The main issue is something few have mentioned: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.

The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.

But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.

However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.

That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.

But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.

It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.

This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.

Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.

Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.

All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.

In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.

Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.

The list could go on.

The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?

Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?