Nournews: Among 32 countries operating under safeguards agreements with the IAEA without implementing the Additional Protocol, Iran—with 21 nuclear facilities—has had the highest level of interaction. Nearly 500 out of the total 690 inspections conducted in this group of countries have taken place in Iran—accounting for over 70%.
Moreover, of the 224 Design Information Verification (DIV) operations carried out by the Agency in these countries, 144—almost two-thirds—were conducted solely in Iran. Out of 1,890 total inspection days recorded, 1,260 were dedicated to Iran. These figures clearly show that Iran has maintained the most transparent cooperation path with the IAEA, keeping its nuclear facilities open to inspectors despite ongoing obstructions.
Narrative-building vs. verification
Despite this unprecedented level of technical engagement, the IAEA’s published reports and assessments are often biased. This deviation stems not from Iran’s lack of cooperation, but from political pressure applied by Western countries such as the U.S., France, Germany, and notably the Zionist regime. These countries, despite being fully aware of the scope of inspections, have consistently sought to portray Iran’s peaceful nuclear program as a security threat.
Such an approach has compromised the IAEA’s neutrality, turning it into a political tool rather than a purely technical institution. In stark contrast, the Zionist regime—which is not even a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and continues its nuclear activities without any IAEA oversight—has never faced similar levels of inspection or scrutiny.
Discrepancy between oversight costs and goals
According to official data, out of a total of €28 million in extra-budgetary contributions to the IAEA, only about €4.5 million has been allocated to monitoring Iran—a figure that does not align with the intensity of oversight. This financial and operational gap raises questions about the efficiency of the inspections and the motivations behind them.
It appears that a significant portion of these oversight operations serve political and media objectives rather than fulfilling technical mandates. Such a trend not only undermines trust in the IAEA but also jeopardizes constructive cooperation.
Reassessing Iran’s cooperation and the agency’s mission
Given that Iran has demonstrated the most transparent model of cooperation, the main question remains: What more do the IAEA and some Western nations want from Iran? This level of openness deserves trust and respect—not continued pressure and accusations.
It is now time for Iran’s diplomatic apparatus to use media platforms to inform global public opinion of these statistical realities. Alongside this, there must be a demand for reform in the Agency’s reporting mechanisms and an end to political dominance over its operations. If oversight of Iran is to continue, it must be based on mutual respect, honesty, and balance.
NOURNEWS