Nournews: Austria’s refusal to issue a visa to Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), preventing him from attending the Vienna meeting, is at odds with the obligations of a host country and in clear conflict with the principles and norms of international law. The decision, reportedly taken under U.S. pressure, is less a diplomatic achievement for Washington than another embarrassment for Austria and Europe, which claim to defend international law, and yet another sign of the erosion of the independence of international institutions.
Austria: Hosting Under U.S. Pressure
Austrian officials initially claimed that Iran had submitted its visa application too late. However, the Iranian representative countered that visas for the Iranian delegation had been issued a month earlier and were subsequently revoked by Austria, effectively undermining the narrative put forward in the media. Austrian officials eventually had to acknowledge the role of the United States in the decision.
Under international principles and regulations, a country hosting the headquarters of an international organization cannot politicize its dealings with representatives of member states or refuse to fulfill its obligations under pressure from other powers. Under the agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Austria, the host country is required to take all necessary measures to facilitate the entry of representatives of member states into Austria and to issue them visas as quickly as possible.
This obligation applies unconditionally to representatives and heads of delegations from member states, particularly when it comes to the IAEA’s highest policymaking body. The significance of the issue was underscored by Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, who described the revocation of Mohammad Eslami’s visa as a violation of Austria’s obligations as the host country of the IAEA.
The IAEA: From Politicization to Disgrace
Although Austria is hosting the meeting, the IAEA’s responsibility in the affair cannot be separated from the issue. The agency has, through a series of political and unprofessional actions, allowed Western influence over its affairs to reach unprecedented levels, further eroding its independence.
Neither the IAEA nor its Director General, Rafael Grossi, has condemned the U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. In a glaring contradiction, the agency has, on the one hand, made allegations against Iran that helped pave the way for the adoption of a resolution, while on the other hand preventing an Iranian representative from attending the agency’s meeting to defend Tehran’s position.
This conduct indicates that the consequences of U.S. warmongering and the IAEA’s role in it have extended beyond the military, economic and political spheres into the diplomatic arena as well. The roots of this approach, it appears, lie in the Western power structure’s fear of Iran’s disclosures and its efforts to expose what it describes as the truth.
Notably, Grossi recently claimed that if the IAEA resumes its activities in Iran, Tehran’s security concerns would be taken into account given the wartime conditions. Yet under precisely those circumstances, even the simplest confidence-building measure—issuing a visa to allow Iran’s representative to attend the IAEA meeting—was not taken.
This contradiction is itself further evidence of Iran’s distrust of the IAEA and could make the existing deadlock between Tehran and the agency even more difficult to resolve. Continued politicization of this kind could even pave the way for a number of countries to withdraw from the IAEA.
Europe: Independence Put Up for Sale
Austria’s conduct cannot be assessed separately from the position of the European Union. It appears that the bloc also played a role in the decision, making it another indication of Europe’s continued willingness to sacrifice its independence in the face of U.S. pressure.
Europe, which is currently grappling with both a severe economic crisis and growing international isolation, will achieve little by continuing such policies and could instead face even greater isolation. The world is moving toward a more multipolar and multilateral order, while the international community is increasingly emphasizing the need to hold the United States and those opposing the independence of sovereign states accountable.
Europe should have realized by now that a policy of pressure and threats has no impact on Iran’s resistance and can only lead to greater restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz and intensify pressure on Western energy supplies.
UN Sanctions: An Unsupported Claim
Austria and the U.S. representative to the IAEA have sought to justify the decision by claiming that they could not allow an official under UN sanctions to attend an IAEA conference. This seemingly law-abiding argument, however, has been challenged by Russia, which argues that UN Security Council Resolution 2231 expired in October 2025 and that there is therefore no legal basis for continuing such sanctions.
Russia’s representative to the IAEA has also described claims by Britain, France and Germany that the snapback mechanism against Iran has been activated as legally and procedurally baseless. He has stressed that there are no sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council or the 1737 Committee that could serve as the legal basis for Austria’s action.
The latest meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council were likewise held amid objections from a number of countries, including China and Russia. Emphasizing the expiration of Resolution 2231, they argued that the adoption of any new resolution, activation of the snapback mechanism or reopening of Iran’s case at the Security Council would run counter to international law, and called for an end to political maneuvering.
The conduct of the United States—and, by extension, Austria and Europe—exposes what critics describe as their disregard for international law, a trend that, if left unanswered, could establish dangerous precedents for the international system.
Contrary to his claims, Trump has neither defeated Iran, nor gained control of the Strait of Hormuz, nor placed the global economy in his hands. A series of U.S. setbacks in the face of Iran’s resilience, along with the Houthis’ broader success in the Bab el-Mandeb, could also put major political challenges—including losses in the congressional midterm elections—before Trump and the Republican Party.
From this perspective, measures such as obstructing Iran’s representative from attending the Vienna meeting appear more like attempts to manufacture small and imaginary achievements—achievements stemming not from Washington’s strength, but from its setbacks and inability to achieve its objectives, and which could ultimately turn into yet another embarrassment for the United States.
Such pressure will neither silence Iran nor alter the nature of its actions in the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait will not be reopened through such pressure, and continuing down this path will only exacerbate the situation. Meanwhile, through their unprofessional conduct, the IAEA and the European Union are effectively driving another nail into the coffin of their own credibility and institutional standing.
Nournews