Afrasianet - Mazen Al , Najjar - The International Atomic Energy Agency's treatment of Iran is not a neutral application of international law; it is the transformation of international institutions into weapons that serve the strategic interests of the West and its imperialist project.  

The blatant Israeli aggression, supported and coordinated with the Trump administration, against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which targeted its nuclear program facilities and assassinated its military leaders and nuclear energy scientists, has strongly revived into the global debate the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in enforcing it, and the role of this regime in completing the West's imperialist domination of the world and perpetuating the vulnerability and nuclear blackmail of the global South by monopolizing nuclear energy science and technology as one of the most important mechanisms of the Western imperialist project.. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Thursday that Iran is not complying with its nuclear commitments. The IAEA Board of Governors voted to declare Tehran violating its obligations to limit uranium enrichment and facilitate visits by IAEA inspectors to its nuclear sites. Hours after this vote, Israel, the only nuclear-armed state in West Asia and all of Africa that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), launched its aggression against Iran's nuclear facilities, a signatory to the treaty and the Additional Inspection Protocols.. 

Here, the role of the IAEA in justifying Israel's aggression, legitimizing its monopoly on nuclear weapons and threatening the countries and peoples of the Islamic world is clear.  The head of the agency described the Israeli attacks on civilian neighbourhoods and child victims as "deeply troubling" – a brazenness adept at downplaying the gravity of the situation, despite the massive destruction and its grave consequences for regional and international security.

This vote is usually a justification for the Security Council to impose or "reimpose" tough economic sanctions on Iran, after they are lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama administration, the permanent members of the Security Council, the European Union, and Germany. Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 and imposed maximum sanctions, justifying Iran to abandon its additional commitments under the deal and resume enrichment. 

Iranian President Massoud Bezeshkian responded to the IAEA vote defiantly, saying, "I don't know how to cooperate with the outside world to prevent them from committing evil, and to allow the people to live independently in this country." "We will continue our own path; we will have enrichment." A third uranium enrichment site has already been built, announced by Iran as a countermeasure to the IAEA vote.

Bias against Iran

According to the Irish writer Dylan Evans, Bzhshkian has every right to be angry. The IAEA cannot be considered a neutral body. Quite the contrary; it is heavily influenced by Western powers, especially the United States, which provide a large part of its funding and exert considerable diplomatic influence over its decisions. It is staunchly anti-Iran, often echoing Western security narratives, especially those of America and Israel, which view Iran's nuclear program with undue suspicion. 

This is the IAEA's fifth major resolution in five years, specifically targeting Iran. In June 2020, the IAEA Board of Governors formally rebuked Iran over undeclared sites and cooperation issues. In June 2022, a resolution demanded that Iran be prevented from providing explanations on uranium particles at three undeclared sites. In November 2022, a subsequent resolution reaffirmed pressure on outstanding safeguards issues. In 2024, June, the Board of Governors again demanded clarification on the effects of uranium. Appear These decisions are more obsessed with Iran's past activities (alleged pre-2003 militarization actions) than with its current compliance.

Evans compares this to the IAEA's treatment of Israel Over the past two decades, the IAEA has not made any decision on Israel's nuclear program. Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its nuclear facilities, such as the Dimona reactor, remain completely outside IAEA safeguards and supervision.

In 2018, Israel provided the IAEA with alleged "Iranian nuclear archive" material, prompting renewed inspections and questions about undeclared activities. When the IAEA relies on evidence provided by Israel — which is not party to the NPT and does not possess nuclear weapons — to target Iran, it clearly sacrifices a claim of neutrality.

Cables published by WikiLeaks in 2010 indicated that Yukiya Amano, who served as director general of the agency from 2009 to 2019, was closely aligned with the U.S. position on Iran. One State Department cable called Amano a "strong supporter of the United States" on key issues. There are credible allegations that sensitive Iranian information gathered by the agency has been exchanged – directly or indirectly – with Western intelligence services such as the CIA and Israel's Mossad. And soon you find The agency's detailed reports, supposedly confidential, have their way to Western and Israeli media, strongly suggesting coordination. 

According to Evans, it is enough to look at the map of the countries that voted in the agency's last resolution to monitor this trend. The resolution was introduced by the United States, Britain, France and Germany, and approved, with 19 votes in favor out of 35 countries on the agency's Board of Governors. Three countries voted against the resolution (Russia, China and Burkina Faso), 11 abstained, and two countries did not vote.

Selective enforcement

Western countries tend to marginalize the agency when Western propaganda does not resonate. In the run-up  to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States and Britain fiercely promoted misinformation about weapons of mass destruction, despite clear IAEA findings that Iraq does not have an active nuclear weapons program. Both governments ignored and undermined the agency's authority, using their political, diplomatic, and media influence to marginalize the agency's technical assessments. The invasion continued regardless of agency reports.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally obligated not to develop nuclear weapons and to allow the IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran has also signed a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015), Iran accepted Additional Protocol inspections, allowing for more comprehensive monitoring. The cumulative result of all these agreements is that Iran's nuclear program has become one of the most heavily monitored programs globally, with hundreds of inspections conducted annually at its facilities.

In contrast, Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has an advanced and clandestine nuclear weapons program (the existence of which is acknowledged by almost all international experts) without any international inspections of its main facilities, in particular the Dimona reactor. Israel maintains a policy  of "nuclear ambiguity" (neither affirming nor denying its nuclear armament). As a result, Israel's nuclear arsenal operates entirely outside the IAEA safeguards system.
Iran has been subject to multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, sanctions, and diplomatic isolation over its nuclear program, even without conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

They were asked to comply with comprehensive verification regimes that go far beyond the requirements of the NPT itself. On the other hand, Israel does not face international pressure or UN resolutions requiring it to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or open its facilities to inspection. 

The United States obstructs or opposes any moves by the IAEA or the United Nations to formally blame or pressure Israel over its nuclear posture. Despite credible reports of violations by whistleblowers (such as Mordechai Vanunu's disclosures of Israel's nuclear weapons program in the eighties), the IAEA has not conducted any formal investigation into Israel.

Evans points to a cynical nuclear paradox: Since Israel has not signed the NPT, it technically does not violate any treaty obligations. However, it possesses nuclear weapons, which "undermines" the essence of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The IAEA does not conduct formal investigations or sanction non-signatories to the NPT, creating a glaring legal loophole.

Iran has repeatedly been portrayed as a potential threat to regional security, especially by the United States, Israel, and some Gulf states. The country is under constant pressure to accept stricter verification protocols and restrict its sovereignty, all in the name of non-proliferation.

Israel's allies, especially the United States, see it as a strategic imperative for regional stability, effectively granting it an exemption from scrutiny. Its undeclared nuclear arsenal is ignored in Western policy debates, despite the risk of nuclear proliferation it poses (which incentivizes regional adversaries to achieve parity).

Double standards

Evans calls this nuclear non-proliferation regime "nuclear apartheid." Why punish a signatory that observes inspections more rigorously than a non-signatory that secretly manufactures nuclear weapons? This blatant double standards undermines the legitimacy of the entire non-proliferation regime.

The IAEA's treatment of Iran is not a neutral application of international law; it is the transformation of international institutions into weapons that serve the strategic interests of the West and its imperialist project. 

The message to the world is clear: If you are a friend of the United States, you can secretly build nuclear weapons with impunity; if you are an adversary, even the peaceful use of nuclear technology will be treated as a crime. This is not non-proliferation, but coercion disguised as the law. Until Israel's arsenal is subject to the same scrutiny as Iran's peaceful program, the IAEA will remain the enforcer of a racist nuclear apartheid regime, not the guardian of global security.