...It runs predictive analytics—assessing not just what a state has done, but what it might do—based on behavioural models derived from counterterrorism doctrine. This feature was designed for battlefield targeting, not legal compliance.
That distinction has blurred. Palantir’s software played a central role in identifying suspected Iranian facilities at Turquzabad and Marivan—sites later cited in both UN deliberations and Israeli public accusations. These assessments, derived from software designed for warzones, were presented by a neutral UN body as hard intelligence. Some nuclear experts raised alarms. “Predictive AI and safeguards don’t mix,” a former senior IAEA analyst said in 2023. “It turns monitoring into pretext.”
The problem? Mosaic’s lineage screams bias. Funded by In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture arm, Palantir powers IDF targeting in Gaza and Ukraine’s drone strikes. Mosaic’s black-box algorithms, unauditable and proprietary, risk turning the IAEA from neutral inspector into a data proxy for preemptive war
 

Mosaic wasn’t designed to verify treaty compliance—it was designed to win wars. It maps threat networks, infers intentions, and flags emerging dangers, much like it does in Gaza and Ukraine today. When that mindset infects arms control, preemption becomes prophecy.
What began as a post-9/11 data project to track insurgents in Iraq has evolved into an opaque surveillance leviathan embedded in global governance. Palantir’s Mosaic platform, originally developed with CIA and DARPA backing, now straddles the line between oversight and warfare—especially at institutions like the IAEA.
The IAEA was never built to operate like an intelligence agency. Its mandate is verification, not prediction.
 

The structure of Mosaic itself undermines confidence. The platform’s core architecture is closed-source. Its inferences are not reproducible. Outputs cannot be traced back to raw inputs by third parties, especially states under inspection. When suspicion is codified into UN safeguards reports, the result is a PRETEXT for violence masquerading as verification and accurate analytics.
Legal scholars have raised alarms. While no formal treaty bans the use of predictive analytics in arms control, the introduction of unverifiable military-grade algorithms into civilian verification structures violates the spirit—if not the letter—of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Mosaic’s use in informing JCPOA compliance decisions, for instance, gave disproportionate weight to American-built, Israeli-aligned surveillance outputs in shaping multilateral policy.
The result is a quiet but decisive drift from oversight to overreach. The IAEA, once the guarantor of restraint, now stands accused of laundering the logic of military intelligence through the language of diplomacy. And in doing so, it may have enabled the very thing it was designed to prevent: a unilateral war justified by data that cannot be challenged.

 

Replies: @random bogan, @theRealHun, @BrooLidd