↓
 
Home » The UN’s role in Israel’s attack on Iran

The UN’s role in Israel’s attack on Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t think much of this author’s observations on Trump, and I think he somewhat overstates the influence of the UN in the matter, but the following part is nevertheless intriguing and I would guess mainly correct:

One person is responsible for Israel’s attack on Iran: Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Argentine director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, since December 2019. …

From the start, Grossi’s investigations in Iran focused on the country’s vast effort to “enrich” uranium, to increase the proportion of radioactive U-235. Some energy reactors can operate with zero enrichment by using heavy water moderators, while others work very well with 3-4% enrichment, or a maximum of 5% of U-235.

Because the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium is extremely expensive, only a handful of the 31 countries that operate nuclear reactors have ever tried it themselves. Most simply buy it from the cheapest source, often Russia as well France, the UK and Kazakhstan.

But Iran was adding more and more centrifuges in increasingly vast facilities at enormous expense, which made no sense at all if the aim was to generate energy. The IAEA has inspectors who dutifully investigate nuclear installations — or rather those voluntarily shown to them. But they can only ask to visit nuclear installations that show up in freely available satellite photography. There was one in Iran that Grossi wanted to visit starting very early in his tenure: Parchin, some 15 miles south-east of Tehran. But his requests were persistently refused. Previous IAEA chiefs would have moved on to other things, but for Grossi it was the turning point: he had found the place where Iran was preparing to shape uranium and assemble its nuclear weapons.

From then on, his reports made it increasingly clear that Iran’s enormous expenditures, on some of the largest nuclear installations in the world, meant that it was after nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

The premise of the article is that this caused Israel to act. But I have a sneaking suspicion Israel knew it before Grossi did. However, I still find it of interest that the IAEA recently came out publicly this past Thursday with the news that Iran was going nuclear:

The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s board of governors on Thursday formally found that Iran isn’t complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years, a move that could lead to further tensions and set in motion an effort to restore United Nations sanctions on Tehran later this year. …

According to the draft resolution, “Iran’s many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran … constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.”

That article was written on Thursday, before Israel’s war on Iran began.

Comments

The UN’s role in Israel’s attack on Iran — 25 Comments

  1. I find it more and more difficult to believe anything Iran says about their nuclear program. Put simply, they lie about their intentions and their progress, as time has told.

    It has been pretty well established that they had surpassed the le el of enrichment necessary for generating electricity. On top of the fact that they produce plenty of oil and thus could generate electricity with that. And the fact that producing the nuclear materials needed for electricity generation is more expensive than buying it.

    Their story just does not hold up.

  2. I remember from larry collins roman a clef about kaddafis nuclear program the fifth horseman the villains considered the iaea a joke they were able easily obtain the plutonium needed from a french reactor the same type chirac sold iraq the osirak one

    The chinese and the soviets were able to do the same with yong byon in North Korea

    The french and germans provided the precursors to the shah as they would do the baathists

    The libyans were nearly able to get away with it if not for the cia intercept

  3. I think sdferr called it a few days ago.

    That the IAEA only spoke up as a CYA move, just before the Israelis first counterattacked.

    sdferr, apologies if I have paraphrased you inaccurately.

    @neo: But I have a sneaking suspicion Israel knew it before Grossi [head of the IAEI] did.

    Exactly. Israel’s intel has shown itself to be the best in the world when it comes to Iran.

  4. BHO and all the elite enablers of Iran are completely shocked that Iran was prepared to pay any price for a working device(s).

    Best laid plans go agley or go kaboom.

  5. Nope huxley, it wasn’t me, since I don’t recall writing anything recently about the IAEA. Neither, unfortunately, can I recall to whom we owe our thanks for bringing it up — but I do agree with you that someone here did. Let them step forth!

  6. –“‘Once in a lifetime opportunity’: US urged to assist Israel ‘eliminate’ Iran’s nuclear program”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3vgzG9vUqA

    So @SkyNewsAustralia argues.

    Sure, but IMO what SkyNews misses is that the US can do so at any moment.

    Trump still prefers, if possible, forcing Iran to the diplomatic table. Long-term, it guarantees oversight of Iran WRT nuclear weapons forever afterward.

    It would also totally humiliate the mullahs and help free the Iranians from the mullahs.

    In the meantime Israel can progressively degrade Iran’s ballistic missiles, its nuclear facilities, its oil production, its economy, and its government, leaving Iran a complete shell of its 2023 self.

    Trump isn’t in a hurry. As he said, “Sometimes [countries] have to fight it out.” The longer that goes on, the further Iran’s future is depleted.

    If Iran still doesn’t say uncle, send in the Stealths.

    –The Rolling Stones, “Time Is On My Side” (1964)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEj8lUx0gwY

  8. That sounds about right, re Gringo

    Luttvak is usually pretty sharp, of course because of narratives like the fatwa that wasnt the 2007 NIE that malley and co exploited which led to the jizda they call the iran deal (ransom in arabic) the oil revenue they were allowed to tap, all of this led to this point

    I dont recall too many statements from grossi except for this one

  9. While most of the usual suspects have issued perfunctory condmenations of Israel (including Arab countries who behind closed doors are probably delighted at what Israel is doing) I would say the overall international reaction to Israel’s attacks on Iran so far is muted. Compare to when Israel took out Saddam’s reactor at Osirak, even the US under Reagan voted for a UN resolution against Israel. It might not be just the US and Israel who are sick of the IRI regime.

  10. The premise of the article is that this caused Israel to act

    Neo, I don’t necessarily agree. Ed Luttwak is smart, has contacts and some influence, and remains our premier strategist. In his way he is as independent as Codavila was, but with a hands-on experience of war and conflict.

    He’s aware that Israel has to navigate the hostile international environment, it is not truly free to defend its interests without a certain balance of support abroad. Grossi’s reports and conclusions carried a great deal of weight in creating a permission environment for Israel to act as it must, and now has acted.

  11. I am far from sophisticated in this area, but even to me it seemed that, once the IAEA quit weaseling and openly warned of an imminent Iranian nuke, it was a signal that the international powers that be had officially given up on the pretense that containment was working. Israel seems to have sewn this one up diplomatically in a masterful way. Not even Russia or China was going to help Iran this time.

    Iran was left with only a few crazed American leftists in its camp.

  12. Luttwak’s post was recommended by Barry yesterday.
    Barry Meislin on June 15, 2025 at 9:58 am said:

    He made some good points, even if the headline is a clickbait teaser.
    NO ONE is nailing all of the facts or possibilities.
    They are too vast, too fluid, and too much is still under wraps.
    Mossad has a ferociously closed-mouth operation.

  13. I would say it looks more than coincidental that Grossi’s statement came so soon before the Israeli attack. Which way the arrow of cause and effect points is another question.

  14. obviously the institute, as it dubs itself, had figured out what was up, long before
    Grossi got his fancy loafers on, that morning, you don’t put together drone kits that quickly, nor do you smuggle forward air controllers to paint the targets,

    the fordow facility, which is the one in controversy, that JE DYer (a former naval intel officer) was identified not by the IAEA, but by the NCRI, the political arm of the Peoples Mujahadeen, the former? marxist insurgent to the Shah, and subsequently fell out with the Ayatollah, because he doesn’t like Marxists either (they should have gotten the memo)because of the former relationship plus a certain cultish behavior among some leadership figures,they have a mixed record, they do have a certain presence abroad specially in France,
    and in the States, and have access to some intelligence among dissident elements,

  15. I’ve heard it speculated that the IAEA has been such a patsy for Iran, Iran took their Thursday announcement as an opportunity to keep dragging out negotiations and to receive IAEA support in that regard. So, if Israel was able to place the IAEA announcement on the calendar, it was a master stroke of deception. Nobody expects the UN to help soften Iran for an Israeli attack, right?

  16. Wendy said, “Iran was left with only a few crazed American leftists in its camp.” Sadly, there are quite a few allegedly on “the right” who seem to hold similar views. Notably Tucker Carlson, who I used to find an interesting commentator, but who now is heading up the contingent who not only don’t want the USA to become embroiled in yet another land war “for democracy,” but is overtly siding with Iran against Israel. Like Carlson, I was always against American involvement in the Russo-Ukraine War because we did not have a significant national interest in siding with the most corrupt country in Europe. But Israel-Iran is a different matter. Iran has, for the past 45 years announced its intention to destroy both Israel and the USA. I accept Iranian hostility as a fact and thus have no opposition to assisting Israel in its fight to the finish with Iran. By assisting, I do not mean sending troops to invade, but it does not appear that Israel has any intention of fighting a land war with Iran, so that’s simply not a possibility. However, I am all for the utter destruction of any Iranian nuclear facilities and if that also results in the elimination of the mullahs and their islamic revolutonary cohort, that’s a plus.

  17. huxley

    I think sdferr called it a few days ago.
    That the IAEA only spoke up as a CYA move, just before the Israelis first counterattacked.

    sdferr: not I. huxley or quixote: Gringo?

    Here is what I stated on Thursday night. Something’s afoot in the Middle East

    I suspect that the UN “revealing” now that Iran has been violating nuclear norms is to further delay things—think of the time involved in getting a UN inspection going— and give Iran more time to move things. One reason for Israel’s striking now is to insure Iran will have no more time to move nuclear things around. On the other hand, Iran may have already moved a lot of nuclear stuff.

    A UN inspection of Iran will work as well as the UN did in keeping southern Lebanon disarmed.

    My viewpoint was not that IAEA’s suddenly revealing that Iran was violating norms was a CYA, but that its sudden revelation was to gum up any potential Israeli attack on Iran—don’t attack, but inspect.

    That is, the IAEA statement was done to cover for Iran, in the realization that Israel was going to attack anyway—so stop Israel’s attack with INSPECTIONS. Could the US have vetoed a Security Council resolution for INSPECTIONS? From the linked article on IAEA vs. Iran, it looks like the Argentine head of IAEA wasn’t trying to cover for Iran, given his attempts to further inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities. So count me mistaken. It now looks more like a CYA–we tried to inspect but couldn’t. Which could be interpreted as more self-defense—the problems of dealing with shyster Iran—than CYA.

  21. Is the IAEA much more than a cleaned up version of the UN supporting Gaza and Hamas? If you can’t or won’t strong arm a nation that does not allow full inspections anytime/ anywhere, is anyone really fooling anyone else?

    Two to 6 months from now, what might we see? If Iranians do not kick their Islamic/ Shite belief system (and related regime leadership) to the curb, they don’t need advanced weapons to continue terrorist actions across the globe. I gather their cyber capability is nothing to sneeze at.

    But if they did convert or revert to “Persia” (possibly re-taking up Zoroasterism?), or become a “civilized” nation again, THEN Turkey and Saudi Arabia might have something to worry about as candidates for “leading” the Middle East.

  22. The IAEA has been reporting on Iranian efforts to enrich uranium for a bomb for a long time. They have been CYA in not saying that the Iranians INTENDED to build a bomb but have sent clear signals they were fudging the numbers and blocking inspections.

    BTW, the IAEA is NOT part of the United Nations organization. It is independent of the UN, set up mainly to flag violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to provide technical support for civilian nuclear programs.

  25. I had the dates somewhat off, it was in this interval that dorseys twitter took it upon itself to deplatform several accounts relating to peaceful protests in iran including one they pretended was a ghost account for mek, this is the precursor to other events we saw in the future

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑