By: Husain Shariatmadari
The nuclear team of our country’s negotiations with the 5+1 group once again tooke place after being stalled for 14 months with numerous challenges and ups and downs. Many political analysts and western media believe these negotiations, in view of the current events having taken place in the region and the world, to be decisive and fateful.
As regards the current negotiations the evaluation of parties close to 5+1 and the expectations of the Islamic Republic of Iran much can be said.
a) To begin with it seems necessary to point out certain points regarding the nuclear challenge going on for about ten years between Islamic Iran and its opponents that include International Atomic Energy Agency, United Nations Security Council, the United States and its allies. This could project a clear image of the situation.
Notwithstanding that the NPT treaty and the manifest of IAEA and its relevant clauses base the investigation on two criteria: ‘technical’ and “legal” and insist upon not dealing in a political way a glance at the ten-year file leaves no doubt that the United States and its allies dominated IAEA and the UN Security Council in respect to this file. The US and its allies paid no head to ‘technical’ and ‘legal’ documentation.
After the October session in Tehran the Islamic Republic of Iran voluntarily suspended all its nuclear activities and also temporarily accepted the additional protocol without getting the approval of Majlis. Then there was the November 2004 session in Paris. The outcome was that Iran had to give ‘objective guarantee’ that it is not after the production of nuclear weapon and the Agency should give a firm guarantee’ that it will take off Iran’s file from the agenda of IAEA Governors Council and deal with it in a routine way. But after 3 months in the London meeting where the guarantees had to be presented the foreign ministers of European troika (Britain, France and Germany) announced that the only objective guarantee acceptable to them was total stoppage of Iran’s nuclear activities. They shamelessly cited the instance of Libya.
It was often this blackmailing and unlawful tactics of the opponent that by order of the Supreme leader the voluntarily suspicion of nuclear activities was put aside and in August 2005 the activities were started again by reactivating the UCF plant in Isfahan. The West reacted by issuing threats against this legitimate action of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA Governors Council passed a resolution blaming Iran of breaking its commitments notwithstanding the fact that Iran had suspended its nuclear activities voluntarily and IAEA in its reports issued during the period from the October Tehran session had confirmed that there were no signs of Iran’s deviation towards nuclear weapon production.
Following Isfahan UCF activities which were quite lawful and in accordance to Iran’s confirmed rights IAEA, contrary to its manifesto, sent Iran’s nuclear file to the United Nations Security Council in February 2006. It should be noted that according to clause C of IAEA manifesto the file of a NPT member country can only be sent to UN Security Council in two cases:
(1) Indifference to IAEA recommendation for technical and legal reforms and
(2) in case of peaceful nuclear activities being diverted to the production of nuclear weapons.
Whereas there was not any hint in the IAEA reforts at that time and any other time until now as regards diversion.
It is worth noting that in view of the nontechnical and unlawful dealings of IAEA Kayhan Daily had predicted prior to the Paris session that Iran’s nuclear file would be submitted to the security council. For this Kayhan was castigated by Washington Post and Guardian saying Kayhan was attempting to hinder the progress of the case.
Documents named ‘alleged studies’ can be cited as another significant example. The Security Council resolutions mostly uses it as a pretext. America claims these documents: Power point file includes 1000 electronic pages which were obtained from the computer of an Iranian expert. Islamic Refublic of Iran insisted that the documents were fake and requested IAEA for the original documents. But IAEA replied that America was not willing to present the original documents. When asked to give explanation about their claim the United States authorities
and reflect the descriptions made by the alleged expert the United States authorities said that person had died. On the other hand in its report of September 2009 IAEA officially declared that it can not testify the authenticity of those documents. These same documents have now been turned into a primary axis for the 5+1 nuclear challenge against our country.
Mr. Muhammad ElBaradei the former chief of the Agency in his interview with Washington Post during the ending of his tenure at IAEA had clearly stated that Iran’s nuclear file has been transferred to political grounds from the usual legal and technical grounds and thus submitted to the Security Council. In the beginning of April of the current year Hans Blix the former chief of IAEA and Hilary Manlurth the former member of the US National security committee had stated in an interview that the US problem with Iran is not the nuclear program of Iran but the worry of America about Iran becoming a model for other Muslim nations in the region. Mr. Blix had emphatically said that in case Iran’s nuclear file is closed America would find some other pretext.
b) During the past two weeks statements made by American officials and the analysis in western media, at the first glance, show signs of retreat in respect of this case against Iran.
Talks were going on about acceptance of America as well as the Zionist entity for enrichment of uranium by Iran up to 3.5%. It was also said that Obama and Netanyahu have agreed that Iran could have 1000 centrifuges and possess 1000 kilograms uranium. Both the United States and the Zionist regime, it was also made known by the media, have somewhat softened their stance in this respect. Unfortunately some of the domestic media persons and some dignitaries in our country have expressed their appreciation on the current position of our opponents. Nevertheless this has happened notwithstanding the fact that uranium enrichment without a ceiling and even up to 99% is a definite right of Iran. There has been no prescribed ceiling mentioned in the NPT and its relevant notes as regards the limit of enrichment for its members. On the other hand Islamic Republic of Iran has so far acted with full strength and lawfully, without paying any head to the unlawful resolutions: 1737; 1747; 1803; and 1929. Iran in other words has fully established its right as regards uranium enrichment without any specific ceiling or limit. So, what is now being proclaimed by America and its allies in respect of considering to give Iran some advantage is in fact not so. In reality they are, as usual, attempting to gain advantages -- read blackmailing -- from Islamic Iran. Acknowledging it would be nothing but falling in the 5+1's dangerous trap.
c) Presently, one can observe very many and very clear signs prevailing in the West as regards Iran’s unprecedented strength and authoritative position in the region. Of course one can hear acknowledgements too in this regard. At the same time it has to be noted that America and its allies including the Zionist entity of Israel are passing through the most weakest duration of their lives. It is worth noting that Iran has never avoided behaving in a very transparent way as regards all its obligations. It has fully observed the NPT rules and regulations and many a times gone out of its way in doing so. Whereas the 5+1 has never behaved properly. It has never refrained from blackmailing, indulging in false claims and propaganda and treading on an unlawful path for their evil intentions.
Islamic Iran has taken all possible steps towards confidence building. So what can be expected in the Istanbul session by America and its allies is hoping that Iran overlooks its rights to claim damages from the west.
And Iran’s expectations from 5+1 is that they be have in a way that would be helpful in gaining Iran’s confidence by making null and void all unlawful resolutions against Iran and removing the sanctions. This could be the first step.
Anything less than this will never be considered as an advantage. It must be noted that our current achievements are the outcome of our boldly facing our opponents in respect to their blackmailing and other tactics. There is no rational reason for not continuing doing so.
