TEHRAN – As the IAEA Board of Governors convenes on Monday, a manufactured crisis orchestrated by the United States and its European allies (E3) threatens to derail diplomatic engagement with Iran.

The catalyst is a deeply flawed report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi—a document Tehran condemns as "politically motivated" and reliant on "fabricated data provided by the Zionist regime."

Despite Iran’s exhaustive cooperation with IAEA inspectors and the closure of past allegations in 2015 (GOV/2015/72), the U.S. and E3 are poised to table a resolution accusing Iran of "non-compliance."

In a post on X, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's ambassador to international organizations in Vienna, predicted “a tense discussion” on Iran’s nuclear program at the upcoming IAEA Board of Governors meeting, adding that "for sure, it will not bring positive results."

The IAEA’s double standards

The report’s timing and substance reveal a transparent political agenda. It resurrects long-settled allegations about four Iranian sites—Lavisan-Shian, Varamin, Marivan, and Turquzabad—despite Iran providing documented explanations and access.

The report concedes two sites are "no longer considered outstanding issues," yet they are repackaged to inflate a dossier for political exploitation.

Crucially, no evidence suggests diversion of nuclear material for military purposes—a fact Iran underscored in its formal rebuttal: "The absence of any credible indication of military dimensions confirms the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities."

This stands in stark contrast to the IAEA’s past leniency toward U.S. allies like South Korea and Egypt, both caught possessing undeclared nuclear materials yet spared punitive resolutions.

The agency’s dependence on unverified intelligence agencies hostile to Iran, most notably those linked to Tel Aviv, obliquely cited as "third-party sources," further undermines its claims of impartiality.

In a glaring display of selective oversight, the IAEA also turns a blind eye to the Israeli regime’s expansive nuclear program.

Estimates place its hidden arsenal at roughly 90 warheads, backed by fissile material sufficient to produce potentially hundreds more.

Moreover, the regime’s capability to launch nuclear weapons from missiles, submarines, and aircraft only deepens the disparity, while its clandestine nuclear facilities—such as the IRR-2 research reactor—remain completely outside the ambit of IAEA safeguards.

This brazen double standard not only exposes the agency’s hypocrisy but also subverts the very principles of global nuclear accountability by shielding politically favored states from the rigorous scrutiny they rightfully deserve.

‘Has the E3 truly learned nothing?’

The E3—comprising France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—has reportedly drafted a resolution seeking to activate the UN snapback mechanism before its October deadline, automatically restoring all pre-2015 sanctions on Iran.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot’s threat—"We will not hesitate for a second to reimpose sanctions"—mirrors the hawkish stance of U.S. officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who pressure Europe to act where Washington legally cannot.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi minced no words in response: "After years of good cooperation with the IAEA, my country is once again accused of ‘non-compliance.’ When the E3 engaged in the same foul conduct back in 2005, the outcome was the true birth of uranium enrichment in Iran. Has the E3 truly learned nothing in the past two decades?"

His warning is prophetic: politicized pressure only accelerates Iran’s nuclear advancements.

Tehran has repeatedly reiterated that its nuclear program is anchored in its "immutable position" that nuclear weapons violate Islamic principles—a fatwa by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

The program remains fully monitored, with 60% enrichment (though technically short of weapons-grade) conducted under IAEA cameras.

Iran has become the most inspected country by the IAEA: over 70 dedicated staff work on its dossier, and while Iran holds only 3% of the world's nuclear facilities, it accounts for 20% of the agency’s annual inspections conducted by 125 inspectors—a commitment that costs the IAEA $22 million per year, even as it continues to claim Iran is uncooperative.

Importantly, this 60% enrichment milestone was only reached after President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal, a move that spurred the Iranian parliament to pass a resolution authorizing a gradual increase in nuclear activity.

This measured escalation was not an abrupt shift but a cautious response to a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape—a response further compounded by the EU's failure to assume the robust alternative role promised under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Yet the Western powers’ fixation on "zero enrichment" ignores Iran’s sovereign rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its openness to negotiate caps and verification.

What future may hold

Iranian sources have informed the Tehran Times that Tehran has determined that an anti-Iran resolution at the upcoming IAEA Board of Governors meeting is inevitable and has therefore prepared immediate countermeasures.

According to the sources, although the exact paths remain unspecified, Tehran could pursue a range of measures in response to mounting concerns.

One possibility involves a technical escalation that may see the installation of advanced centrifuges at the fortified Fordow site.

This approach could end the dilution of uranium enriched to 60 percent and push its enrichment to higher levels. 

Alongside these moves, Iran might also accelerate research into uranium metal production, a technology with civilian applications that nations such as the United States, Russia, China, France, India, and Pakistan have long explored.

Another potential route could be a deliberate scaling back of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Tehran might limit inspections and disable surveillance cameras, contending that Western actions have compromised the spirit of voluntary transparency.

This recalibration of its openness could extend to suspending measures under the Additional Protocol and reducing features that exceed the core requirements of international safeguards.

Should the E3 proceed with snapback, Iran’s response would be “far-reaching and not limited to nuclear measures,” sources told the Tehran Times.  

Withdrawal from the NPT is also a potential option.  

Therefore, the E3 may cause the collapse of the JCPOA framework permanently, eliminating constraints on Iran’s program while they grapple with the Ukraine war and their own demise and geopolitical irrelevance. The ball is in Europe’s court.