From Resolution to Invasion: IAEA’s Hidden Role in the Chain of Warmongering
In recent years, the international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has increasingly become a political tool for pressuring Iran rather than maintaining its neutral, technical mandate. Reports featuring alarmist language,ambiguity,and a lack of scientific precision have not only failed to reduce tensions but have repeatedly paved the way for unilateral resolutions,incited global public opinion,and even justified direct military actions against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The latest example of this hazardous trend was the IAEA’s June report on reduced Iranian cooperation, which coincided with immediate attacks by Israel and the US on nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.
In response to recent developments, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas araghchi stated on Friday, June 26, that the Iranian Parliament’s resolution to halt cooperation with the IAEA was a “direct consequence of Rafael Grossi’s deplorable role.”
Araghchi made the remarks in a post on X (formerly Twitter), asserting: “Grossi’s biased actions directly paved the way for a politically motivated resolution against Iran at the Board of Governors, while also facilitating unlawful attacks by Israel and the U.S. on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
IAEA: Verification Body or partner in Warmongering?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under its statute, is mandated as a technical and impartial body overseeing nuclear activities of member states, reporting findings strictly within scientific verification frameworks. However, its recent conduct-notably toward Iran-has shifted beyond mere oversight into becoming a tool for political pressure.
Security assurances have transformed into a tool of political pressure. This shift has not only eroded governments’ trust in the agency’s neutrality but has effectively turned it into a key link in the chain of crisis engineering against Iran.
A clear sign of this policy shift is the repeated issuance of ambiguous, alarmist reports lacking precise technical documentation during politically sensitive moments.As an example, claims about “undeclared uranium particles” or “enrichment level increases” are frequently enough published with incomplete data or framed by subjective interpretations. Though these reports carry no legal binding force, they significantly influence public opinion, media narratives, and the Board of governors’ decisions.
Such reports afterward pave the way for politically motivated resolutions and new sanctions-going so far as to provide legitimizing cover for potential military action. In certain specific cases, even before official IAEA report releases…
Western or Zionist-affiliated outlets publishing such content not only undermine information sovereignty and ethical boundaries but also demonstrate direct coordination between fabricated reports and psychological operations against Iran. In circumstances where many claims lack technical verification, these agencies prioritize public dissemination over specialized documentation-reinforcing that their primary goal is political manipulation rather than scientific accuracy.
The agency’s disproportionate focus on Iran’s infrastructure, terrorist acts, and military threats-compared to its silence on destructive actions by adversaries-marks one of the most glaring double standards in media practice. Beyond downplaying physical attacks, cyber operations like Stuxnet, or academic assassinations, even their reporting subtly reinforces predetermined narratives through selective framing. Such bias reflects alignment with mainstream agendas rather than independent journalism.
The non-aligned movement has expressed concerns over these developments,which are described as alarming.
Ultimately, what is evident today from the agency’s statements is that the gap between its overt and core scientific missions remains significant. This institution, which must rely on technical tools to maintain its integrity, has itself accelerated processes leading to conflict and tension. If this reform trajectory fails and the politicized structure of the agency is not fundamentally reconsidered, not only will countries’ trust in technical cooperation erode, but future regimes may also exploit ambiguities for neglect.
Technical reports or war documents: The agency’s role in operations against Iran
One of the most recurring patterns observed systematically against iran in recent years involves cycles that begin with a targeted report and culminate in military action. In this algorithm, the international atomic energy agency initially issues a technically ambiguous or inadequately substantiated alarming report before escalating to operational measures.
Western intelligence reports on iran’s nuclear programme often employ alarmist rhetoric and speculative interpretations, swiftly disseminated to mainstream Western media outlets.
These media outlets then leverage such reports to galvanize global public opinion against Iran. Analyses prioritizing security conjectures over legal or technical scrutiny foster a tense psychological climate, pressuring policymakers toward harsh retaliatory measures. These responses typically manifest as political resolutions by the IAEA Board of governors or new international sanctions-resolutions that rapidly escalate into justifications for more severe actions,including military threats or targeted strikes.
The same cycle was observed during the 12-day aggressive war (late June to early July). In June, the IAEA…
Iran has reduced its cooperation with inspectors to a ”minimal level,” according to a recent report by the IAEA-an allegation made without thorough examination of Iran’s technical and legal justifications, framing Tehran as solely responsible for the impasse while ignoring prior context.
Three days after this report, coordinated attacks by the Israeli regime and the U.S.targeted Iran’s sensitive nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Officials from both regimes explicitly cited the IAEA report as justification for their strikes.
The critical and revealing detail is the short timeframe between the report’s release, the launch of psychological operations, and military action. This rapid escalation suggests that IAEA reports frequently enough function not as tools to de-escalate tensions but as preplanned security triggers. Simply put, purportedly neutral assessments become catalysts for chains of sanctions, threats, and aggression.
This recurring rhetoric not only questions the technical feasibility of the Azan project but also undermines its potential role in fostering international peace, revealing a pattern where politically charged reports often escalate tensions rather than seek genuine solutions.
The historical record shows that Iran has consistently faced targeted reports from agencies like Azan-some driven by bias, others exploiting its data as a tool for conflict escalation. Several documented cases demonstrate how such narratives have directly or indirectly fueled regional instability and hostilities:
1. Iraq (2003): Weaponizing Disinformation
One of the most notorious and catastrophic examples was Iraq’s collective disarmament program, which became a strategic turning point.
The agencies directly asserted the existence of a military nuclear program in Iraq, though their incomplete interpretations-exaggerated and selectively reported by American and British sources-laid the groundwork for the military invasion of Iraq.
In reality, during 2002-2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, then-Director General of the IAEA, repeatedly warned that Iraq had “no credible evidence of efforts to revive a nuclear program.” However, the Bush governance and aligned media deliberately ignored this stance. Instead, they amplified speculative reports about Iraq’s “potential threat” from alleged covert WMD programs-a narrative that led to violations, interventions, and thousands of casualties across the region over two decades.
2. Libya (2011): Reliance on coalition support turned into a strategic vulnerability
[remaining text truncated due to incomplete input]Libya’s military nuclear program initially received full access authorization from Western agencies, but internal disagreements and the weakening of its defense structure led to the collapse of this cooperation. NATO later launched direct airstrikes against Libya without significant political obstacles, exploiting its complete reliance on foreign collaboration-a cautionary tale for many nations.
3. North Korea: A Cautionary Tale of Cooperation with Western Agencies
In the 1990s, North Korea entered into the Agreed framework with the U.S., allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into the country. Though, after IAEA reports highlighted political disputes with Washington, cooperation unraveled. Media outlets framed it as “North Korea’s deception.” By 2002, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and expelled inspectors.
Reports indicate that North Korea’s decision to withdraw from the NPT was partly driven by the politicized use of agency reports and their one-sided, unconstructive analysis in the international arena. Ultimately, North Korea developed nuclear weapons-a path that might have been avoided had international institutions, particularly the agency, maintained neutrality.
North Korea’s nuclear ambitions escalated following its exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),with analysts suggesting that biased reporting by monitoring agencies contributed to Pyongyang’s hardened stance. The country’s eventual progress of atomic weapons underscores missed opportunities for diplomatic resolution through impartial oversight.
