West targets Iran’s ...
Page 1
But it should be noted that even during the pause in Iran’s enrichment activities, the West did not back off from threatening Iran. In fact, with or without enrichment, Western policy toward Iran does not change.
Given that Iran has severely restricted its cooperation with the IAEA, what effect would such a step have on Iran’s relations with this international watchdog?
Before answering that, I must stress that Iran has never opposed cooperation with the IAEA, and in fact has accepted more inspections and monitoring than many other member states. What has damaged Iran’s cooperation with the agency is the West’s misuse of the IAEA as a political tool against Iran. Tehran has consistently shown commitment to international law, and I believe that if enrichment resumes, Iran will try to set out its actions in a way that is technically justifiable and manageable, so they don’t become a fresh pretext for propaganda.
However, Western politicization of Iran’s nuclear issue is so extreme that even during the period of suspended enrichment, threats, intimidation, and talk of resolutions and war never stopped.
Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh has said that any potential negotiation with the United States would be an “armed negotiation,” meaning that Iran has no trust in Washington and is prepared to take effective countermeasures against any deceit. In your view, how likely is such a negotiation to take shape, and to succeed?
The 12-day war erupted just as the Iranian negotiating team was preparing to travel to Oman for the sixth round of Iran-US nuclear talks. US President Donald Trump’s admission that Washington ordered and oversaw the attack on Iran showed that the Americans were preparing military action even as they sat at the negotiating table. This is an unforgettable and extremely significant experience.
Iran understands that any future talks could again come hand in hand with parallel military threats, so Tehran must preserve its deterrence even as it negotiates.
From Iran’s viewpoint, an “armed negotiation” means entering talks while remaining ready to respond decisively in case of deception or breaches, such as the US withdrawal from the JCPOA. Reaching an agreement under such deep mistrust will be difficult, though not impossible, and it requires concrete guarantees. In essence, the US must pay the price for breaking the negotiating table and destroying trust by offering greater concessions and firmer guarantees to Iran.
Considering Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi’s remarks about revisiting issues related to the Non-Proliferation Treaty should a resolution be passed against Iran at the upcoming IAEA Board of Governors meeting, could Iran’s possible response involve reducing its NPT commitments or withdrawing from the Treaty altogether?
I believe a complete withdrawal from the NPT would be among Iran’s very last options. Tehran’s response to any resolution passed against Iran would most likely be technical rather than political.