By José R. Cabañas Rodríguez
On September 14, news broke that the government of Austria, host country of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had denied entry to its territory to Mr. Mahammad Eslami, Vice President of Iran and head of its nuclear agency, under pressure from the United States. Mr. Eslami was to represent Iran at the organization’s annual General Conference.
This action, rather than a supposed success of Trump’s “blackmail diplomacy,” represents a new political victory for Tehran. It suggests that the official’s interventions before the plenary and bilateral contacts could have been as impactful as they were dangerous in the face of Washington’s objectives against the Persian nation.
It was precisely there, at the Austrian headquarters, that the United States began its diplomatic battle in 2002 to try to bring the other members of the organization into line with condemning Iran’s nascent civilian nuclear program.
The State Department tasked an allied foreign ministry with having its representative to the IAEA ignite a debate aimed at securing a condemnation of Tehran and, from there, orchestrating further actions that could have culminated in the United Nations Security Council, as had previously occurred with the campaign against Iraq, under the pretext of “possession of weapons of mass destruction.”
In the midst of a debate dedicated to cooperation on nuclear issues and other matters, the ally, who was also English-speaking and had no further input beyond the text dictated from its capital, interrupted the session with an extremely aggressive speech against Iran, something unheard of in its country’s recent diplomatic practice.
The reaction of everyone present, except for the US representative, was one of astonishment and even derision. The then Director General of the IAEA, Dr. Mohammed el-Baradei, interrupted the diplomat-kamikaze in astonishment and politely asked him to present his views at the end of the agenda, under other matters, as it was neither planned nor agreed to discuss such topics in the plenary session.
That was merely the first salvo in a battle that would extend for the next 24 years to the present day, in which the United States has attempted to isolate Tehran and establish an important precedent that would allow it to escalate its confrontation with the Islamic Revolution.
Just a year earlier, the United States had used the attack on the Twin Towers as an excuse to launch a supposed campaign against international terrorism, which, according to its news outlets, was solely of Islamic origin and located exclusively in the Middle East. But after the “regime change” operation in Iraq was complete and US troops occupied every inch of the country, Washington’s representative (they sent a low-ranking official) had to tell the IAEA Board of Governors in 2002 that they had found no trace of weapons of mass destruction in the country that had been attacked at the cost of millions of lives.
This reality did not prevent George W. Bush’s diplomatic apparatus, headed by a former four-star general, from continuing its crusade against Tehran, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to Tel Aviv’s nuclear advances, which didn’t even acknowledge the IAEA’s oversight of the issue.
As the United States fueled the firestorm against Iran in the international press and elsewhere, Iranian diplomacy developed astute initiatives to explain its nuclear program as having peaceful purposes. It brought its most distinguished politicians and eminent scientists to Vienna and other capitals to provide details of its energy goals, both from oil and gas, and from nuclear power.
Amid this power struggle, hysteria grew in Washington over the lack of condemnatory results against what could have been its next target for military attack. Consequently, the US multilateral mission was instructed to strike itself and move forward with a draft resolution that explicitly mentioned the potential military applications of Iran’s nascent nuclear program.
Despite relentless pressure from State Department representatives, numerous invitations to dinner or coffee with their counterparts, and ambushes in elevators and hallways at IAEA headquarters, this barrage of American lies failed to generate interest among the majority.
In the multilateral sphere, when the United States doesn’t achieve its objectives by pressuring member countries, it often shifts its focus to the directors and international officials of the organization in question. At that time, Washington had an additional advantage, as el-Baradei’s second-in-command was, in fact, a U.S. official.
Then, a rather unusual “session” was convened. A group of countries considered “key” within the Board of Governors were summoned off the record by the IAEA Secretariat for an informal meeting early Saturday morning at the organization’s offices. Cuba was among those present.
The only item on the unwritten agenda was, initially, to try to pressure those present and, later, to ascertain whether the paragraph in the draft resolution, cooked up in Washington, that explicitly addressed the “military use of the Iranian nuclear project” had any future.
Within minutes, the American failure became evident; the vast majority of those gathered rejected the American onslaught. Faced with this scenario, Mohammed el-Baradei politely addressed the representative of the aggressor, saying, “Call Bolton and explain what has happened here,” to which the defeated son of the United States replied, “You call him, because he won’t answer my calls anymore.”
This Bolton was John Robert, then Under Secretary of State for (supposed) Arms Control and International (In)security Affairs, who had been at the forefront of the previous campaign against Iraq, who drafted much of the plan being implemented against Iran, and who, back in 2002, had launched the headline claiming that Cuba’s development in the field of biotechnology pursued biological warfare objectives. He was so unlucky then that the rebuttal to his claim against Cuba came from none other than former President Jimmy Carter, who was visiting Havana at the time.
This was the same Bolton who, years later, would be Donald Trump’s (In)security Advisor from 2018 to 2019, the architect of the Guaidó Plan and the Lima Group against Venezuela, and who, around 2026, was taken to court by his former boss, accused of mishandling classified information.
It goes without saying that John Robert ended the career of his country’s then-permanent representative in Vienna, just as he had done with the CIA analyst who, through official Washington channels, demonstrated that the accusation against Cuba was absurd.
But the ideologues who opposed Iran at the time were not willing to give up and continued their efforts within the IAEA.
Such was the pressure they exerted that they achieved an objective entirely contrary to their interests: the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) chapter in Vienna. For years, there had been a tradition at this multilateral headquarters whereby major decisions were made by consensus, avoiding voting. While this practice could delay achieving concrete results on each issue, it was also considered to make the functioning of the international organizations based there more stable.
Led by the so-called Troika, composed of representatives from the countries that had previously held the presidency of the movement, those currently holding the position, or those slated to do so in the future (Algeria, South Africa, and Cuba), this movement, with its broad representation on the Board of Governors, forced votes that delayed the realization of Washington’s objectives.
In this context, Iranian diplomacy launched an even bolder initiative: it invited the NAM Troika to visit the main facilities that Iran’s nuclear program already possessed at that time. They organized an extensive program for these representatives, showcasing not only the non-military purpose of their main technologies but also the preparation and pride of the young Iranian scientists, upon whom rested a significant portion of the responsibility for ensuring that the proper use of nuclear energy would propel their country to a new level of development. Years later, it became known how several of these scientists were killed in Israeli or mercenary incursions, either on their own territory or abroad.
Some of the facilities visited were targeted in the Israeli and US attacks of September 2025.
The same chapter of the Non-Aligned Movement in Vienna heard about the questions surrounding a supposed Libyan nuclear program, which was practically nonexistent, and how the nation’s leaders yielded to pressure from third parties to eliminate any possibility of development in that area (2003), until finally its vast territory was invaded and occupied in 2011.
Iranian leaders, however, understood that the US confrontation was irreversible and that they had to prepare for intense years of diplomatic and, eventually, military confrontation.
Accessing the public information generated by the IAEA reveals a series of initiatives that have challenged the Iranian nuclear program over the past 24 years, with the same intensity with which silence has been maintained regarding the proliferation of weapons for military purposes by nations that have received Washington’s blessing.
Only under the Barack Obama administration was an agreement reached (2015) that established certain limits for the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions that restricted the nation’s development and living standards. This agreement involved the US government, Iran, the IAEA, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the European Union.
Paradoxically, the agreement was reached in the same year that diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States were reestablished.
Donald Trump’s rise to power in 2017, and his reelection in 2024, further diminished the chances of a peaceful solution to this issue. The military aggression by Washington and Tel Aviv against Iran has once again used the argument of the Iranian nuclear program to try to reshape the geopolitical map of the Middle East, influence international oil trade, and support Zionist expansionist goals.
Despite repeated US efforts to force Iran to the negotiating table for an unacceptable peace, Tehran has refused to submit. Its response has exponentially increased the cost of the US military adventure, fuel prices have skyrocketed, and Trump is increasingly unable to define the term “victory.” The true number of US casualties and the extent of the damage to its military infrastructure in the Middle East remain unknown.
Even the diplomatic skirmish in Vienna did not conclude as Washington had hoped. Barely 24 hours after obstructing the Iranian dignitary’s visit to Vienna, the plenary session of the IAEA General Conference elected Permanent Representative Reza Najafi by a wide margin to the event’s General Committee. This committee is responsible for reviewing the meeting’s agenda, program of sessions, and participants’ credentials.
In short, if you don’t want soup, you get two bowls. Second conclusion: there will always be someone who will be intimidated, but most people know where the danger lies.
Will the current US Permanent Representative to the IAEA retain his position?
Have you seen this news published in the so-called Western press?
