The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said on March 2 local time that no systematic nuclear weapons development plan by Iran has been found. The decision of the United States and Israel to attack Iran is likely based on political considerations.

As the director general of the IAEA, Grossi's statement is an authoritative "denial." It undermines the legitimacy of the military actions by the US and Israel. His statement therefore carries significant weight.

The authority of the professional conclusion is clear: Grossi explicitly stated that "no systematic nuclear weapons development plan by Iran has been found." This directly refutes the justification provided by the US and Israel for the war, which claims an "urgent" Iranian nuclear threat. In fact, it uses an international authoritative report to "cool down" the situation.

The "endorsement" of nuclear facilities: Although Iran claimed that its Natanz nuclear facility was attacked, Grossi said there is currently "no indication" that the nuclear facilities were damaged. This suggests that the attack may have avoided the nuclear material area, reducing the risk of immediate nuclear leakage. At the same time, it indicates that the real purpose of the US and Israel's military action is to overthrow the current Iranian regime, with nuclear weapons being just a pretext.

Grossi's words "the United States and Israel choose to attack Iran due to political considerations." Its political connotation should be —

* Israel's "preemptive strike": Israel does not want to see the US and Iran reaching a diplomatic settlement. Just before the attack, the US and Iran had just ended negotiations and planned a new round of dialogue. Israel is worried that a diplomatic breakthrough would weaken the legitimacy of its attack on Iran, so it chose to act "preemptively."

* The US's "use of force to promote talks" and domestic politics: Although the Trump administration favored negotiations, it shifted to pressure when negotiations failed. Meanwhile, 2026 is a midterm election year in the US, and taking a hard stance on Iran helps consolidate the conservative voting base and divert domestic attention.

* Tactical "political consensus": The IAEA did not find damage to the nuclear facilities, indicating that the US and Israel may have maintained a bottom line in their actions — that is, to strike the Iranian regime's capabilities but avoid triggering a nuclear leak disaster, leaving some room for future diplomacy.

In summary, Grossi's words have stripped the "nuclear emergency" label from the US and Israel's military actions, making it more like a regime change based on geopolitical interests and domestic political calculations.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1858574657900556/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.