Tehran – Recent attacks on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities have raised serious questions about the role of international watchdogs in escalating tensions, especially when their neutrality is seen to have declined over time.
At the heart of the growing debate is Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The handling of Iranian nuclear files has attracted acute criticism from Iranian officials and sparked wider debate among analysts about the risks of politicized reporting in an already unstable environment.
Tensions between Tehran and the IAEA have simmered for years, but recent developments have brought them to their minds. In the days leading up to Israel’s first wave against Iran, reports from agencies cited Iran’s uranium enrichment levels as “higher than those in countries without a military nuclear program” were widely mentioned as justifications for the Israeli regime. The report’s timing, its tone, and broader diplomatic context have been scrutinized ever since.
Grossi later revealed in an interview with CNN that the IAEA had not found evidence of a “systematic effort” to build nuclear weapons, but the entry came days after the damage occurred. The report was already cited in support of the resolutions drafted by E3 and the US in the IAEA Governor’s Committee. He accused Iran of non-violation, and argued that, undoubtedly, diplomatically, what quickly unfolded, was soon diplomatically.
Iranian officials see this series of events as a result, not a coincidence. Iran’s UN ambassador to UN, Amir Sayed Irabani, has addressed a letter to the UN Security Council that strongly opposes the “selective, political and discriminatory” actions of IAEA leaders on Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme. The letter highlighted a consistent departure from the fundamental principles of the institution: neutrality, professionalism, and objectivity.
Esmaille Baghihai, a spokesman for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, posted on social media last Thursday, addressing Grossi’s comments directly. He said Grossi had admitted that after the resolution was drafted and the attack took place, the evidence was too late. “You have obscure this truth with an absolutely biased report,” Bagaei wrote:
The debate also draws attention to the broader and systematic issue: the vulnerability of international organizations to the political agenda of a powerful state. For Iran, this is not the first time the IAEA has been accused of overstepping its mission. However, in the current context, stakes look higher than ever.
Earlier this month, the Tehran Times revealed that Iran had discovered sensitive IAEA-related documents from the occupied territories. This is a document that contains confidential communication between Tehran and the institution.
According to sources from the Tehran Times, these documents may not have been obtained through spies, but were handed over through few secret means. As one source said, “This just confirms that we’ve been doubting for a long time. The IAEA is not just a technical organization, but a political tool of a particular hand.”
The implications of such violations are widespread. Iran has already suggested that it could reduce its cooperation with the agency and return to its pre-JCPOA engagement level. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) warned that continued politicization and lack of gratitude for Iran’s transparency could lead to policy changes.
Meanwhile, Grossi showed restraint on all aspects, urging him to return to the negotiation table. He emphasized that Iran is still expected to notify the agency of the transfer of nuclear material between facilities, and admitted that the full extent of damage to Foldau’s enrichment sites during the Israeli strike is unknown.
However, Iranian officials are deeply unhappy. Mohammad Eslami, head of AEOI, criticized Grossi for what he called “silence” in the face of Israel’s attacks on nuclear facilities operating under the IAEA Safeguard. He also suggested that Tehran sought legitimate measures against the IAEA chief and accused him of not supporting the agency’s obligations.
Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has taken an even more stiff stance in pursuit of Grossi’s firing. In Zarif’s view, the Director’s “irresponsible and false” reporting not only failed to stop the conflict, it may have helped pave the way.
Following the airstrikes at the Arak facility, Iran sent a formal letter to the IAEA, demanding that Israel be condemned of its actions. The lack of agency response only deepened Tehran’s sense of betrayal. Authorities noted the IAEA of safeguards taken to protect nuclear equipment, but Iran has not received any official support. Instead, the IAEA argues that it reports amplified suspicions rather than acknowledging Iran’s compliance.
This sense of disillusionment added to concerns about the reliability of the IAEA at a global level. In Tehran, many now believe that transparency with agents has only made Iran more vulnerable. They argue that the principle of neutrality is not applied equally, and when fair surveillance becomes a political weapon, it undermines the very framework for ensuring peace and security.
For now, the outcomes are already felt (diplomacy, operational, humanitarian) and Rafael Grossi is now recognized as someone who is actively contributing to the escalation of tensions. His selective silence against the Israeli attacks, the timing and framing of the agency’s report, and his vague official statements lend political cover to those seeking conflict rather than dialogue. Iran has already said it seeks legal remedy as a message that neutrality should not be sacrificeed without consequences. Grossi has crossed a line that could redefine how Tehran will engage with future agents.