UN representative provides cover for Israel

(MENAFN) Israel’s military strikes on Iran have deeply unsettled the Middle East, largely driven by concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. These tensions are rooted in longstanding conflicts and have permanently altered regional dynamics. A critical factor enabling Israel’s actions was a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors, based on a report from IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. Although Grossi later tried to soften the report’s impact in a high-profile interview, the document served as a key justification for the Israeli attacks.

Since taking office, Grossi’s role has been to uphold the IAEA’s mission of nuclear non-proliferation. However, his reports on Iran have been criticized for their ambiguity, creating doubt about Iran’s nuclear activities in ways open to multiple interpretations. Some critics argue that if these reports were intentionally misleading, they may have helped escalate tensions into conflict, raising serious questions about Grossi’s responsibility and the possibility of his removal or legal action. The IAEA Board holds the authority to appoint or dismiss its Director General, and controversy over inaccurate or biased reporting could influence such decisions.

IAEA inspections have inherent limitations—they cannot fully guarantee that no undeclared nuclear activity is occurring, as no agency can monitor every site within a country. Instead, the agency assesses if there are significant irregularities in inspected locations. This leaves room for speculation about what remains hidden, a point Grossi has emphasized, thus contributing to a narrative that shaped recent events. If these concerns were exaggerated or unfounded, it would suggest a misuse of his authority, fueling calls for his dismissal.

Historically, IAEA leaders played constructive diplomatic roles. During the JCPOA negotiations, the agency facilitated progress. In contrast, Grossi’s tenure—marked by a disputed election—has focused heavily on uncertainties around Iran’s nuclear intentions, increasing doubts rather than resolving them. Iran undergoes far more intensive inspections than most countries—over 20% of global nuclear inspections despite having only 3% of nuclear facilities worldwide. This disproportion suggests that Iran’s compliance could be as verified as other countries’, barring clear proof of military violations.

Only solid, verifiable evidence of a military nuclear program would justify escalating tensions. A review of Grossi’s statements and reports compared to his predecessors and assessments of other countries indicates a deliberate framing that securitizes Iran’s nuclear activities. Allegations that his reports included falsehoods suggest that Grossi’s actions may have offered a pretext for war, aligning with Israeli and sometimes US strategic interests, possibly influenced by political factors surrounding his appointment.

MENAFN28062025000045015687ID1109735894