From Resolution to Invasion: IAEA’s Hidden Role in the Chain of Warmongering
webangah News Agency, International Desk: In recent years, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has increasingly transformed from a neutral technical body into a political tool for pressuring Iran. Reports laden with alarmist language, ambiguity, and lacking scientific precision have not only failed to reduce tensions but have repeatedly paved the way for unilateral resolutions, global public opinion manipulation, and even justification for direct military strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The latest example of this dangerous trend emerged when the IAEA’s June report on Iran’s reduced cooperation coincided with synchronized attacks by Israel and the U.S. on nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and isfahan.
In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, in a June 27 post on X (formerly Twitter), attributed Parliament’s decision to halt cooperation with the IAEA to “the deplorable role of Rafael Grossi” and stated: “Mr. Grossi’s biased actions directly facilitated a politically motivated resolution against Iran at the Board of Governors-and later enabled Israel and America’s illegal attacks on our nuclear sites.“
The IAEA: Verification Body or Warmongers’ Partner?
The IAEA is mandated by its charter to function as an impartial technical body overseeing member states’ nuclear activities while reporting findings strictly within scientific verification frameworks. Yet in recent years-particularly regarding Iran-its conduct has shifted from pure oversight to political pressure and security escalation. This role reversal has not only eroded trust in its neutrality but effectively made it a key link in crisis engineering against Tehran.
A hallmark of this shift is ambiguous reports lacking precise technical documentation released during politically sensitive moments-such as claims about “undeclared uranium particles” or “enrichment escalation” often framed through subjective interpretations without full disclosure. Though legally non-binding these reports disproportionately influence public opinion media narratives governors’ decisions leading ultimately sanctions new resolutions even perceived legitimization military action.
Troublingly Western Zionist media frequently leak contents before official publication undermining confidentiality reinforcing suspicions coordination psychological warfare campaigns against Tehran When findings merely require joint technical review preference public release over discreet talks fuels allegations politicization trumps verification
The agency silence sabotage terrorism cyberattacks like Stuxnet targeting Iranian facilities marks another stain record No substantive reaction physical assaults assassinations scientists nor acknowledgment threats reports Such passivity widely interpreted tacit complicity attackers
The current trajectory starkly deviates original mission Once tasked fostering peace through technical means now accelerates conflict Without structural reforms politicized framework risks eroding trust multilateral nonproliferation regimes entirely
Crisis Manufacturing Reports Military Strikes The Pattern
A recurring alarming pattern emerges biased warnings devoid rigor create nebulous narratives around program These quickly funneled mainstream outlets stoke global sentiment bypassing legal scrutiny favor security speculation This manufactured pressure prompts hardline responses governors resolutions sanctions soon escalate threats strikes
Precisely scenario unfolded late June Following claim minimal inspector access ignoring context three days later coordinated strikes hit key sites Officials explicitly cited report justification
The rapid sequence suggests premeditated triggers rather conflict prevention tools Neutral documents weaponized sanction-threat-aggression chains
This systemic abuse questions legitimacy undermines international peace institutions When politicized gateways war truth becomes collateral damage July bitter answer delivered missiles diplomacy
*Historical Precedents Weaponized Reporting*
While most visible victim similar tactics predate casebook examples:
– Iraq 2003 Politicizing Incomplete Intel:
Despite Director General ElBaradei repeatedly stating no evidence revived WMD programs Bush Blair cherry-picked exaggerated claims justify invasion Thousands died destabilizing region decades
– Libya 2011 Voluntary Compliance Turned Vulnerability:
After dismantling programs granting full access NATO exploited openness bomb Tripoli unopposed Many view lesson trusting institutions
– North korea Reverse-Engineering Cooperation :
1990s Agreed Framework collapsed amid politicized leaks framing Pyongyang deceptive Withdrawing NPT pursuing nukes partly response misrepresentation reports Neutrality might prevented path
