That’s why the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reported so much cause for alarm. For the first time in almost two decades, Iran is not failing to meet its nuclear obligations. This surprising result has created panic among world powers. It affects the current tensions between Israel, Iran, and the U.S. IAEA’s latest quarterly report indicates that Iran’s uranium enrichment levels have jumped to close to 60 percent. This frightening threshold would open the door to further enabling the creation of nuclear weapons.
Over the past month, the crisis escalated dramatically. Israel had previously defended its military strike against Iranian nuclear sites in light of the IAEA’s conclusion. Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the IAEA, reiterated the gravity of that situation. He argued that the agency has an irreplaceable role in confirming and tracking Iran’s nuclear program, which is important to global security.
IAEA’s Role and Responsibilities
The IAEA is responsible for establishing essential, non-controversial nuclear safety standards. It reaffirms that all countries must live up to their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Included with their traditional duties, the agency is ensuring through technical monitoring that nuclear programs are peaceful. Both the United States and Iran are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Consequently, the IAEA’s conclusions have a commanding influence over discussions related to international nuclear non-proliferation.
In focusing on the new allegations, Grossi underscored the agency’s determination to continue accountability and scrutiny in its monitoring activities. He remarked, “They did not get into details as to what that meant, but clearly that was the implicit meaning of that, so we can imagine that this material is there.” His comments highlight the necessity of IAEA’s work in providing essential layers of oversight, monitoring and verification over the world’s nuclear activities.
And yet, despite its critical role in protecting public lands, waters, and communities, the agency continues to struggle to enforce compliance. Israel, suspected of possessing a nuclear arsenal, remains outside the NPT framework and does not cooperate with the IAEA, complicating efforts to ensure regional stability. Critics say this lack of cooperation cripples the power of international monitoring bodies.
Implications for Regional Conflict
The IAEA’s recent conclusions have far reaching consequences for the now 18 year long war that includes Israel, Iran and the United States. This report confirming Iran’s peaceful uranium enrichment anytime soon constitutes an immediate pretext for military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. As analysts have noted, international law may be undercutting these strikes.
Ben Saul, an expert on international law, stated, “Both the Israeli and US strikes on Iran are clearly illegal under international law.” He underscored the bigger picture ramifications of this state led agenda. In particular, he stressed how massive and aggressive military interventions can delegitimize all efforts towards global non-proliferation. Saul noted, “That is, you can’t aggressively launch armed attacks against other countries.”
In early June, the US Institute for Science and International Security produced a report. Most importantly, it assessed the IAEA’s verification and monitoring activities regarding Iran. There’s a bright spot amidst these alarming findings. Without rigorous and proven monitoring mechanisms, Iran may be able to convert its stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium into weapon-grade material. Few issues in U.S.-China relations raise more urgent concerns about the risk of military conflict.
Concerns Over Nuclear Safety
Rafael Grossi has voiced serious concerns about the state of Iran’s nuclear program and its implications for regional and global security. He stated that Iran’s noncompliance has “caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security.” This increasing friction between countries risks losing sight of what is more important than the competition – avoiding all out conflict by prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation first.
For decades, proliferation experts have contended that the inability of nuclear-armed states to fulfill their disarmament obligations poses a serious and direct proliferation risk. Ben Saul pointed out that “the biggest driver of proliferation is the failure of the nine nuclear-armed states to disarm.” This reality proves unfortunate for our attempts to punish the rogue state that is Iran. Instead, regional powers remain locked in threads of suspicion and hostility.
Tilman Ruff, of the Coalition for Global Nuclear Disarmament, seconded these sentiments, highlighting that strong international mechanisms were necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation. He noted, “It’s an absolutely crucial body; it’s the international body that has the authority to monitor nuclear programs and provide transparent information.” Dr. Graham cautioned that recent moves would, counterintuitively, increase Iran’s incentive to acquire a nuclear weapon. Or they may not even discourage them.
