 |
| Scott Ritter Slams IAEA Chief Grossi: “His Hands Are Stained with the Blood of Iran's Nuclear Scientists. |
In a fiery and controversial statement, Scott Ritter, former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, has accused Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of complicity in the deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists. Ritter claimed Grossi’s actions have contributed to the exposure and subsequent assassinations of Iranian nuclear personnel, and called for his immediate expulsion from his position.
The bold accusation has sparked debate across diplomatic, nuclear security, and geopolitical circles, especially at a time when global nuclear tensions and Middle East politics remain deeply fragile.
Background: Who Is Scott Ritter?
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. He gained prominence for his outspoken stance against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, arguing that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, a view later vindicated. Since then, Ritter has remained a vocal critic of Western foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.
Ritter is known for his blunt rhetoric and willingness to challenge international institutions and narratives, often aligning with anti-interventionist perspectives.
The Accusation Against Grossi
Ritter’s accusation centers around the alleged role of the IAEA under Grossi’s leadership in facilitating intelligence leaks about Iran’s nuclear program. According to Ritter, the IAEA's publication of detailed reports and access logs allowed foreign intelligence agencies particularly those of the U.S. and Israel to track, identify, and ultimately eliminate key Iranian nuclear scientists.
“These disclosures didn’t occur in a vacuum,” Ritter said in a public forum. “Every time Grossi allows sensitive Iranian nuclear data to be shared under the guise of transparency, it provides targeting information to those who wish to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. His hands are stained with blood.”
Among the prominent scientists targeted in recent years was Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program who was assassinated near Tehran in November 2020, in what Iranian officials claimed was an Israeli operation. While there is no confirmed link between IAEA reports and Fakhrizadeh's assassination, critics like Ritter argue that such international inspections create vulnerabilities that hostile actors exploit.
Iran and the IAEA: A Fractured Relationship
Iran has long had a tense and complex relationship with the IAEA. While the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal brought about temporary cooperation, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and subsequent re-imposition of sanctions led to a breakdown in trust.
Under Grossi’s tenure since 2019, the IAEA has repeatedly pressed Iran for access to undeclared sites and explanations for uranium traces found at various locations. While Grossi maintains that his agency is simply fulfilling its mandate to ensure nuclear non-proliferation, Iranian officials accuse the agency of political bias and acting under Western pressure.
Ritter’s comments appear to echo those Iranian concerns, portraying the IAEA not as a neutral monitoring body, but as an enabler of Western and Israeli espionage.
Calls for Expulsion and the Global Reaction
Ritter went as far as demanding Grossi’s removal from office, saying: “Someone who oversees the death of scientists under the cover of nuclear inspections has no place in international diplomacy. Grossi must be expelled.”
This call, however, has not been met with official responses from either the IAEA or its member states. The IAEA has historically denied any role in enabling attacks on Iranian scientists and has emphasized its commitment to neutrality and confidentiality.
Western analysts have dismissed Ritter’s accusations as inflammatory, arguing that the IAEA’s work is essential for nuclear transparency and global security. They maintain that the agency’s inspection protocols are governed by international treaties and are not intended to serve the interests of any intelligence agency.
Source: X
