The IAEA Scandal: Israel’s Nuclear Attack Dog Unleased on Iran

The adoption of a politically motivated resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors against Iran on June 12, 2025 marks a turning point in the intensifying tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. The resolution, which labels Iran as a violator of its non-proliferation obligations, reflects the ongoing geopolitical disputes between Iran and Western powers. This move raises serious concerns about the IAEA’s impartiality, regional stability, and the future of the global non-proliferation regime.

For years, the West has leveraged the IAEA to advance its foreign policy objectives, weakening Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy. According to Iranian analysts, the United States and the three European powers (E3: the UK, France, and Germany) treat Iran’s nuclear file as a political pressure campaign. The resolution revives old allegations that were previously closed under earlier agreements, further highlighting its biased nature. Despite Iran’s broad cooperation with the IAEA—including resolving outstanding issues under the 2015 JCPOA—the West continues to push for condemnation and accuses the Islamic Republic of Iran of undermining the deal. After the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, Europe failed to deliver the promised economic benefits. From Tehran’s perspective, its nuclear measures since 2019 are legal responses under the JCPOA’s own provisions, while the West labels them as violations—an example of the double standards Iran firmly rejects. As such, the resolution is seen as a manifestation of unilateral Western pressure disguised as international oversight.

The June 2025 resolution was officially introduced by the U.S., UK, France, and Germany, demanding that Iran respond to questions regarding uranium traces at undeclared sites. Of the member states, 19 voted in favor, while Russia, China, and Burkina Faso opposed it, and 11 abstained. Tehran strongly condemned the move, calling it “hasty and unwise,” warning that it harms diplomatic engagement. Iranian officials described the resolution as “lacking legal or technical foundation” and purely “political.”

In response, Russia and China voiced strong support for Iran. Russia’s envoy Mikhail Ulyanov labeled the resolution “unjust” and accused the West of demanding full Iranian compliance with the JCPOA while refusing to lift sanctions. China called the resolution “unconstructive.” The E3 defended the resolution as a necessary supervisory measure, but for Iran, it remains an ideologically driven, non-technical action aimed at gaining leverage.

Critics argue that the resolution signals a misuse of the IAEA that undermines its technical mission. Iran’s ambassador to the agency warned that decisions based on political motives rather than evidence would damage the IAEA’s credibility. Iran emphasized that with nearly 72% of global IAEA inspections taking place on its soil, it has cooperated at an unprecedented level. Hence, Tehran views the resolution as a political maneuver cloaked in technical oversight and decries the application of double standards. Iranian officials and international affairs experts argue that such politicization harms the global non-proliferation system and erodes trust in the agency. They caution that continued politicization will adversely affect Iran’s future cooperation.

Indeed, the politicization of the IAEA undermines its credibility as an independent technical body. Its primary mission is to verify nuclear compliance impartially—not to serve as a geopolitical tool. The passage of resolutions seen by many as driven by the West exposes the IAEA to accusations of bias and weakens the confidence of non-Western states. This recurring pattern sets a dangerous precedent for other global powers to exploit international institutions for political gain, thereby weakening the agency’s ability to ensure global nuclear transparency and security.
Another key issue concerns the West’s, particularly the U.S.’s, double standards. While demanding Iran’s full compliance, they themselves breached international commitments by withdrawing from the JCPOA and re-imposing sanctions. This contradiction undermines the legitimacy of Western demands and pushes Iran further into distrust. For negotiations to succeed, the West must return to its obligations and adopt a strategy based on mutual trust and stable international behavior—not pressure and threats.

One major consequence of this resolution has been Israel’s direct military strikes on Iran, targeting infrastructure and civilians. The resolution effectively served as a green light for violating Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Board of Governors should have instead adopted a balanced approach that respected national sovereignty and upheld the technical integrity of the IAEA.
In conclusion, the IAEA Board’s recent resolution against Iran exemplifies the politicization of technical oversight and poses a threat to both the agency’s credibility and regional stability. The West’s double standards and the violation of the JCPOA have deepened distrust and complicated diplomatic progress. The instrumentalization of the IAEA sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the non-proliferation regime and risks turning the agency into a battleground for geopolitical rivalries.

*Translated by Ashraf Hemmati from the original Persian article written by Amin Mahdavi