Viktor Mikhin
Discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program are clearly biased, and the actions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) raise questions about the organization’s impartiality. Recent statements by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, as well as his apparent alignment with the interests of the West and Israel, cast doubt on the agency’s role as an independent arbiter in nuclear matters.
However, such statements raise questions about Grossi’s motives. The AEOI reminded the IAEA chief that, as a high-ranking official of an international body, he should remain impartial and professional. Instead, his recent remarks increasingly resemble political rhetoric aimed at justifying pressure on Iran.
Moreover, there is reason to believe that the West is using the IAEA as a tool to pressure Iran and weaken its regional position
One of the main issues raised by Iranian officials is the IAEA’s double standards regarding the nuclear programs of different countries. While Iran faces strict scrutiny and criticism, Israel, which according to numerous sources possesses nuclear weapons, remains outside the agency’s purview.
Israel has never signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), allowing it to avoid international oversight. Meanwhile, the West, including the United States, has turned a blind eye to Tel Aviv’s nuclear program for decades. Moreover, there is evidence that Western countries, particularly the U.S. and France, played a key role in the development of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
As noted by former U.S. diplomat John Mearsheimer in his book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, the U.S. not only knew about Israel’s nuclear program but also actively facilitated its development. This calls into question the objectivity of the West and the IAEA on nuclear non-proliferation issues.
Iran as a Victim of the Politicization of the Nuclear Issue
For years, Iran has faced accusations of developing nuclear weapons, despite repeated assurances from the country’s leadership about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Tehran maintains that its nuclear facilities are solely for civilian purposes, such as electricity generation, medical research, and scientific development. However, the international community, particularly Western countries, continues to express doubts about Iran’s sincerity, leading to the politicization of the nuclear issue and heightened tensions.
One of Iran’s key arguments is that approximately 25% of all IAEA inspections are conducted on its territory, even though Iran accounts for less than 3% of the world’s nuclear facilities. This imbalance raises questions about the fairness and objectivity of international oversight. Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized that such disproportionate attention has no parallel in other nuclear-capable states, suggesting double standards and selective treatment of Iran as a victim of political games.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has repeatedly stated that the IAEA must act strictly within its mandate and avoid politicizing the nuclear issue. He urged Director General Grossi not to succumb to pressure from Western countries, which, in Iran’s view, are using the IAEA to achieve their political goals. Araghchi stressed that Iran has always cooperated with the agency and granted access to its facilities but expects respect for its rights and adherence to international law in return.
The politicization of Iran’s nuclear issue has deep roots. Western countries, particularly the U.S. and its allies, have historically viewed Iran as a threat to their interests in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear program has become a convenient tool for exerting pressure on the country, leading to harsh sanctions and Tehran’s isolation on the international stage. However, such measures not only fail to resolve the conflict but also exacerbate tensions, creating conditions for further escalation.
Iran, for its part, insists on its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, as enshrined in the NPT. Tehran emphasizes that it has fulfilled all its obligations to the IAEA and is open to dialogue, but only on the basis of mutual respect and equality. Iranian authorities also point out that political pressure and sanctions not only violate Iran’s sovereignty but also negatively impact the lives of ordinary citizens by restricting access to medical and technological resources.
In recent years, Iran has taken steps to reduce tensions, including signing the JCPOA in 2015. However, the U.S.’s abrupt withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 and Washington’s subsequent sanctions have led to a new escalation. Iran has gradually rolled back its commitments under the JCPOA, causing concern among other parties to the deal, including European countries.
Thus, the nuclear issue surrounding Iran remains one of the most complex and politicized topics in contemporary international affairs. Iran continues to assert the peaceful nature of its program but faces distrust and pressure from the West. Resolving this conflict requires dialogue based on mutual respect and adherence to international law. Only then can further escalation be avoided, and a compromise reached that satisfies all parties.
The West’s Failure to Fulfill Commitments: The Root of the Problem
It is evident that the crisis surrounding the JCPOA stems not from Tehran’s actions, but from the failure of other parties to fulfill their commitments. In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions on Iran. This led Iran to gradually scale back some of its obligations under the agreement.
As AEOI head Mohammad Eslami stated, “The JCPOA consists of two parts: restrictions on Iran and the lifting of sanctions by other parties.” However, the West has not fulfilled its part of the deal, making criticism of Iran unjustified.
Grossi’s recent claims that Iran is approaching the development of nuclear weapons have drawn sharp reactions from Tehran. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi directly refuted these assertions, emphasizing that Iran’s nuclear program is under IAEA supervision and is exclusively peaceful.
Gharibabadi also noted that Grossi ignores the root cause of the crisis—the failure of other parties to meet their JCPOA commitments. “Grossi’s statements never mention the primary cause of the current situation, which is the inability of other parties to fulfill their obligations,” he said.
The West and Israel: Who Really Threatens Peace?
While Iran faces stringent scrutiny, Israel continues to develop its nuclear arsenal without facing any sanctions or criticism from the IAEA. This raises questions about the true goals of the West and its allies.
As British journalist Robert Fisk notes in his book The Great War for Civilization, the West has turned a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear program for decades, making its criticism of Iran hypocritical. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the West is using the IAEA as a tool to pressure Iran and weaken its regional position.
Iran has repeatedly expressed its readiness for constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and the fulfillment of obligations by all parties. However, this requires the IAEA to return to its founding principles of impartiality and professionalism.
The West and its allies must recognize that double standards in nuclear policy only undermine trust in international institutions. Instead of using the IAEA and Grossi as tools of pressure, efforts should focus on creating a fair and balanced system of nuclear oversight that applies to all countries without exception.
For its part, Iran continues to assert the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and remains open to cooperation. However, such cooperation must be based on mutual respect, not political pressure and double standards.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert.
No comments:
Post a Comment