From the technical institution to the political arm; How did the agency lose world confidence? – Mehr News Agency Iranian and world news

‌Mehr News Agency, International Group: In a world where trust is the foundation of nuclear diplomacy, the role of independent regulatory agencies seems more vital than ever. The International Atomic Energy Agency, once known as a symbol of neutrality and technical reliance on monitoring nuclear programs, is now facing a wave of global distrust. countries that have been called the nuclear conflict until yesterday see their performance and orientations in conflict with his original mission.

Recent developments, especially in the Iranian nuclear issue, have made many world actors regard the agency as not a specialized institution but as an informal arm of the interests of Western powers. Changing the tone of the reports, the disclosure of sensitive information at the same time as political or military movements, as well as dual behavior towards different countries, all show that the agency is going through a distance of scientific neutrality. The main question is how did yesterday’s trusted institution become a discredited actor today?

Mission deviation: from science to politics

As mentioned earlier, the strengths and identities of the International Atomic Energy Agency were defined from the beginning in its “technical, supervisory and neutral” nature. The institution was supposed to monitor the nuclear performance of countries and prevent the diversion of peaceful programs to military intentions based on scientific data, field inspections, and non -organized reports, but today’s reality is a mission. Numerous evidence suggests that over the last two decades, especially in the Iranian issue, the Agency has become an actor instead of being impartial, whose will has been explicitly or hidden by specific actors.

One of the most prominent manifestations of this deviation is the unparalleled reliance on Western intelligence data without independent verification. Cases such as the “Iranian Laptop” case, or documents presented by the Zionist regime on the “Archives of Iran”, have been the basis for the publication of agency reports without transparency and careful verification. However, the same entity has been silent or avoided officially on regimes such as Israel, which are not essentially a member of the NPT Treaty.

Also, the gradual change of the tone of agency reports, especially in the recent management of Rafael Grossi, clearly reflects the transition from technical literature to an environment full of political interpretations. Reports that were previously based solely on enrichment, number of centrifuges or technical access are now accompanied by words such as “severe concern”, “non -transparent behavior”, “the possibility of unknown activities”; Expressions that, rather than scientific, are subjective and speculative.

On the other hand, the dangerous co -operation between some confidential reports of the Agency with diplomatic or military movements of Western countries is another sign of this structural deviation. On a few critical times, the publication of tension reports by the Agency occurred within a short distance by issuing a resolution in the Board of Governors or even military operations against Iran; It is as if these reports, instead of merely being supervised, have in practice paving political or military pressure.

From the observers’s point of view, this trend not only undermined the technical legitimacy of the Agency, but has strongly deprived the trust of the world, especially non -committed or southern members of the world; The observer institution that must be an impartial referee among governments is now considered part of the game of great powers. The result of such mistrust is not only tension in cases such as Iran but the overall threat of validity of the structure of propagation in the world.

Iran’s case; A test for neutrality

Fewer case as much as Iran’s nuclear program has been able to challenge the agency’s neutrality and credibility. Iran has been one of the first signatories of the Nuclear Weapons Control Treaty (NPT) and has always been under the supervision of the Agency. However, the unusual volume of reports, the repetition of non -allegations, and the coincidence of reports with political or military developments against Iran have repeatedly accused the institution of dual and biased behavior.

One of the important examples is the disclosure of the Iranian nuclear program by the Zionist regime in year 2; A set of documents offered to the Agency outside the official and verified procedures of the agency and the basis of subsequent reports. Although the agency was obliged to examine the accuracy of this information carefully, how the case responds and the speed of publishing the results reinforced the suspicion that the decisions in the entity were more than technical, in the diplomatic pressure orbit of Western powers and their allies.

In contrast, the Zionist regime, which is not only a member of the NPT but also openly accused of having nuclear arsenal, has been excluded from any reports or inspections. The same dual behavior led Iran and many members of the Non -Aligned Movement to consider the agency lacking the standards of justice and balance. The huge difference in how the two actors deal with the two actors defeated the biggest test of the agency.

Confidence in the multifaceted world

With the collapse of the American hegemony, the international system is no longer considered unilateral. In a world where southern countries, new power blocks and independent actors are rapidly emerging, confidence in multilateral institutions is the most important asset for survival and influence of these institutions. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has lost an important part of this capital in recent years.

Russia, China, Iran, and many members of the Non -Aligned Movement have repeatedly criticized the Agency’s explicit tendency toward Western positions. When the results of the reports, at the same time as sanctions or invasions become political or military pressure, the regulatory role of the agency actually reduces the decisions of specific powers.

From the expert’s point of view, this is a dangerous situation; Because in such an environment, countries may no longer be willing to cooperate, clarify or even remain within the NPT framework. The gradual withdrawal of global supervisory mechanisms paves the way for the return of arms competition and widespread instability. In fact, the lost neutrality of an entity becomes a threat to global stability.

So if the agency fails to regain its legitimacy and technical trust, it will probably face an identity crisis; The supervisor, which no one considers to be neutral referee, has lost its function, and in the stressful world, this is evaluated as the beginning of a complete instability.

The gradual collapse of legitimacy; The alarm for the global supervision system

The International Atomic Energy Agency was an institution that once played a unparalleled role in the confidence of countries because of its adherence to scientific, neutrality and transparency, but what has happened in the last two decades, especially in Iran’s case, is a clear sign of the gradual collapse of this institution; The collapse that was formed not by a sudden event but with the gradual accumulation of mistrust, discrimination, politicization, and behavioral dualism.

In a world that requires impartial surveillance institutions more than ever, the Agency has taken the path of becoming the soft arm of specific powers instead of playing the technical role. The result is that Iran, China, Russia, and many independent countries no longer have the former confidence in agency reports and evaluations, and this gap of trust shakes the basis of regulatory order and collective security.

Experts and experts emphasize that if the institution wants to maintain its place in world order, it has no choice but to return to its original identity, a technical, impartial and transparent observer that will not be weighted in the balance of world powers. Otherwise, in the not too distant future, the reference institution will be reduced to a forgotten tool in the drawer of diplomacy memoirs, which will not only a failure for an organization but also to defeat the concept of “international trust”.