Trump’s flight from ...
Page 1
In fact Iran cannot relinquish its enrichment program, since under Article III of the IAEA Statute and Article IV of the NPT, the right to peaceful nuclear energy—including prospecting, mining, enrichment, and reactor operation—is a “inalienable right” guaranteed to all signatories.
Iran’s enrichment cannot be abandoned because the program transcends individuals or governments—it is a national endeavor. The program, built independently from foreign assistance and largely through trial and error with significant sacrifice, and loss of young, elite talent, cannot be abandoned without defying logic and national dignity.
Acknowledging these rational and lawful arguments appears to be one of the most difficult admissions in modern political history—a difficulty that pushed Trump to launch an attack against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Araghchi’s second major point in that Fox News interview addressed Iran’s adherence to the NPT. He said the country would never go to 90% enrichment and would be committed to staying below 5% for civilian power reactor fuel, and only enrich up to 20% for a TRR research reactor. We do enrich uranium for our own needs, he pointed out.
This reaffirms a central tenet of Iran’s nuclear doctrine and underscores its public promise to remain strictly non-military—a point emphasized in IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s latest report, which reiterated the absence of any credible evidence of diversion, though the report provided Israel with a justification to attack Iran.
If two decades of honest cooperation with the IAEA could not dispel doubts about Iran’s peaceful intentions, the most telling test should come after the assault on Iran. If Iran had aimed to build a bomb, what better time than the post-attack period to claim justification? Yet Iran remains a party to the NPT and continues to observe its obligations. The upcoming visit of an IAEA deputy to Iran signals Iran's continued compliance, a reality Trump seems reluctant to acknowledge, since Iran’s compliance contradicts the justifications offered by the US and Israel for their aggression. Thus, Trump lashes out, resorting to crude rhetoric.
Araghchi also signaled openness to diplomacy, saying Iran was open to dialogue “though not directly at this stage.” But he stressed that if the goal was a “win–win outcome”, he would be ready to engage. Yet Trump appears to have ignored that part of the message. He seems bent on viewing negotiations as extortion, not opportunity—and recoils from acknowledging hard truths.
Trump’s refusal to face reality likely stems from the bitter truth about the ineffectiveness of military aggression. As Araghchi reiterated, the illegal bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites reaffirmed that no military solution exists. If doubts linger about the peaceful nature of Iran’s program, the military action did nothing to prove otherwise—whereas a negotiated solution might still succeed.
At its core, Trump’s rhetoric is an implicit admission of failure. His claim that Iran is "still enriching" tacitly acknowledges Iran’s enduring capability—proving that the two-day mission by US bombers to target Iranian nuclear sites was effectively for nothing. Nuclear knowledge cannot be destroyed—the centrifuges, facilities, and even scientists may be targeted, but the expertise remains. The sooner Trump embraces this reality, the closer he would return to its campaign of “Make America great again.”
Likewise, recognition of Iran’s nuclear program as a permanent capability—not to be reversed by force—could shift the negotiation landscape and pave the way for a rational deal.