Following the US and Israeli military attack on Iran—an act that constitutes a clear violation of international law and a dangerous example of the West’s “self-permitted” behavior—Washington loudly publicized its claim that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been entirely wiped out. Statements by Kingsley Wilson celebrating the success of the “Night Hammer” operation and Donald Trump’s assertion that Iran had been “completely weakened” were part of this wartime propaganda. Yet, in sharp contrast, Rafael Grossi announced that IAEA inspectors were not being allowed to enter the sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow—an admission that clearly indicates no such “total destruction” has occurred. These contradictory accounts offer the first sign of Western confusion in managing the message and its failure to achieve the operation’s goals.
US, European Behavioral Ambiguities: Unanswered Questions
If the claim of total destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is accurate, why does Washington still insist on nuclear negotiations? What is there to negotiate when, according to their own narrative, nothing remains? And why simultaneously threaten Iran and impose new sanctions to increase pressure?
Europe’s behavior is equally contradictory, having triggered the snapback mechanism and invoked Resolution 2231—a resolution which, according to a joint statement from Iran, Russia and China, has expired. The fact that Western governments continue to label Iran a “nuclear threat” is itself the strongest evidence that the narrative of all-out destruction is false. Moreover, if the sites have been obliterated, why is the IAEA so relentlessly demanding access to locations the US claims are “completely demolished”? This cycle of questions shows that the American narrative is not grounded in reality, but crafted to legitimize aggression and sustain Iranophobia.
IAEA’s Account and West’s Refusal to Acknowledge Reality on the Ground
If the IAEA’s version—that the facilities are “damaged but not destroyed”—is correct, then the West faces a major contradiction. Why are the US and Europe unwilling to admit operational failure in the 12-day conflict? The aims of the Israelis and the US were to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities and spark internal unrest—objectives that were not fully achieved. This reality is even reflected in Grossi’s remarks: had the sites been destroyed, there would be no grounds for dispute. Yet the West avoids acknowledging this in order to conceal its strategic setback.
Furthermore, if the IAEA claims “technical realism,” why does it fail to take a firm stance against the extremely dangerous precedent set by the US—namely the normalization of attacks on nuclear facilities? The silence of the IAEA and European governments in the face of this conduct is not only a violation of their technical mandate, but also paves the way for similar aggression in future—from Venezuela to Nigeria.
Iran’s Consistent Principles and the West’s Failure in the Narrative War
Regardless of which account is closer to the truth, Iran’s principles and international legal norms remain unchanged. The attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, like the crimes in Gaza, constitutes a crime against humanity and a fundamental breach of international law. Western governments, the IAEA and international organizations cannot evade their responsibility to condemn such behavior.
It is only natural that the West’s contradictions and failure to honor commitments push Iran toward adopting “nuclear ambiguity” and limiting cooperation with the IAEA—a posture that now appears more reasonable and justified than ever.
The West’s new scenario is designed to create a “miscalculation inside Iran” through a narrative war aimed at pressuring Tehran to abandon ambiguity and open its technical files. Yet Iran has repeatedly shown that it pairs diplomacy with power. The time has come for the West to realize that genuine confidence-building cannot be achieved through threats, sanctions or dual narratives. It begins with lifting sanctions, guaranteeing that such aggression will not be repeated, and respecting Iran’s legitimate rights in enrichment, missile capability and regional influence.
The 12-day assault showed that Iran is ready for negotiation—but equally ready to deliver a decisive response. Trying the same failed strategy again would be pointless.
NOURNEWS