In a world where trust is the foundation of nuclear diplomacy, the role of self-reliant monitoring bodies has never been more critical. The international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),once regarded as a symbol of impartiality and technical rigor in overseeing nuclear programs worldwide,now faces a wave of global distrust. Nations that once considered it a reliable arbiter in nuclear disputes now see its actions and orientations as conflicting with its core mission.
Recent developments-particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear program-have led many global actors to perceive the IAEA not as a specialized body but as an unofficial arm of Western powers. Shifts in reporting tone, leaks of sensitive details coinciding with political or military maneuvers, and inconsistent treatment of different countries all indicate the agency’s departure from scientific neutrality. The central question remains: How did yesterday’s trusted institution become today’s discredited actor?
Mission Drift: From Science to Politics
The IAEA’s strength and identity were originally rooted in its “technical, supervisory, and impartial” nature. It was designed to monitor nations’ nuclear activities through scientific data, on-site inspections, and unbiased reports while preventing peaceful programs from diverting toward military purposes. Yet today’s reality starkly deviates from this mandate. Mounting evidence suggests that over the past two decades-especially regarding Iran-the agency has transformed from an impartial referee into an entity whose decisions are overtly or covertly influenced by specific geopolitical players.
A glaring example is its uncritical reliance on Western intelligence data without independent verification. Cases like the so-called “Iranian laptop” dossier or documents provided by Israel regarding Iran’s alleged “nuclear archive” have repeatedly formed the basis for IAEA reports without clear sourcing or rigorous validation. Meanwhile,similar cases involving non-NPT members like Israel have been met with silence or avoidance of formal non-compliance declarations.
The gradual shift in tone under Director General Rafael Grossi‘s leadership further underscores this politicization. Reports once focused solely on enrichment levels centrifuge counts or technical access now employ loaded terms like “grave concern” “non-transparent behavior” or “potential undeclared activities” -phrases more suggestive than scientific.
The Iran File: A Litmus Test for Impartiality
Few cases have challenged IAEA credibility like Iran’s nuclear program As one NPT’s earliest signatories subject to extensive monitoring Tehran has repeatedly accused agency double standards citing unusually high report volumes unsubstantiated claims timing coinciding political/military pressure campaigns against it
< p >A pivotal moment came 2018 when Israel publicly shared purported Iranian “nuclear archive” materials which later shaped subsequent reports despite bypassing standard verification protocols While required scientifically validate such inputs speed reaction fueled suspicions decisions driven less technical merit than diplomatic pressure Western allies
< p >By contrast Israel itself – neither NPT member nor subject inspections despite open accusations maintaining atomic arsenals – faces no comparable scrutiny This disparity led Iran Non-Aligned Movement members question fairness balance marking major failure neutrality test
< h3 >< strong >Eroding Trust Multipolar World < / h3 >
< P >With US hegemony waning international order no longer unipolar As Global South blocs independent actors rise multilateral institutions depend critically trust sustain relevance Yet recent years seen significant erosion confidence particularly among Russia China others vocal critics perceived pro-Western tilt When findings coincide sanctions military action oversight role effectively reduced justifying predetermined power plays experts warn dangerous precedent undermining collective security framework ultimately incentivizing arms races instability if states lose faith system entirely potentially exiting treaties en masse threatening global stability itself thus unless reclaims original identity strictly neutral technically rigorous risks irrelevance obsolescence near future not just institutional failure but collapse international trust writ large
News Sources: © webangah News Agency
دیدگاهتان را بنویسید