As tensions between Israel and Iran flare once more, Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has issued a sobering warning about the potentially catastrophic consequences of military escalation over Tehran’s nuclear program. In remarks published on June 6 by the Financial Times, Grossi cautioned that any Israeli strike on Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities could ignite a broader regional conflict, severely undermining global non-proliferation efforts and risking widespread devastation.

The Israeli government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has made no secret of its readiness to launch preemptive strikes on Iran should diplomatic efforts to restrain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions falter. This stance comes amid renewed US-Iran talks, which seek to revive a nuclear accord similar to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That deal, brokered under the Obama administration, collapsed after US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, triggering Iran to scale up its uranium enrichment beyond previously agreed limits.

Grossi, who has made multiple inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites, underscored the physical and strategic challenges Israel would face in any attempt to neutralize Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. “The most sensitive things are half a mile underground – I have been there many times. To get there you take a spiral tunnel down, down, down,” he explained, implying that any strike would likely require sustained military operations and carry the risk of a prolonged regional war.

Although Iran does not currently possess a nuclear weapon, Grossi confirmed that it has accumulated sufficient fissile material to be “very close” to a nuclear breakout capability. He reiterated that this does not mean Iran is building a bomb but stressed that its ability to do so rapidly if it chose to is a matter of concern for the international community.

Iran, for its part, insists its nuclear program is strictly peaceful. In an interview with Nile News on June 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran remains committed to the religious fatwa issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei forbidding the development of nuclear weapons. “It is unthinkable for us to violate that ban,” Araghchi said. Yet he also made clear that Iran would not accept any deal that deprives it of its domestic enrichment capabilities, stating bluntly: “No enrichment, no deal. No nuclear weapons, we have a deal.”

Israel’s longstanding position is that any enrichment activity by Iran constitutes an existential threat. Tel Aviv argues that the line between peaceful nuclear activity and weapons-grade capability is too thin to be trusted, especially with a regime it views as ideologically hostile to the Jewish state.

In a notable intervention, US President Donald Trump – who famously exited the JCPOA and imposed a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Tehran – has reportedly advised Netanyahu against launching any unilateral strikes that could derail current diplomatic overtures. This reported warning from Trump, known for his hawkish stance on Iran, reflects the gravity of the situation. Even in Republican circles, there appears to be apprehension about spiraling into another Middle Eastern war, particularly as Washington remains entangled in the aftermath of the Gaza conflict and broader instability across the region.

Tensions between Iran and Israel have surged following the outbreak of the Gaza conflict in 2023, during which Iran-backed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas escalated their activities. The shadow war between Israel and Iran, characterized by cyberattacks, sabotage, and proxy clashes, has on two occasions escalated into direct missile exchanges over the past year.

These military escalations risk forming the pretext for a broader confrontation. For Israel, which views Iranian encroachment into Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza as part of a strategic encirclement, the stakes are high. For Iran, enduring economic sanctions and internal unrest have not deterred its regional ambitions or its nuclear posture.

Grossi’s warning comes at a time when the IAEA’s ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities is under increasing strain. Since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has progressively reduced its cooperation with inspectors, deactivating cameras, limiting site access, and accelerating uranium enrichment. While some monitoring continues, transparency has diminished.

International actors, particularly the European Union, Russia, and China – all parties to the original JCPOA – have urged restraint and emphasized diplomacy. However, with each side hardening its stance, the path to compromise appears increasingly narrow.

Grossi emphasized that failure in negotiations would likely mean military action, and that the consequences of such a scenario would be felt far beyond the Middle East. “The Iranian thing has incredible potential to become catastrophic,” he warned. This statement serves as a stark reminder that the international community is edging closer to a tipping point.

The unfolding standoff between Israel and Iran is not merely a bilateral issue but a test of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Should Israel strike Iran, it could set a precedent for preemptive attacks on civilian nuclear programs and destabilize other nuclear hotspots around the world, from North Korea to South Asia.

Moreover, a direct military confrontation could draw in other regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey, while forcing the US into a high-stakes balancing act between supporting an ally and preventing a regional inferno.

As the IAEA’s Rafael Grossi warned, the stakes could not be higher. The West’s struggle to broker a new nuclear deal with Iran is playing out under the looming shadow of war, and any miscalculation could tip the region into chaos. Whether through diplomacy or deterrence, urgent efforts are needed to de-escalate the rhetoric and avoid what could become one of the most consequential conflicts of the 21st century. The time for brinkmanship may be over – but whether the parties involved recognize that remains to be seen.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel