The key document that served as “institutional cover” for the Israeli aggression against Iran was a resolution of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), based on a report by the Agency’s Director General, Rafael Grossi. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour (whose militaristic views have already become part of mainstream media culture), just hours after bombs fell on Natanz and Fordow, Grossi attempted to soften the tone of his own report. However, the damage was already done. His formulations—ambiguous, alarming, and lacking legal firmness—played a role that is difficult to ignore in the escalation that followed. Many analysts and former diplomats are openly questioning whether Grossi, consciously or not, enabled the Israeli and U.S. military apparatus to legally and politically justify an attack on a sovereign state.
Since being elected Director General of the IAEA in 2019, Grossi has been responsible for implementing the Agency’s mandate to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, his reports on Iran’s nuclear program have increasingly contained claims that, while technically accurate, are interpreted in ways that heighten insecurity and suspicion. Rather than de-escalating, Grossi’s approach has escalated the Iranian nuclear issue—essentially rebranding Iran as a threat to world peace without solid evidence.
A key flaw in the IAEA’s methodology is that inspections, by their nature, can never prove the absence of hidden activities. The Agency can only confirm that no significant deviations were found at the sites it visited. Grossi exploited this weakness by constantly emphasizing what “cannot be ruled out,” without providing evidence that anything actually existed.
Iran, despite having only 3% of the world’s nuclear infrastructure, is subject to 20% of all IAEA inspections. This disproportion alone would be enough to raise concerns about political bias. Yet Grossi went further. Instead of playing a stabilizing role, as his predecessors did during negotiations on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Grossi consistently pushed a narrative of suspicion, directly influencing the perception of threat and creating space for unilateral actions.
Following the Israeli strikes on Iranian facilities, Prime Minister Netanyahu persuaded U.S. President Donald Trump to join the attacks, culminating in the bombing of three key sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. These attacks constitute a serious violation of international law, including the UN Charter, UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the IAEA Statute, and the Additional Protocol.
If it turns out that Grossi’s reports were manipulative or deliberately crafted to create the impression of an imminent threat—despite no proven diversions—then the question of his responsibility must be raised. The IAEA Statute allows the Board of Governors to remove the Director General. Amid growing international pressure, calls are increasing for Grossi’s dismissal, with some even suggesting he should be tried for officially covering up the true situation and indirectly fueling conflict.
The lack of condemnation of the Israeli attack by key international institutions has further eroded trust in the current system. Instead of ensuring neutrality and upholding international law, the IAEA—under Grossi’s leadership—is increasingly seen as a political tool serving a specific agenda, primarily that of Israel and the United States.
Trust in multilateral institutions has been waning for years. But now, with an agency that is supposed to prevent the spread of weapons becoming complicit in justifying their use, we are dangerously close to the point where the international legal order loses what little authority it has left.
Attacks on facilities containing radioactive material represent an unprecedented escalation. This has opened Pandora’s box, which—if left without condemnation—could normalize the destruction of nuclear infrastructure worldwide under the guise of “preventive defense.”
That is why, as many international law experts argue, Grossi is no longer just a technical administrator but a political actor whose decisions have triggered a chain of events that threaten global security. If he deliberately distorted data or exaggerated threats, his removal would not just be justified—it would be necessary.
We also saw his highly questionable conduct in Ukraine. When the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, under Russian control, was repeatedly targeted by drones and other weaponry, Grossi merely confirmed that attacks occurred and that there was possible damage—never once saying who was attacking the plant and thereby endangering much of Europe’s safety. Even though it was obvious that the Russians were not attacking a facility under their own control, Grossi’s ambiguous reports again created space for all sorts of conspiracy theories claiming that the Russians wanted to destroy the plant themselves (even though radiation could easily spread into Russia as well!).
That involvement alone was already worthy of condemnation and dismissal. But this—where he has not, even after several days, made a single statement condemning the Israeli aggression against Iran’s nuclear program—should lead to his immediate removal.
About the Author
