President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) criticized, during the opening of the BRICS summit, on Sunday (6) in Rio de Janeiro, the UN International Energy Agency (AIEA), which was responsible for denouncing violations, secret nuclear tests and highly enriched uranium storage by Iran.
The Brazilian agent stated that the entity has been instrumentalized, resulting in the loss of the “reputation of a fundamental body for peace”.
At the end of May, the IAEA was responsible for the publication of a report that directly accused the Iranians of having about 400 kg of 60% purity enriched uranium – which, according to experts, may be sufficient for the production of 10 nuclear weapons if the material were even more enriched and transformed for military use.
In the report, the entity demonstrated “great concern” and stated that Iran’s cooperation was “less than satisfactory.” It was the first time in almost 20 years that the AIEA stated that the government violated its obligations of nuclear non -proliferation.
After the complaints filed by the agency, the Islamic Republic doubled the bet, approving retaliation measures to the agency and announced a new uranium enrichment center.
“In response to the resolution of the AIEA governors, the head of the Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency issued the necessary orders to establish a new enrichment center in a safe place and replace the first -generation machines at the Fordow enrichment center with six -generation advanced machines,” Iranian authorities said in a statement released on June 12.
After the statement, Israel made an attack, classified as “preventive” against Iran, shot the nuclear Islamic program, as well as other military facilities, in operation called the nation of the lions. It was the beginning of a war that extended for 12 days, and ended after an agreement mediated by US President Donald Trump.
In the attacks in question, the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu – who was once a critic of AIEA – was backed by the agency’s recent reports and said the Israeli attack aimed to prevent a “nuclear holocaust.”
“They were working on a secret plan to arm the uranium, they were marching very quickly, they would reach a test device and possibly an initial device [arma nuclear inicial] Within months, and certainly less than a year, “Netanyahu said in an interview with Fox News on June 15.
After the war, Iran ended its “cooperation” with the agency. According to the approved legislation, AIEA inspectors were prevented from entering the country unless they guaranteed the safety of the nuclear facilities of the “peaceful nuclear activities” of the regime. And this entry would be subject to the “approval of the Iran’s Supreme National Security Council”, as informed by Iranian official TV station Press TV.
In the 12 -day war, Israel destroyed military, atomic and energy facilities, killing at least 30 senior military commanders and 11 nuclear scientists. Iran responded with missile bombing waves in Israeli civil and military. At least 935 people were killed in the conflict, including 66 children.
In his discourse at Brics, Lula denounced the “violations of the territorial integrity of Iran.”
Still on Israel, the Brazilian agent condemned the “genocide practiced by Israel in Gaza and the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians” and accused Netanyahu’s government of using hunger “as a weapon of war.”
The president also condemned the “terrorist actions perpetrated by Hamas” when members of the group invaded Israeli territory by heaven, earth and sea, killing more than 1000 people and kidnapped over 200, on October 7, 2023.
“The solution of this conflict will only be possible with the end of the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, within the borders of 1967.”
Middle East specialist teacher points out “completely disconnected from reality” speech “
A Gazeta do Povo He talked to Uruguayan Daniel Osowicki, professor and master in history and specialist in Middle East, who said that in recent years, AIEA has had a “fundamental role in supervising the Iranian nuclear program.”
For him, the purpose of Lula’s speech is “to transfer responsibility for the preventive attack to Iran to the United Nations”, something that is “completely disconnected from reality.”
“It is evident that the presence of Iran in the BRICS summit led the Brazilian agent to demonstrate certain alignments with the official discourse of the Iranian Shiite theocratic dictatorship,” said the professor.
He explains that AIAE “has been the only international organism authorized to inspect and verify Iran’s nuclear activities, based on the Nuclear Non -Proliferation Treaty (TNP) and the Global Joint Action Plan (JCPOA).”
“Despite tensions, the agency continues to publish detailed reports on the degree of uranium enrichment in Iran – including levels close to 90%, the limit for use in nuclear weapons,” says Osowicki.
He points out that Lula’s speech can bring distrust to Brazilian diplomacy.
“By publicly questioning AIEA’s legitimacy during his opening speech at the BRICS summit, Lula can place Brazil in a position of loss of confidence on the part of other international organizations,” says the professor.
For him, in doubt the impartiality in the global scenario of a “agency worldwide recognized within the nuclear control system weakens its credibility – and, consequently, that of those who support their mandate.”
“Governments and powers that support the IAEA can see Brazil as a less reliable partner on nuclear topics, which would reduce its influence on international forums.”
He adds by pointing out that the IAEA is not an agency that deals exclusively with nuclear themes, and that, the removal of Brazil, can ultimately harm the country in essential sectors.
“AIAE not only oversees: it also provides technical assistance in areas such as civil nuclear energy, medicine, agriculture, among others. If Brazil distances itself, it may lose access to projects and financing facilitated by the agency, which would affect sensitive sectors such as health and environment.”
“Brazil is a signatory to TNP and a traditional advocate of a world free of nuclear weapons. By weakening the role of AIEA, doubts arise about the effectiveness of the non -proliferation regime in monitoring national programs. This could be interpreted as a removal from the posture of commitment to nuclear transparency.”
