Summary

Rafael Grossi has spent the past six years at the centre of the world’s most dangerous nuclear standoffs – and now he wants the world’s most demanding diplomatic job. The 65-year-old Argentine has led the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, since 2019. In that time, he has navigated the decline of the Iran nuclear deal, negotiated ceasefires between Russia and Ukraine, and has found himself at the centre of a war that is redrawing the politics of nuclear risk, energy and global trade. This has led to threats from Iranian officials and Austrian intelligence has provided him with round-the-clock protection. He has pressed on regardless, maintaining inspectors inside Iran and contact with all sides. It is precisely this record of showing up and talking to everyone that he is now putting forward as his qualification for the biggest job in multilateral diplomacy. Late last year, Argentina officially nominated Grossi to succeed António Guterres as UN secretary-general for the 2027-2031 term. Dialogue Earth sat down with him last week in Vienna at IAEA’s headquarters to talk about shaking hands with Vladimir Putin, depoliticising the energy challenge, and why energy security, climate diplomacy and nuclear politics can no longer be kept in separate boxes. The interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Dialogue Earth: Is the world closer to a nuclear incident? Rafael Grossi: This conflict has its trigger in the questions around Iran’s nuclear program, which has been a concern for more than two decades. The 2015 JCPOA agreement – a framework to limit Iran’s nuclear activities – was abandoned by US President Trump in his first term, opening a period of growing tension. Last June, the so-called 12 day war became the first direct military confrontation between the United States and Iran, targeting facilities related to uranium enrichment, which could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. “ Today, with the fraying of alliance guarantees, important countries in the West and in Asia are quietly asking whether they need their own nuclear deterrent. Imagine a world where instead of nine or ten nuclear-armed states you have 25 or 32. Rafael Mariano, director general, International Atomic Energy Agency Now, a few months on, we are in the midst of a new conflict with a wider scope – destruction of energy infrastructure, political and spiritual leaders targeted, and continued pressure on nuclear sites. What concerns me most is that this has paradoxically enhanced the sentiment that nuclear weapons are a security guarantee. Some speculate that had Iran had nuclear weapons, this would never have happened. That logic is spreading to other countries around the world, and that is deeply worrying. There is also the risk of a nuclear accident – not from weapons, but from a nuclear facility being struck and releasing radioactive material, as happened in Chernobyl last year. Would you be doing anything differently if you were already UN secretary-general? One fundamental gap I see in the UN is the absence of the secretary-general from the resolution of major international conflicts: Iran, Gaza, India-Pakistan, Yemen, South Sudan. In all of them, the secretary-general is not present as interlocutor or mediator. My experience at the IAEA allowed me to establish platforms of dialogue with Russia’s President Putin, Ukraine’s President Zelensky, the Iranian government, Israel, and the United States. That approach – direct, persistent engagement – is what the secretary-general should be doing. Is that capacity to create dialogue part of your suitability for the role? I fervently believe in the capacity of the human factor to change things. Empathy, commitment, passion, knowledge of history and strategy; these matter enormously. We Argentines are the result of a melting pot. There are no hard distinctions. That may help. Some have criticised me for not condemning certain leaders more forcefully. But if I open a conversation by calling someone a war criminal, I become useless as a peacemaker. The first time I went to Russia to speak with President Putin was in 2022. Some told me not to go. I said: if I don’t talk to him, to whom should I talk? When someone asks how I can shake hands with that person, I say: you must. It is for others to judge. If you are in the business of peace, you must talk to those who are at war. We live in a culture of cancellation, where people who disagree refuse to speak. The diplomat’s job is to bring them together. Here at the IAEA, we are deployed at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, on the frontline between Ukrainian and Russian forces. I have been there several times. We have negotiated six ceasefire agreements between Russia and Ukraine to carry out critical repairs. To negotiate a ceasefire, you must sit down with very difficult military commanders. Is the Iran conflict an opportunity to make the case for renewables as energy security, not just a climate issue? Energy transition is easier said than done. Economic structures and supply chains in many countries are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. I remember a conversation with Prime Minister Modi, who described how many hundreds of millions of people in India work in the coal sector. When you are responsible for 1.4 billion people, shutting down coal overnight is not so simple. The 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement is a victim of many things: the inherent difficulty of transition, and now the volatility created by this conflict. But the overall direction is not wrong, and we are seeing results. The nuclear renaissance is one of them, driven in large part by the energy security debate. Countries across Central and Eastern Europe like Czechia, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary are doubling down on nuclear. They need to reduce dependence on gas, they need baseload power, and renewables alone are not enough. Renewables are good, but they are inherently intermittent. Baseload will be gas, or it will be nuclear. If elected, how would you approach President Trump on the Paris Agreement? I will be very honest: I don’t think I could convince him. He has a clear view. But there are positive things happening in the United States, particularly the expansion of nuclear power, which will indirectly mitigate some of the effects of more fossil fuel use, and which he has been championing. The previous absolute dogmatism about 100 per cent renewables was not scientifically or technologically viable. Being a diplomat, I believe in the middle course. Given the massive energy drain of AI, do you see a nuclear-AI alliance as a global blueprint? Are you concerned about AI in our conflicts? I am an AI optimist. Like any technology, it may have negative uses, but I do not subscribe to AI catastrophism. The nexus between AI and nuclear is very strong. I hosted a conference in Vienna attended by Google, Meta and OpenAI, all discussing this intersection. Where I do have concerns is autonomous weapons and systems where a human is not in the loop. But that can be addressed with sound policy. AI is fundamentally a force for good. Do the UN Security Council’s structures need reform? Security Council reform is driven by member states, with varying expectations. Some countries want permanent seats, others prefer a regional approach. But the problems in the Security Council are derived from politics, not from institutional structure. It remains indispensable: all five permanent members are nuclear weapon states, and essential conversations happen there. The Gaza plan was approved with only two abstentions. Agreements are still possible. What is missing is an active secretary-general. History shows what is possible. The secretary-general is not going to be a lay saint performing miracles, but the role can be far more effective than it currently is. As a career Argentine diplomat, what would you offer Latin America and the Global South, given that no Global South country holds a permanent Security Council seat? The UN needs less declaratory posturing and more pragmatic engagement, in peace, in development, in human rights. On development specifically, the UN’s machinery needs restructuring to be more agile, working hand in hand with the World Bank and multilateral development banks. I have cultivated those relationships closely at the IAEA. There is too often a schizophrenic approach. Countries say one thing in New York and something different in Washington. I believe in a cooperative approach: work with the institutions we have, make them function better. Latin America is at a moment of real opportunity with food production, energy, minerals, rare earths. More importantly, it is a zone of peace. Countries here are not spending heavily on defence. That is a tremendous advantage and frees up resources that could go to education, economic growth and investment. I am fundamentally optimistic, and I think having a secretary-general from the region would not be a bad thing. Some say the mathematics don’t add up for net zero without nuclear, while other environmentalists argue the money is better spent on faster-deploying renewables. What do you think? Cost should never be the sole driver of energy decisions. What countries need are integrated, intelligent energy mixes. No serious energy planner believes in a matrix built on a single source. Countries with abundant hydro do not necessarily need nuclear. Japan, with its limited space and large economy, does. The right mix depends on context, not ideology. There has been a false narrative about nuclear safety [from environmentalists]. In 70 years of commercial exploitation, there have been two serious accidents. By any insurance metric, that is an excellent record. Nuclear mortality rates rank lower than renewables in some analyses. As for nuclear waste, all the spent fuel from 100 US reactors over 70 years would fit inside a football stadium. The image of glowing, unmanageable waste is wrong. Small modular reactors are now multiplying the opportunities further. What would you reform structurally about the UN Secretariat on climate and environment? Can climate governance succeed without deeper China-US cooperation? We have too many UN bodies dealing with climate – seven or eight – with sometimes contradictory advice and normative approaches. Some streamlining is needed. China and the United States, paradoxically, at the climate summits they tend not to disagree as much as you might expect. They compete, but there are areas of convergence. What we need is to depoliticise the energy discussion. That remains the hardest challenge. What is the single biggest global risk in the next decade? Two things stand out on my dashboard. The first is nuclear weapons proliferation. Today, with the fraying of alliance guarantees, important countries in the West and in Asia are quietly asking whether they need their own nuclear deterrent. Imagine a world where instead of nine or ten nuclear-armed states you have 25 or 32. That is technologically possible. In such a world, the risk of a conventional conflict escalating to a nuclear exchange becomes very real. The second is poverty mitigation. Entire regions of the world, like the Sahel which borders the Sahara Desert, are derelict. These become epicentres of terrorism and instability, apart from the incredibly inhumane conditions in which millions still live without potable water, without electricity. These are factors that have a big impact on international peace and security. This article was originally published on Dialogue Earth under a Creative Commons licence.