In recent years, instead of playing a neutral and technical role, the International Atomic Energy Agency has become an increasingly political tool that puts pressure on Iran.
Reports with surprising, ambiguous, lack of scientific accuracy have not only been ineffective in reducing tensions, but have repeatedly provided grounds for justifying unilateral resolution, incitement of global public opinion, and even direct military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The latest example of this dangerous trend was followed by an agency’s report in June on a decline in levels of cooperation with Iran, which soon involved attacks by the Zionist regime and the United States on nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordau and Isfahan.
FM Araqchi’s reaction to Grossi
“Iran reserves the right to take the necessary actions to defend its interests, people and sovereignty,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Arakich said in response to a recent statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“The Iranian Parliament has voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency until the safety and security of nuclear activities is guaranteed,” Arakich said.
“This decision is a direct result of Rafael Grossi’s unfortunate role in covering up the fact that a decade ago the agency officially declared that all past issues had been shut down,” he said.
“This biased action directly paved the way through the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Governor’s Committee for Governors, promoting illegal Israeli and American attacks on Iran’s nuclear presence,” said a top Iranian diplomat.
IAEA, verification agent, or attack collaborator?
According to its charter, the International Atomic Energy Agency is a technical and impartial institution that must monitor the nuclear activities of member states and report their results within the framework of scientific verification.
However, in recent years, particularly with regard to Iran, the agency’s performance has gone beyond merely a surveillance stage, becoming a tool for exerting political pressure and creating a security environment.
This change in role not only undermined the government’s confidence in the neutrality of government agencies, but also turned it into one of the key links in the crisis engineering chain to Iran.
One indication of a change in this approach is the ambiguous and surprising reporting, lacking detailed technical documentation that is published during a politically sensitive period.
In some cases, even before the official release of the institution’s reports, Zionist or Western media outlets have made their contents public. The issue not only questioning the confidentiality and independence of agency information, but also shows a direct, coordinated link between report disclosure and psychological manipulations against Iran.
Meanwhile, the indifference of the agency to Iran’s nuclear facilities, terrorists and military action is considered one of the darkest points in the agency’s records.
Victims of biased reporting in IAEA history
While Iran was the most obvious and latest casualty of International Atomic Energy Agency’s bias and unilateral reporting, there are several historical examples of biased reporting or use of equipment of institutions or similar information plays a direct or indirect role in crisis building, war, and attacks.
Iraq (2003):
One of the most famous and tragic examples was in the case of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The agency did not directly claim that there was a military nuclear program in Iraq, but did not argue that an incomplete, condensed, sometimes directional interpretation of agency reporting by the US and the UK was the basis for military attacks against Iraq.
However, the Bush administration and the media have released a compressed and exaggerated report of the “dangerous potential” of Iraq’s secret weapons program. The issues that have led to attacks and occupations in the region, deaths of thousands and instability for over 20 years.
Libya (2011):
Since 2003, Libya voluntarily abandoned its military nuclear program and granted full access to the IAEA, but in 2011, during internal unrest, the same previous cooperation became a Western excuse to analyze the weakness of Libya’s defence structure.
Despite full cooperation between Libya and the IAEA and the destruction of its stocks and programs, NATO launched a direct airstrike on Libya without any serious political obstacles.
Many analysts say the bitter experience of Libya increasing its trust and cooperation has become a warning to many other countries around the world.
North Korea withdraws from the IAEA
In the 1990s, North Korea joined the nuclear agreement with the US (a agreed framework), and IAEA inspectors entered the country, but political reporting and political differences with the US increased, and the media interpreted the process of cooperation as “North Korea’s cover-up.”
Reports suggest that part of North Korea’s decision to withdraw from the NPT is due to political use of agency reports and the one-sided, non-constructive analyses that these reports have been generated in the international sector.
rhm/