Iran’s Big Step

Could you explain the details of the agreement signed between Iran and the IAEA?

The agreement which was reached between Iran and the IAEA was partly a success for the IAEA and it achieved some of its demands. Twelve rounds of negotiations have, hitherto, been held with the IAEA. All of these cases plus some issues called claimed studies were proposed. Nevertheless, other than the claimed accusations or claimed studies which Amano expressed, the rest of the cases were considered in this agreement. The important point is that Iran has always stated that, in exchange for the commitments that it gives to the IAEA, the pressures of the western countries and the measures taken by the P5+1 must be reduced, because all of Iran’s measures are aimed at the transparency of nuclear activities. Of course, I must say that Iran has not done anything special except to provide the grounds for the IAEA’s supervisory measures beyond the NPT. Based on NPT regulations, 6 months prior to the opening of a project, the IAEA must be informed of its construction.

Therefore, has Iran somehow taken voluntary measures?

Yes. According to this agreement, Iran will present the information regarding the projects earlier than the needed time. After three months, the IAEA must take a set of measures to cooperate with Iran, including the issue that it should return Iran’s dossier from the Security Council to the IAEA. All of Iran’s measures are voluntary because the NPT regulations do not demand Iran to do them. These measures are taken for confidence-building. Nevertheless, two of these measures are significant; one is the issue of the Gachin mine in Bandar Abbas which will produce uranium; a mine which has not yet reached the production level.  The second point in this agreement is the issue of Arak’s heavy-water reactor which is a 40 megawatt reactor that will replace the Tehran reactor.

Will the signing of this agreement or the modality be considered as a positive sign from Iran by the West?

Yes. They welcome these measures. There are points in the statement which the western countries have demanded and negotiated on since long ago. But these supervisions will be allowed when the IAEA offers to take certain measures in exchange. Based on Article 4 of the NPT, not only is having peaceful nuclear energy our right but we should also be able to use its technology. The IAEA must give this technology to all of its members, but so far it has not taken any measure in this regard and has even created obstacles.

If the IAEA presents reports about the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear activities and approve all of its technological issues, what would be the need for the P5+1’s presence?

The IAEA will not approve this because it states that Iran may have taken certain measures without declaring them. They are after issues which according to them are secret.

Therefore, the IAEA will never present a comprehensive and complete report which would impact the P5+1 meetings?

The IAEA gathers its information based on the permission of the government. Since the establishment of the IAEA in 1957, this institution has had the most supervision over Iran. The IAEA has had more than 4000 man-hours of supervision over Iran. But the reason behind its continuing demand to supervise is the atmosphere which is created by the Zionist regime and the US against Iran. They say that Iran might have other power plants which have not been disclosed and which have secret operations.

Therefore, this modality is only about part of the accusations and ambiguities claimed by the West about Iran’s nuclear program.

These are not the accusations. Nowhere in this agreement were these accusations mentioned. In fact, these accusations are about the IAEA’s questions which Iran must respond to. The issue is the enforcement of IAEA supervision.

The issue that is mentioned is that, from Iran’s point of view, any modality has to be step by step, meaning that a new issue is discussed only after having finished discussions about the previous one. Has this been considered in the new agreement?

Yes, to a certain extent. All options have not been included in this agreement and only a part of them have been placed on the agenda, which will move on to the next step after being resolved. However, the commitments are unilateral and, in the mentioned points, Iran has committed itself to carry out these measures. The IAEA has not considered any commitments for itself, while it should define its role and responsibilities. It has promised one thing though; to keep things confidential.

Experience has shown that things have never remained confidential.

Unfortunately that’s true. The IAEA says that this has nothing to do with it; it gives the information to the others and they decide to publish them. It is the IAEA’s duty to provide the information to the members but the members should not publish them. This is trickery.

Will the new modality lead to the closure of the nuclear dossier?

First of all, this modality is not comprehensive, it is just one part. If the next part is also done, we might be able to say in general that this could happen.

What does the next part include?

It is related to the accusations that the Western countries have made; such as the claim that, prior to 2003, Iran took some measures, for example in the Parchin region, and carried out a limited nuclear explosion. Iran has asked them to provide evidence of this claim so that it would be able to provide evidence in defense of itself. The IAEA says that the countries that have handed in this evidence have asked that it not be given to Iran, because their sources would be revealed. When a person is accused of something, and it is not provided with any evidence, how could you expect it to provide any response? What kind of logic is this? They say that because they are an impartial international organization, the fact that they confirm the reliability of the sources should be enough, and that we should respond. This issue has not been resolved yet.