IAEA hidden role in war-making chain;

From issuing "resolution "to paving way for "aggression"

The recent IAEA report on Iran's level of cooperation was published only three days before the US aggressive attacks on nuclear facilities; A familiar pattern of warmongering that highlighted the biased role of the Agency.

News ID: ۲۰۰۱۵۰۹

29 June 2025

In recent years, instead of playing a neutral and technical role, the International Atomic Energy Agency has become more and more a political tool to put pressure on Iran.

Reports with alarming, vague and lack of scientific accuracy have not only been ineffective in reducing tensions, but have repeatedly provided the basis for the approval of unilateral resolutions, inciting global public opinion, and even justifying direct military actions against Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

In the latest example of this dangerous trend, the agency's report in June about the decrease in the level of cooperation with Iran was immediately followed by the attacks of the Zionist regime and the United States on the nuclear facilities of Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan.

FM Araqchi's reaction to Grossi

"Iran reserves the right to take any necessary action to defend its interests, people, and sovereignty," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in reaction to recent statements of the Director General of 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 our nuclear activities are guaranteed," Araqchi said.

"This decision is a direct result of Rafael Grossi's unfortunate role in covering up the fact that the agency had officially declared all past issues closed a decade ago," he said.

"With this biased action, he directly paved the way for the passage of a politically motivated resolution against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors, and also facilitated illegal Israeli and American attacks on Iranian nuclear sites," the Iranian top diplomat said.

IAEA, agent of verification , or collaborator of aggression?

According to its charter, the International Atomic Energy Agency is a technical and impartial body that must monitor the nuclear activities of member countries and report its findings only within the framework of scientific verification.

But in recent years, the performance of the agency, especially with regard to Iran, has gone beyond the mere monitoring phase and has become a tool for exerting political pressure and creating a security environment.

This role change has not only undermined the governments' trust in the neutrality of the agency, but has also turned it into one of the key links in the chain of crisis engineering against Iran.

One of the signs of this change in approach is the vague, alarming reports that lack detailed technical documentation that are published at politically sensitive times.

In some cases, even before the official publication of the agency's reports, Zionist or Western media have published its content; An issue that not only questions the confidentiality and independence of the agency's information, but also indicates a direct and coordinated connection between the disclosure of reports and psychological operations against Iran.

On the other hand, the Agency's indifference towards the sabotage, terrorist and military actions against Iran's nuclear facilities is considered one of the darkest points of this institution's record.

Victims of IAEA's biased reports in history

Although Iran has been the most obvious and latest victim of the biased and one-sided reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are several historical examples showing that biased reporting or the instrumental use of agency or similar intelligence has played a direct or indirect role in crisis-building, war, and aggression.

Iraq (2003):

One of the most famous and disastrous examples was the case of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although the agency did not directly claim that there is a military nuclear program in Iraq, the incomplete, condensed and sometimes directional interpretation of the agency's reports by the United States and the United Kingdom became the basis for the military attack on Iraq.

But the Bush administration and the media aligned with it published compressed and exaggerated reports of the "dangerous possibility" of Iraq's secret weapons programs; An issue that led to aggression and occupation, thousands of deaths and instability in the region for more than two decades.

Libya (2011):

After 2003, Libya voluntarily gave up its military nuclear program and allowed the IAEA full access, but in 2011, during the internal unrest, the same previous cooperation became an excuse for the West to analyze the weakness of Libya's defense structure.

Despite Libya's full cooperation with the IAEA and the destruction of stocks and programs, NATO launched a direct air strike against Libya without serious political hindrance.

Many analysts say Libya's bitter experience of increasing trust and cooperation has become a warning for many other countries in the world.

North Korea Withdrawl from IAEA

In the 1990s, North Korea joined the nuclear agreement with the United States (Agreed Framework) and IAEA inspectors entered the country, but after the agency's reports and political differences with the U.S. increased and the process of cooperation was interpreted in the media as "North Korea's cover-up", Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2002 and expelled the inspectors.

Reports suggest that part of North Korea's decision to withdraw from the NPT was due to the political use of the agency's reports and the one-sided and unconstructive analysis that these reports generated in the international arena./mehr