The challenge between Iran and the US has reached a stage where, while negotiations continue, there are signs of increasing tension. On the one hand, the two sides have kept the path of dialogue open, and on the other hand, the US is transferring heavy military equipment to the region. At the same time, Iran has also announced that in the event of any aggression against the country’s territory, a response will be given at the highest level and could have regional dimensions. However, there are reports from both sides of the story that show that there is still hope for resolving the case through diplomacy.
Iran has stated that it is prepared to address Western concerns regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. At the same time, however, there is growing criticism of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s performance. Some analysts argue that by issuing strongly worded reports during periods of negotiation between Tehran and Washington, the Agency has heightened tensions and, in certain instances, provided grounds for potential military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. From this perspective, if the nuclear file is to return to the forefront of serious diplomacy, greater scrutiny of the current IAEA Director General’s approach will be necessary to ensure that the process remains on a diplomatic track and does not drift toward military escalation.
But what is worrying is Rafael Grossi’s entry into this stage of the nuclear issue. He has announced that the IAEA inspectors should travel to Tehran and visit the attacked facilities and answer the unanswered questions. These positions could affect the negotiation process. It seems that Grossi is taking positions that are not in line with the path of dialogue between Iran and the United States and may lead to circumstances that are not favorable to the diplomatic process.
Given Grossi’s track record—particularly the reports issued prior to the 12-day war and the failure to adopt a balanced position regarding US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities—his approach has been met with skepticism. In response, the Iranian Parliament has passed a resolution to limit cooperation with the Agency. In this context, trust-building must be reciprocal. If the Director General does not demonstrate clear impartiality and professional neutrality, doubts about the purpose and outcomes of inspections are likely to intensify.
There are also concerns that a potential visit by Agency inspectors could result in the collection of information that might be misused by the United States or Israel amid the current tensions. Furthermore, if post-inspection reports conclude that outstanding questions remain unresolved, such findings could serve as grounds for increased pressure or further escalatory measures against Iran. For this reason, the IAEA Director General’s involvement at this sensitive stage must be carefully calibrated to avoid derailing the diplomatic process between Tehran and Washington. Ultimately, whether this trajectory leads to a durable agreement or renewed escalation will depend primarily on the political will of the United States and the management of key actors involved in the dispute.
MNA
