The meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors has begun amid reports that the US, backed by several European countries, is seeking the adoption of a resolution against Iran. While this move is part of Washington's broader effort to distort facts and reverse the positions of victim and perpetrator, it will yield nothing but the continued bombardment of the agency's independence and deeper global distrust toward international institutions, especially given that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will respond decisively to any threat. Consequently, responsibility for the consequences of this biased conduct will rest with the West and an agency that has sacrificed its technical and professional character to Western political maneuvering and Grossi's personal ambitions.
Narrative Engineering and Inversion of Reality
The record of two decades of hostile Western actions against Iran within the agency and the Board of Governors reflects a consistent and recurring pattern, one based on distorting facts, rewriting history, exonerating the accused, condemning the victim, and ultimately turning this international institution into a tool for exerting pressure on Iran.
At the current juncture, the Americans are following the same path, particularly because since the Ramadan War, global public opinion has viewed the US and its allies, including the Zionist regime, as criminals deserving punishment, while seeing Iran as a model of strength whose rightful positions have made it a victim of the delusions and unrestrained domination of the hegemonic system.
The reality on the ground is that the US and the Zionist regime, in a clear act of aggression, subjected Iran to military attacks and committed major atrocities, including the martyrdom of 168 students from Minab and the political-spiritual leader of the Islamic world. Iran's nuclear facilities have repeatedly come under attack. The US has repeatedly threatened to seize Iran's enriched uranium and has pursued dozens of other hostile actions. Under agency regulations and international law, such conduct constitutes war crimes and threats against humanity, and both the perpetrators and those who ordered these acts must be held accountable.
The Americans are now adopting a self-righteous posture at the agency, seeking to rewrite history and construct narratives that serve their interests, thereby whitewashing and normalizing these crimes while laying the groundwork for their repetition. The same pattern was evident last year when the 12-Day War emerged in the shadow of the agency's unprofessional conduct and the West's deceptive resolution.
This false narrative-building has gone so far as to provoke the anger of many members, including Russia. Ulyanov, Russia's representative, has emphasized that Washington is attempting to alter the existing narrative by shifting responsibility for recent developments from the "aggressor" to the "victim," while simultaneously directing a new set of demands at Tehran. These revelations once again expose the West's hegemonic and instrumental view of international institutions, a mindset that constitutes a serious threat to international security.
Board of Governors: A Tool for Compensating for Military and Diplomatic Failures
Although the US pursued war in an effort to achieve objectives such as dismantling Iran, removing it from the regional map, stripping it of its nuclear rights, ending its missile and drone capabilities, and excluding it from regional equations, the resilience of the Iranian people on the battlefield, in the streets, and in diplomacy, as well as the surprises delivered by the Resistance Front within the framework of the unity of fronts, combined with Iran's intelligent and powerful management of the Strait of Hormuz, upended all of these calculations.
Subsequently, the US sought to advance a strategy of coercive submission through diplomacy, but Iran's insistence on its legitimate rights and conditions rendered that tool ineffective as well. The US and the Zionist regime also turned repeated ceasefire violations into instruments of bargaining and extortion, but Iran's decisive responses against American aggressors in the Persian Gulf, along with its powerful strikes against the Zionist regime in support of Lebanon, severely undermined this scenario.
Notably, the global public has also inflicted a major defeat on the US and the Zionist regime in the battle of narratives. According to reports, 70 percent of Americans favor ending hostilities against Iran.
Under these circumstances, the US and several European countries appear to be attempting, through fabricated narratives, to conceal their crimes and failures while pursuing unachieved objectives, particularly access to Iran's nuclear facilities and enriched uranium, through pressure exerted via the agency.
Agency's Descent into Politicization and Collapse of Professional Neutrality
The International Atomic Energy Agency and its Director General, Rafael Grossi, have repeatedly demonstrated that they have moved away from their technical and professional mandate and have effectively become instruments serving the objectives of the hegemonic system and personal ambitions.
The agency, which remained silent during the years of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, likewise failed during the 12-Day War and the Ramadan War to condemn military aggression and the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites and facilities. Instead, it issued ineffective reports and even moved toward justifying these attacks. Grossi himself has effectively become part of the machinery used to justify US actions against Iran.
This politicization comes despite the recent Stockholm Institute report on nuclear weapons, which points to the extensive efforts of nuclear powers to expand their atomic arsenals. Yet the agency has taken no meaningful position or action regarding this trend.
The recent US initiative to submit a resolution against Iran, along with Grossi's biased and ambiguous reports, can be seen as a new stage in the agency's departure from its technical and professional path and its open entry into political maneuvering. Part of this trend stems from Western dominance over such institutions, while another part reflects the personal interests and ambitions of figures such as Grossi, who is reportedly seeking the position of UN Secretary-General with Western backing.
Failure of Consensus-Building Project: From Security Council to Board of Governors
An important point is that although the West, particularly the US, continues to seek to exploit international institutions to advance its hegemonic objectives, its recent failure to secure the adoption of an anti-Iran resolution at the UN Security Council, due to Chinese and Russian vetoes and opposition from several members, along with NATO allies' opposition to entering a war against Iran over the Strait of Hormuz and growing concerns within the agency regarding the politicization of the Board of Governors and Washington's efforts to render the institution ineffective through fabricated stories about Iran, all serve as clear signs of the decline of Washington's ability to build consensus.
This situation represents a major embarrassment for Trump, who claimed he would make a "Great America" on the global stage. US inability to build consensus has become so pronounced that reports indicate several provisions, including the clause referring Iran's case to the Security Council, have been removed from the current draft resolution in order to reduce opposition.
Heavy Costs of Agency's Double Standards and Uncertain Future of Its Credibility
Although the US, by holding hostage and bombarding the agency's independence, seeks to use the institution as a tool for pressuring Tehran, whitewashing acts of aggression, and reducing Iran's negotiating leverage, the adoption of such a resolution, regardless of the number of votes it receives at the Board of Governors, will not achieve US objectives. Rather, it will first place the agency's global credibility under serious strain, potentially creating conditions that could lead many members to withdraw from the institution.
Second, Tehran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not relinquish its legitimate rights either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table. Through such actions, the US will neither be able to reopen the Strait nor gain access to Iran's enriched uranium.
The outcome of this approach will be nothing but greater uncertainty surrounding the nuclear file and the marginalization of the agency in Iran-related equations. At the same time, any act of aggression will be met with a decisive response. On the one hand, Tehran considers itself obligated to pursue retribution for the blood of the martyrs of the 12-Day War and the Ramadan War, and the US and the Zionists must answer for the blood of the students of Minab. On the other hand, diplomacy is viewed by Iran as part of the struggle against aggressors, and in that arena as well it will accept no retreat from its legitimate rights.
NOURNEWS