IAEA's Role Under Scrutiny Amid Escalating Israel-Iran Conflict

 Israel’s recent military actions against Iran, driven by longstanding concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, have significantly destabilized the Middle East. These actions, rooted in deep historical animosity, mark an irreversible shift in regional dynamics. At the center of the controversy lies a resolution adopted by the Board of Governors (BoG) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), based on a report submitted by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. While Grossi later sought to temper the resolution's implications in an interview with journalist Christiane Amanpour, the document has nonetheless served as a key pretext for Israel’s aggressive posture.

Since taking office, Grossi has been tasked with enforcing the IAEA’s core mandate: ensuring nuclear non-proliferation. However, critics argue that his reports on Iran have often been ambiguous, open to interpretation, and at times, misleading. This lack of clarity, they contend, may have played a role in escalating tensions that ultimately led to military confrontation. Questions are now being raised about Grossi’s accountability—some going as far as suggesting that he could be removed from office or even face legal consequences, should it be proven that his reports were knowingly inaccurate or politically motivated.

According to the IAEA’s statute, the BoG holds the authority to appoint or dismiss the Director General. If Grossi’s reporting is found to have contributed to war through misrepresentation, such action could gain momentum within the agency.

Limits of Oversight and the Power of Speculation

A core limitation of IAEA inspections is their inability to definitively prove the absence of undeclared nuclear activities. The agency can only verify the non-diversion of declared materials at inspected facilities. This inherent limitation opens space for speculation—an element Grossi has repeatedly emphasized in relation to Iran, thereby framing a narrative that critics argue has served more to escalate concerns than to resolve them.

If Grossi’s emphasis on unverifiable risks was based on exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims, such actions could be interpreted as a misuse of authority—intensifying calls for accountability.

A Departure from Diplomatic Norms

Historically, IAEA directors general have played crucial roles in facilitating international agreements, most notably during the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiations. Grossi’s tenure, however, has been marked by a departure from this diplomatic tradition. His administration, following a contentious election, has been accused of disproportionately highlighting uncertainties in Iran’s nuclear program.

Statistically, Iran accounts for over 20% of the IAEA’s global inspections while possessing only 3% of the world’s nuclear facilities—making it subject to seven times more scrutiny than the average nation. Yet despite this intensive oversight, no conclusive evidence has been presented indicating a military nuclear program.

Only verifiable military nuclear activity can legitimately justify an escalation. A comparative review of Grossi’s interviews, reports, and statements with those of previous directors general reveals a pattern critics describe as a "re-securitization" of Iran’s nuclear file. Some claim that this strategic shift, whether intentional or not, helped manufacture a pretext for military engagement—particularly advantageous to Israeli and, at times, U.S. strategic objectives.

The Pretext for Conflict

Grossi’s repeated allusions to Iran’s “intentions”—a concept inherently unverifiable—offered fertile ground for Israel to launch a series of military operations, including attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, without presenting evidence of direct provocation. These actions coincided with preparations for a sixth round of JCPOA revival talks between Iran and the United States, a diplomatic process that Israel has consistently opposed.

Iran, invoking its right to self-defense under international law, responded to Israel’s strikes. In the days that followed, U.S. President Donald Trump, reportedly at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, authorized American airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan—further escalating the crisis.

These strikes are viewed by many as violations of multiple pillars of international law, including the United Nations Charter, Security Council Resolution 2231, the IAEA Statute, and the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Analysts warn that such actions risk setting a dangerous precedent by normalizing military assaults on active nuclear facilities, potentially endangering civilian populations and undermining decades of global non-proliferation norms.

A Crisis of Confidence in Multilateral Institutions

The failure of international organizations to unequivocally condemn Israel’s initial military aggression has raised pressing questions about the impartiality and sustainability of the existing global legal framework—especially when it comes to actions involving Israel. Grossi’s role in providing what some perceive as a questionable foundation for these events only compounds the crisis.

Should it emerge that his reports were deliberately distorted or politically influenced, the pressure to remove Grossi from office—or initiate proceedings to hold him legally accountable—could mount. Such a development would mark a critical inflection point for the IAEA, potentially reshaping both its leadership and its credibility on the global stage.

The broader consequences of this conflict now stretch beyond Iran and Israel, casting a long shadow over the future of international diplomacy, non-proliferation efforts, and the trust placed in global governance institutions.