WANA (May 13) – As diplomatic channels between Iran and the United States begin to reopen, a new wave of security-related allegations against the Islamic Republic has emerged—from claims of “undisclosed secret nuclear sites” to vague reports about “arms shipments to Russia.” For informed observers, this familiar pattern is no coincidence; rather, it signals the re-emergence of the usual players on the scene.

 

A review of the historical dynamics in Iran-West negotiations clearly shows that whenever there is momentum toward diplomatic progress, a specific pattern of leaks and accusations tends to unfold. In the most recent case, an allegation surfaced about the production of the radioactive material tritium at a chemical plant in Semnan, brought forward by the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The claim was quickly dismissed by Western experts, including analysts from the non-governmental Monterey Institute of International Studies. Nevertheless, before these denials, the story made headlines in outlets like Fox News and the Times of Israel.

 

This repetitive cycle has become so familiar that it no longer surprises foreign policy analysts. Instead, it has become a hallmark of the behavioral pattern followed by certain regional and international actors. In particular, Israel, some hardline American circles, and a network of aligned media have repeatedly used allegations to sway the environment around the negotiations.

Israel and the Fear of Peace

Successful diplomacy between Iran and the United States poses a strategic threat to Israel—a country whose geopolitical narrative has long relied on promoting fear of Iran. In this framework, Iran must always be perceived as a “growing threat” to keep Tel Aviv’s credibility engine running.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu’s primary fear isn’t a nuclear-armed Iran, but an Iran that is accepted as a legitimate actor within the global diplomatic order. He knows that if Washington and Tehran sit at the negotiating table and reach an agreement, it will become much harder to portray Iran as a threatening, isolated pariah.

 

For the Israeli government, the prospect of closer ties between Iran and the U.S. would fundamentally alter regional strategic calculations. Peace would erode the foundation of “organized fear” that has for decades underpinned the influence of pro-Israel lobbies in the U.S. and Europe. Netanyahu has openly called a deal with Iran a “historic mistake,” and in an unprecedented move in 2015, even addressed the U.S. Congress to oppose the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA).

 

In this new phase, as indirect talks begin once more, we see the same cycle repeating—this time with allegations that Iran is supplying missiles and drones to Russia for use in the Ukraine war. One report claimed Iran was sending “Fateh missile launch platforms” to Moscow—without providing any direct evidence, though the claim dominated political and media discourse for several days.

 

This tactic of “baseless accusations” not only poisons the diplomatic atmosphere but also undermines global trust in international institutions and scientific verification mechanisms.

 

Are these scenarios genuinely driven by military concerns—or are they designed to reshape the mindset of Western diplomats and officials?

 

The Role of ‘Spoilers’ in the Peace Process

In diplomatic terminology, actors who deliberately try to derail peace efforts are known as “spoilers.” These actors aren’t confined to the Middle East. Within the U.S. itself, there are influential factions fundamentally opposed to any dialogue with Iran.

 

These range from neoconservatives—whose security-military worldview depends on the existence of threats like Iran—to figures left over from the Trump administration, such as Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, and John Bolton, who aggressively portray diplomacy as naïve and misguided. Even some Democrats, aiming to weaken the opposing political camp, are willing to undermine the negotiation process.

 

In Europe, the E3—the UK, France, and Germany—often adopt a dual approach: publicly supporting diplomacy while simultaneously issuing threats like triggering the snapback mechanism or echoing security concerns at critical junctures, complicating negotiations further.

IAEA: At the Crossroads of Science and Politics

The role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has never been more delicate. This body must stay grounded in its technical and legal principles despite mounting media and political pressure. Over the years, Iran has cooperated extensively with the IAEA, and most of the claims made against it have eventually been found to lack credible evidence.

 

Under such conditions, recycled allegations should not be allowed to cloud the IAEA’s objective technical assessments.

 

The Real Danger Goes Beyond Iran and the U.S.

Perhaps the most significant hidden truth behind these attacks is that the real risk isn’t limited to Iran or the U.S.—but rather to regional stability and global security. If diplomacy is once again weakened by unverified claims and deliberate media campaigns, it’s not just Iran’s case that suffers, but the very credibility of diplomacy as a crisis-resolution tool.

 

In a tense global climate—marked by the Ukraine war and the ongoing genocide in Gaza—excluding diplomacy from the equation is playing with fire.

 

As American analyst Thomas Friedman recently pointed out, “Israel no longer enjoys the alliance it once had with the U.S. and isn’t trying to restore it. Yet it still expects Washington to align its policies with Israeli interests.” If the White House continues with this ambivalence, it will not only jeopardize diplomacy with Iran but also its own global standing.

 

The growing number of allegations against Iran is not a new phenomenon. It is part of a broader, well-established political playbook aimed at curbing diplomacy. Though these scenarios have been used repeatedly, they still possess the power—thanks to media influence and lobbying—to derail complex political processes.

 

To move beyond this fog of mistrust, negotiators must remain vigilant, the IAEA must adhere to transparent technical standards, and media outlets and international bodies must act responsibly. Otherwise, the game of “accusation” may one day shift the global trajectory from reconciliation to confrontation—and on that day, the losers won’t be just Iran or the United States.