Why Grossi is a dangerous candidate to replace Guterres

While Grossi is pursuing the UN Secretary-General position, his biased performance at the IAEA—especially regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program—makes him a questionable and even dangerous candidate.

News ID: ۲۰۰۱۵۴۱

03 July 2025

In recent months, the name of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has increasingly been mentioned in diplomatic circles as a potential candidate to succeed Antonio Guterres as Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Unlike many speculations based on media guesswork and analysis, in Grossi’s case, we face a series of direct, explicit, and repeated statements that clearly indicate he is assessing the conditions for entering the political race at the highest level of the international system.

The first public sign of this ambition came during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph, where Grossi stated that his name had come up for the Secretary-General position, and that it had made him reflect. Although at the time he emphasized his focus remained on his current mission at the IAEA, this subtle hint was interpreted by international observers as a prelude to gauge reactions.

That was not his only stance. Later, during an interview in Washington, he stated more explicitly that he is thinking about it very, very seriously. A few weeks later, speaking to TASS, he not only implicitly criticized the UN’s current structural weaknesses but also responded to the idea of launching a campaign by saying that his work is his best campaign. Such a statement reflects his confidence in his technical-diplomatic performance as a springboard for a higher political position.

Moreover, Grossi’s recent behavior has not lacked signs of diplomatic ambition from the perspective of neutral observers. Many believe his biased approach toward Iran—going beyond the tone expected of a technical official and leaning toward harsh political rhetoric—may be part of a broader effort to attract the attention of Western powers and position himself as a decisive figure aligned with the interests of the liberal world order.

Iran’s Peaceful Nuclear Program: Grossi’s Diplomatic Achilles’ Heel

Over the past years, Grossi has repeatedly taken positions on Iran’s nuclear program that clearly diverge from the IAEA’s mandate of technical neutrality and instead align with political stances. While the agency’s inherent role is to provide precise, unbiased technical reports, Grossi has, by publishing numerous reports timed with Board of Governors meetings or sensitive political negotiations, effectively become a tool of political pressure against Iran. For example, in 2023 and 2024, reports on the alleged discovery of highly enriched uranium particles in Iran were publicized before any scientific verification of their origin. These reports heightened tensions ahead of anti-Iran resolutions by the Board of Governors—behavior that Iranian officials and regional analysts interpreted as being “in line with Western demands.”

This same biased approach subsequently served to politically legitimize hostile actions. After the publication of one of Grossi’s recent controversial reports regarding a decline in Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, within a week, the Israeli regime and the United States carried out aggressive attacks on certain Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

These events triggered a wave of reactions in the media and international forums against Grossi and the IAEA. Many observers spoke of a “collapse in the IAEA’s technical credibility.” Independent outlets like Middle East Eye and The Cradle accused Grossi of turning the agency into “an intelligence arm of NATO.” Among Non-Aligned Movement countries—especially in Latin America and Africa—there has been growing sentiment that Grossi has abandoned his role as a neutral international observer and become an actor in the West’s political scenario against a formal NPT signatory. Trust in the agency has been damaged in many countries, and Iran has suspended voluntary cooperation and restricted inspector access.

Furthermore, on Wednesday, July 2, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in accordance with Article 123 of Iran’s Constitution, officially communicated the “Law on Obligating the Government to Suspend Cooperation with the IAEA,” which had been approved by Parliament on June 25 and subsequently confirmed by the Guardian Council, to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the Supreme National Security Council, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for implementation.

This dual mistrust—by Iran and much of the non-Western states—combined with the continued support Grossi receives from the U.S. and European countries such as France and the UK, has created a bifurcated image of him on the global stage: the West seeks to portray him as a champion of nuclear transparency, while many other countries see him as a political agent serving Western interests.

In this sense, Grossi faces a serious challenge in garnering support from countries like China, Russia, Iran, India, South Africa, and other major members of the “Group of 77,” the largest intergovernmental organization of developing nations at the UN. Neutrality is a vital requirement for this position.

Ultimately, what was supposed to be Grossi’s launchpad—the Iran nuclear issue—turned into a demonstration of his loyalty to Western powers. But that loyalty has come at a heavy price for his global standing. Grossi not only failed to preserve the IAEA’s traditional impartial role but also became a source of friction and crisis. Some analysts believe his chances of winning the UN Secretary-General race are severely undermined due to these political entanglements and widespread distrust.

Why Grossi Is Not on Par with Guterres or the UN Secretary-General Role

At first glance, Grossi—with his extensive background in nuclear diplomacy, especially as Director General of the IAEA—may seem to possess qualifications suitable for the UN Secretary-General role. However, the UN’s stature and the international community’s expectations of its Secretary-General go beyond technical skills or even expertise in a specific area like nuclear energy.

A comparison with current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres—former Prime Minister of Portugal and UN High Commissioner for Refugees—shows that Grossi lacks the high-level executive experience as well as the broad ethical legitimacy and impartiality required for such a position.

Guterres has played a role in the times of humanitarian crises, wars, migration, climate change, and upholding the multilateral world order. He not only has political experience at the national level but has also adopted inclusive, mediating stances in human rights and social crises—qualities that define the Secretary-General as a figure above partisan, regional, or sectoral divisions.

In contrast, Grossi lacks executive experience at the governmental or humanitarian institutional level, and his handling of cases such as Iran, North Korea, and even Ukraine has shown his vulnerability to power plays and his tendency to side with specific blocs.

From the perspective of the voting structure for electing a Secretary-General, Grossi faces another serious hurdle: his lack of acceptance among non-aligned and Global South countries. Many of these nations—particularly after the false and sensationalized reports on Iran and his silence on the Israeli regime’s nuclear activities—regard Grossi as a representative of Western interests. While this may earn favor with Washington and EU leaders, in a process that requires the tacit consensus of global powers and the approval of the General Assembly majority, it becomes a liability.

In the end, although Grossi is a diplomat familiar with international systems and technical negotiations—and a loyal servant of the West—he does not fit the stature, scale, or mission of the UN Secretary-General. The UN needs a figure with moral capital, notable impartiality, and deep understanding of sustainable development, global peace, and human rights—not a manager whose one-sided, politicized reports have escalated military tensions and undermined trust in technical institutions. Grossi’s ambition, though now visible after playing the U.S. and European game, seems more like a distant dream than a realistic possibility./mehr