Are international institutions being weaponised against the very states they’re meant to monitor? This investigation examines the IAEA’s credibility crisis amid allegations of complicity in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and double standards on Israel.
This controversy follows the release of classified documents allegedly obtained by Iranian intelligence from Israeli sources, which appear to indicate that confidential communications between Tehran and the IAEA were leaked to foreign intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Mossad. As reported by Fars Agency, Reuters, and state broadcaster IRIB, these leaks may have enabled the identification of several Iranian scientists who were subsequently assassinated—some in broad daylight, others in their homes. If substantiated, this would constitute one of the most egregious breaches of trust ever recorded in a multilateral body.
Leaks and Rhetoric: A Dangerous Combination
The current crisis reached a boiling point after the IAEA’s latest report concluded that it was “impossible to confirm whether Iran possesses the capacity to develop nuclear weapons.” Though not a declaration of non-compliance, the ambiguity of the statement provided enough rhetorical cover for Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in mid-June. The report’s wording was widely criticised as vague, applicable to nearly any state, and—perhaps most importantly—politically inflammatory in a highly volatile context.
Bombing nuclear facilities is not only provocative—it is illegal under international humanitarian law. Article 56 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibits attacks on nuclear electrical generating stations due to the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that could follow. This prohibition remains binding even when such facilities are considered military objectives. The 1981 condemnation of Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor by UN Security Council Resolution 487 reaffirmed this norm. Any military action targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure while it is under IAEA safeguards, therefore, raises serious legal concerns and risks setting a dangerous precedent.
Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have since accused Grossi of having compromised the agency’s impartiality. In their view, his posture is “more political than technical,” raising urgent questions about whether he should remain at the helm of an organisation whose legitimacy rests on neutrality and technical rigour.
A Director Under Fire
Grossi’s critics point to his background, not as a scientist, but as a diplomat. His frequent presence in political forums and interviews, they argue, demonstrates an increasingly activist role ill-suited to an agency that should avoid even the appearance of geopolitical partiality. In particular, Tehran has alleged that Grossi’s leadership helped provide a “pretext” for Israel’s strikes, and that his reluctance to clearly condemn those attacks amounts to tacit approval.
Under Grossi, the IAEA has devoted more than 25% of its operational capacity to Iran in 2024 alone, according to internal data. Meanwhile, Israel—a nuclear-armed state that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—remains free from any comparable scrutiny. Its main facility at Dimona is completely outside the IAEA’s jurisdiction.
This asymmetry in oversight has led to accusations of double standards not only from Iran but also from respected diplomats and independent analysts, including France’s Dominique de Villepin, the UK’s Alastair Crooke, former US ambassadors Chas Freeman and Craig Murray, and academic voices like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer—all of whom have raised concerns about the politicisation of multilateral institutions and the selective application of international law.
Should Grossi Resign?
Given the scale of the allegations and the rising political consequences, one must ask: Should Rafael Grossi resign to protect the credibility of the IAEA?
On the one hand, his defenders argue that he is navigating an impossible diplomatic terrain, attempting to maintain cooperation with a recalcitrant Iran while managing pressure from Western powers. On the other hand, his critics contend that under his leadership, the IAEA has not only lost Iranian trust but also undermined its own reputation as a neutral arbiter.
The damage is already visible. In late June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend all cooperation with the IAEA. Although Iran has not withdrawn from the NPT, this suspension effectively ends the agency’s ability to monitor Iranian enrichment activity—a dangerous development for global nuclear transparency.
The Trump Factor
Interestingly, former U.S. President Donald Trump, during a recent NATO summit, likened the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggesting he views the operation as a form of “war-ending” aggression. Trump’s administration had already pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) in 2018, and his recent comments indicate little concern for legal nuance or institutional credibility. That Grossi’s leadership appears to align, whether intentionally or not, with this hawkish posture has raised further concerns about the politicisation of the agency.
Why Is Israel Off-Limits?
One of the most profound questions raised by this crisis is: why does Israel’s nuclear programme remain untouched by Western scrutiny?
Israel is not a party to the NPT and has never formally acknowledged its nuclear arsenal. Yet, according to SIPRI, it is estimated to possess at least 80 nuclear weapons. While the IAEA inspects Israel’s Soreq research facility, it has no access to Dimona.
European and American leaders consistently refrain from pressuring Israel on this matter, often invoking its “right to self-defence” while remaining silent on repeated violations of international law. In this context, one could argue that, to restore a balance of power in the region and to deter unilateral actions by Israel, Iran’s own right to self-defence would logically imply the right to pursue similar strategic capabilities, including nuclear deterrence.
A Final Blow to the NPT?
The collapse of IAEA–Iran cooperation marks a potential turning point in global nuclear governance. The attacks on Iran, justified by vague IAEA language and tolerated by Europe and the U.S., could signal the beginning of the end for the Non-Proliferation Treaty system.
If the world’s most prominent nuclear watchdog is perceived as compromised, and if nuclear-armed non-signatories are allowed to attack those under the treaty’s oversight, then the rules-based order collapses in favour of raw geopolitical power.
At a time when multilateralism is already under immense strain, the IAEA must act decisively to restore its neutrality. Whether that involves an internal audit, a public clarification, or a change in leadership remains to be seen, but the credibility of the global non-proliferation regime may well depend on it.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics
