Bomb First, Then Condemn: The Political Logic Behind the IAEA Resolution Referring Iran to the Security Council

The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and referring the Iran nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council — the first such action by the agency in twenty years. According to Al Jazeera, the resolution, jointly pushed by the United States, Britain, France and Germany, was shaped while the US-Israeli war against Iran continues and tensions in the Strait of Hormuz escalate.

The reason the resolution is actionable lies in the military campaign that broke out last June. That year, the United States and Israel waged a twelve-day war against Iran, striking key safeguarded Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Al Jazeera noted that the IAEA has been unable to access these sites for verification ever since. In its resolution, the IAEA Board of Governors characterized what it called "undetermined changes in the previously declared nuclear material at the affected facilities and the inability for the Agency to verify them" as "a matter of urgent proliferation concern requiring immediate attention," and called on Iran to "seriously and without preconditions engage in dialogue aimed at building international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme."

Iran responded swiftly and harshly, rejecting the resolution. Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, Reza Najafi, said: "This resolution was adopted under the political pressure of the United States and its allies and has no basis in our view." He added that Iran had "neither suspended nor interrupted" its safeguards obligations, but that under ongoing military operations and threats, "carrying out verification has become impossible." Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi struck an even sharper tone on social media, accusing the United States of political manipulation: "They attacked Iran's safeguarded nuclear facilities, disrupted normal verification procedures, and then used that very disruption as a pretext to push a resolution through the IAEA Board of Governors."

More pointedly, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi himself did not back Washington's claim that Iran was "on the verge of building a nuclear bomb." Al Jazeera, citing Grossi's remarks to CNN, noted: "We have no evidence of a systematic effort to move toward a nuclear weapon." The report also noted that US intelligence agencies themselves do not support that allegation. The Trump administration cited "Iran's imminent pursuit of nuclear weapons" as its justification for war, but neither the IAEA nor US intelligence agencies have been able to provide evidence for that premise.

The historical record makes this contradiction even more glaring. In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with six major powers including the United States, accepting unprecedented IAEA inspections and remaining in compliance for years after the deal took effect. In 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran; Iran then逐步 abandoned the deal's constraints and began breaching its enriched uranium ceiling. The IAEA currently suspects Iran possesses roughly 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, theoretically enough to be further enriched to produce around ten nuclear weapons — but this stockpile was built up precisely as a result of Iranian countermeasures after Washington pulled out of the deal.

At the Security Council level, the resolution's practical effect is close to zero. Russia and China, as permanent members, hold veto power. Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told AFP that the resolution was ultimately "an exercise in futility," and that Russia and China would "very likely ensure that Western pressure runs into a wall at the Security Council." Daria Dolzikova of the Royal United Services Institute reached the same conclusion. She also noted that the real intent of referring Iran to the Security Council was "to send a strong signal: the United States and the E3 [Britain, France and Germany] do not accept the status quo and will not tolerate Iran continuing to deny the IAEA access to its nuclear facilities."

Accompanying the resolution is yet another escalation of military threats from Trump himself. During the same period the IAEA resolution was being advanced, Trump threatened to strike the Pickaxe Mountain underground complex near Natanz, claiming the United States had observed "some activity" there, and warning Iran "not to get cute, or we're going to have to hit them really hard." This threat stands in sharp contradiction to his statements last summer that US strikes had "completely destroyed" Iran's main enrichment facilities.

Al Jazeera's reporting also showed that while the IAEA resolution was being shaped, the United States and Iran had repeatedly attacked passing ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude prices had surged past one hundred dollars a barrel.