In a firm rebuttal to what it calls a “media-political campaign,” Iran has accused American nuclear analyst David Albright of distorting facts and misrepresenting the country’s nuclear activities for political ends. Albright, a former physicist and founder of the Washington-based ISIS Institute, has made several high-profile claims about Iran’s nuclear facilities, suggesting the country is on a path toward developing nuclear weapons. Iranian officials, however, maintain that the program remains entirely peaceful and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s former deputy foreign minister, referenced Iran’s history of cooperation with the IAEA, particularly the 2015 resolution of the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) file. He criticized the recent wave of accusations as “political and biased,” warning that repeating the pressure tactics of 2005 could provoke similar defensive responses from Tehran, such as advancing uranium enrichment capabilities.
“These baseless accusations are deliberate attempts to create a crisis,” Araghchi said, attributing the campaign to “irresponsible players with political motivations.”
David Albright’s recent commentary on social media, particularly his posts on the X platform (formerly Twitter), has reignited tensions. On May 31, 2025, Albright cited an IAEA report to claim that Iran was failing to comply with its Safeguards obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In another post dated June 5, he asserted that Iran could produce material for nuclear weapons in a short time using its facilities at Fordow and Natanz—claims Tehran has categorically rejected.
Iranian legal expert Reza Nasri responded by criticizing Albright’s alleged double standards, noting his silence on Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, which operates outside the NPT framework. Nasri accused Albright of advancing a politically skewed narrative that favors Israel and undermines global non-proliferation efforts.
Iranian analysts further argue that Albright, once considered a neutral voice, has shifted toward politicized interpretations that align with neoconservative think tanks such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Albright’s past reports, including his 2012 claims about activities at Iran’s Parchin site, have drawn criticism for lacking verifiable evidence and for heightening diplomatic tensions.
Mohammad Sahimi, a scholar specializing in nuclear issues, has also denounced Albright’s analyses as “exaggerated” and lacking solid foundation. In a 2013 article, Sahimi wrote that Albright’s work often magnifies unverified threats, aiding Western interventionist narratives.
International voices have echoed this criticism. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter described Albright as “a blogger with a good budget,” accusing him of amplifying third-party information to support politically charged media narratives.
Prominent historian Avi Shlaim, a professor at Oxford University and former Israeli military officer, highlighted what he termed Israel’s “double standards” in nuclear policy. Shlaim contrasted Iran’s compliance with the NPT and willingness to submit to IAEA inspections with Israel’s refusal to sign the treaty or allow international oversight. “Iran has never attacked its neighbors,” he noted, “but Israel has done so repeatedly.”
Despite mounting pressure, Tehran insists its nuclear activities remain transparent and peaceful. “The accusations by individuals such as David Albright are part of a broader campaign to deny Iran its legal enrichment rights,” an official statement said, “while countries like Israel are shielded from international accountability.”
As diplomatic tensions escalate, Iran continues to assert its commitment to the NPT and urges the international community to distinguish between technical evaluations and politically driven narratives.
avash.news