretext for media hype and military action against the country. Such behavior is a direct violation of the agency’s safeguards regulations and an example of mismanagement of classified information that has completely questioned the legitimacy of this international watchdog.
Finally, Iran, taking into account security conditions, evidence of leaks, and the Agency’s escalating actions, restricted or suspended access to certain inspectors. Contrary to what was interpreted in some media as an expulsion, this decision was made based on the sovereign right of each country to review and verify the technical and security qualifications of the inspectors.
How did the agency lose its credibility in Iran?
There are clear cases that show how the International Atomic Energy Agency and the management of Rafael Grossi have distanced themselves from the technical mission and have actually acted in line with the political and security interests of the West and the Zionist regime, and have lost their credibility in Iran.
- Publishing political reports instead of technical assessments
One of the main signs of the agency’s deviation from the technical path was the repeated publication of reports that were not only not written based on scientific and safeguards criteria, but were also clearly fed by unreliable and unbiased external information sources, especially from the Zionist regime.
For example, reports mentioning the presence of uranium particles in places such as Marivan or Turquzabad were based entirely on claims first made by the Israeli Prime Minister in a media show and later directly included in the Agency’s reports without detailed field investigation.
- Creating space for a military attack
The way the agency’s reports were prepared and the tone of Grossi’s statements in the weeks leading up to the US and Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear sites clearly showed that the agency had acted not only as a technical observer but also as a precursor to military operations.
Reports that suddenly and with great fanfare spoke of “worrying progress in the enrichment program” were published simultaneously with the intensification of political and security movements against Iran and quickly became media and propaganda fodder to justify the attacks.
- Double-dealing and ignoring aggressive attacks against Iran
Another clear manifestation of the Agency’s political work is its absolute silence in the face of the blatant military aggression against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities. After the drone and missile attacks on the Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan facilities, the Agency, as an impartial authority, was expected to strongly condemn these actions, which violate the fundamental principle of the Agency’s Charter that the nuclear security of member states should not be threatened.
Grossi, however, not only did not issue any statement condemning these aggressions, but in some statements, he implicitly legitimized the aggressive behavior of the Western parties by using terms such as “the dangerousness of Iran’s program” or “the need for urgent cooperation.”
Read more:
Netanyahu spoke with Trump about the consequences of war with Iran.
Is the game nearing its end?
Five years and seven months after the beginning of Rafael Grossi’s administration, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has faced a crisis of credibility, legitimacy, and impartiality more than ever before. This institution, which was supposed to be a scientific and technical authority to monitor countries’ peaceful nuclear programs, is now seen by a significant part of the world, especially the member states of the Non-Aligned Movement, as a political tool in the hands of the West and the Zionist regime.
Not only did Iran, relying on international law and its membership rights in the NPT, take legitimate measures such as suspending voluntary cooperation, restricting inspectors, and revealing leaks of confidential information, but it also succeeded in sensitizing international public opinion to the agency’s biased and political performance.
Domestic and regional reactions to the Agency’s silence on the aggressions of the Zionist regime and the United States, and in return, its repeated statements against Iran’s peaceful activities, are a clear sign of the decline in international trust in this institution. The Agency is now in a position where restoring its credibility requires structural changes, reforming procedures, and a serious review of its leadership.
Grossi’s game with the Iran card seems to be coming to an end. Lost trust, inaction in the face of aggression, and becoming a coordinating platform for Western pressure have led to the agency no longer being recognized as an independent and competent institution for technical arbitration, not only in Tehran but in much of the world.