The IAEA and OPCW: Watchdogs for Peace or Propagandists for War?

On the 12 of June, the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), issued a damning statement that accused Iran of being in breach of its commitments to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its resolution, adopted during the 1769th session of its board of governors, declared:

Iran has failed to provide the co-operation required under its Safeguards Agreement, impeding Agency verification activities, sanitizing locations, and repeatedly failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations for the presence of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at several undeclared locations in Iran or information on the current location(s) of nuclear material and/or of contaminated equipment, instead stating, inconsistent with the Agency’s findings, that it has declared all nuclear material and activities required under its Safeguards Agreement.

Within hours Israel initiated attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear sites justified by the claim that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb. What turned out to be a 12-day war on Iran had begun and, by the 22nd of June, the US had bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran had launched a strike on a US military base in Qatar.

As soon as the IAEA had issued its statement on the 12 of June, Iran accused it of co-ordinating with Israel and sharing data provides by the IAEA's Mosaic artificial-intelligence platform. As Sarah Bils details, the Mosaic platform was developed by Palantir who also 'power IDF targeting in Gaza and Ukraine's battlefield'. Palantir was also co-founded by Peter Thiel who is closely allied to US president Trump. By June 18th the Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, was having to admit on CNN that there was no 'proof of a systematic weapons program' (Bils, 2025).

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the IAEA is, to all intents and purposes, entangled in propaganda efforts aimed at legitimating military action against Iran in pursuit of what are long-standing policies aimed at obtaining 'regime-change' in Iran. If this does indeed turn out to be the case, it fits a pattern in which manipulated or spun intelligence and co-opted international institutions are used as trigger mechanisms for war. At this juncture, a brief reminder of recent history helps clarify and contextualise what we are seeing today with the IAEA and Iran.

The Case of Syria and Alleged Chemical Weapons Attacks

Between 2011 and 2024, during the Western-backed regime change war against Syria, repeated allegations were made that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons against its civilian population. None of these allegations stand up to scrutiny, yet they have been a central component of a propaganda campaign designed to demonise the Assad government as well as to both maintain and increase Western military actions. At critical junctures Western intelligence-linked actors have been involved in fabrications related to alleged chemical weapons incidents (see here and here).

Throughout this 14-year period the world's chemical watchdog, the United Nations-linked Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), played a central role in maintaining the false narrative. This was achieved through the creation of an ad-hoc mechanism, the Fact Finding Mission (FFM), that actually operates outside the framework of the Chemical Weapons Convention. These FFMs became integrated with covert operations carried out by Western-linked actors, some of whom were involved in the staging of chemical weapons incidents.

In what was a demonstrably corrupt scientific process, matters came to a head during the OPCW FFM sent to investigate the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, 2018. Here investigators involved with the FFM ended up blowing the whistle on how the investigation had been corrupted. Evidence leaked from the OPCW demonstrated that the investigation had been manipulated so as to reach a 'pre-ordained conclusion' blaming the Syrian government. Rather than investigating the corruption within his organisation, the OPCW's Director General, Fernando Arias, chose to smear and then silence his own inspectors.

The Case of Iraq's alleged WMD stockpiles

During the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US and British governments repeatedly accused the Iraqi government of producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These claims were based on intelligence and, at the time, the US faced varying degrees of resistance from the international organisations tasked with assessing Iraqi capabilities. Dr Hans Blix - head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection - resisted US pressure to confirm their intelligence. José Bustani, the first Director General of the OPCW, was forced from his post by John Bolton (Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) because he would not play ball with the US propaganda drive. The US invaded Iraq in March 2003, triggering years of violence and destruction within the country.

As is now well-established, following years of inquiries and leaks, that the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq had been manipulated and, in some cases, likely fabricated to present a seriously misleading impression of Iraqi WMD capabilities. The notorious September Dossier published by the UK government even claimed Saddam could fire missiles against British targets within 45 minutes of an order from Saddam Hussein. None of this was true and nothing was ever found in Iraq.

Moreover, it is now clear that the WMD narrative merely served the purpose of enabling a regime-change war planned since the 1990s which, in turn, was part of a series of conflicts planned and enabled by the 9/11 manufactured war trigger.

History Repeats Itself

There is a clear pattern here in which false claims about the production and use of prohibited weapons - chemical, biological, nuclear - are made by belligerent states seeking to instigate and justify war. In doing so, international organisations, which are supposed to maintain the peace by objectively and fairly monitoring any alleged activities, are either sidelined or co-opted by belligerent nations. Institutions established for peace have become weapons of war.