Nournews: The meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors was held amid efforts by Western countries to pass what Iran considers an unlawful resolution targeting its nuclear activities and to pave the way for referring the issue to the UN Security Council. The Security Council subsequently convened under pressure from the United States and the European troika, with Iran at the center of the agenda.

What these two meetings had in common was less a demonstration of Western power than another display of politicization, interventionism and the erosion of the foundations of international law—a process that also offers a clear indication of the changing balance of power in the world.

Iran’s leverage in the Strait of Hormuz, together with Tehran’s multiple conditions for ending the war, has seriously challenged Trump’s calculations about using resolutions to force Iran into submission and manage global markets.

International Law Under the Wheels of Power Politics

The conduct of the United States and the European troika at the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council can be viewed as another link in a chain that has further eroded the credibility of international law.

Calls for inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been made at a time when there is no clear, ordinary safeguards framework governing access to nuclear sites that have been damaged and bombed. Iran, for its part, argues that under its right to self-defense, it is entitled to prevent inspections until it receives practical guarantees.

Meanwhile, representatives of China and Russia at both meetings have stressed that UN Security Council Resolution 2231 expired on October 18, 2025, and that, since that date, it no longer has legal effect or an executive mandate. On this basis, efforts to maintain the same mechanisms in relation to Iran’s nuclear file are less a legal measure than a political move based on a selective interpretation of international rules.

In reality, what unfolded at these two meetings was not simply a confrontation between the West and Iran; it was also a test for the future of the international order. If international rules are valid only when they align with the interests of major powers, then international law can no longer be regarded as an independent and universal framework.

Grossi: The IAEA Between Inspections and Satellite Narratives

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has continued to emphasize his neutrality and independence, even as his recent positions and statements have once again raised questions about the agency’s actual independence.

Grossi, who faced strong criticism from Iran last year over a report that was subsequently cited amid developments leading up to attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, has once again made claims about Iran’s nuclear activities at the latest Board of Governors meeting.

Of particular note is his claim that new activities at the Kuh-e Kolang nuclear site have been identified through satellite imagery, despite his previous statements that IAEA inspectors have been unable to access some Iranian facilities for more than a year.

This raises a fundamental question: How can an organization that acknowledges limitations on its field access make definitive judgments about the nature of activities at a nuclear site based on satellite imagery?

The claim appears less like a technical assessment and more closely resembles narratives previously put forward by Trump and Netanyahu regarding satellite monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.

At the same time, the lack of meaningful action in response to attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as the failure to address questions surrounding Israel’s nuclear program, has further intensified concerns over double standards.

The Western Consensus Has Cracked; The World Is Changing Course

The United States and the European troika have sought to portray the outcomes of the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council as a political victory. Yet the voting patterns and positions adopted by major powers paint a different picture.

The IAEA resolution passed with 23 votes in favor, 8 abstentions and 3 votes against. However, opposition from China and Russia demonstrated that the West no longer enjoys the level of consensus it once did.

At the Security Council, Beijing and Moscow’s explicit positions have effectively created a serious obstacle to any action against Iran.

This situation indicates that the world is moving away from the model of American unilateralism toward a more multipolar system of international relations—a trend that could take on broader dimensions through BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

From this perspective, what unfolded at the Board of Governors and the Security Council was not merely a dispute over Iran. It was also a sign of a shift in the architecture of global power—an architecture in which an increasing number of countries are seeking political, military and economic independence from structures led by Washington.

Resolutions Cannot Cure Trump’s Problems

Trump and his Western allies, along with countries that have tied much of their strategic autonomy to Washington, have sought to use the IAEA and Security Council resolutions to project an image of mounting pressure on Iran. Yet realities on the ground and in the economy tell a different story.

Japan’s vote against Iran cannot erase the structural challenges facing its economy or its historical contradiction in confronting the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the public memory.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, cannot conceal its strategic setbacks against Yemen or its security dependence on the United States through political statements—particularly as developments during the Ramadan war once again demonstrated that, at critical moments, Washington places Israel’s interests ahead of those of many of its Arab allies.

Trump, too, cannot change realities on the ground through political resolutions.

Iran’s leverage in the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran’s conditions for ending the war and developments in energy markets present a picture very different from the narrative of “Iran’s surrender.”

Oil prices rising toward $110 a barrel, diesel reaching $6, and European gas climbing to €80 indicate that markets do not necessarily move in line with Washington’s political narrative.

Under these circumstances, a resolution is neither a cure for the crisis nor a tool capable of restoring the world to the order envisioned by Trump.

Any attempt to turn Grossi’s claims about Kuh-e Kolang into a basis for military action could trigger a swift, forceful and costly response from Iran.

The reality is that the world is no longer the world it once was—and resolutions no longer have the same power they once did to alter countries’ strategic calculations.