Even though the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly declared that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful but the United States and its allies have always emphasized that Iran is not perusing a peaceful nuclear program. In the wake of the proposed plan by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Vienna Group to supply fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, the Islamic Republic of Iran proclaimed that the country is willing to continue the Vienna negotiations within the framework of the technical and economic considerations brought to the attention of the IAEA Director General at the time.
According to the Vienna proposal, most of the low-enriched uranium in Iran will be sent out to Russia and France to be enriched up to 20% for the Tehran Reactor. One of the features of this plan is the participation of a number of IAEA member states in providing the fuel for a reactor that produces radioisotopes and radiopharmaceutical for medical purposes. Iran prefers to buy fuel and also is ready to cooperate in the process of exchanging the enriched uranium, but as the president of Iran has stated, the West must win Iran’s trust.
In fact, the IAEA is responsible for supplying the fuel of Iran’s research reactor; on the other hand, given the country’s capabilities in terms of peaceful nuclear technology and fuel cycle, Iran has the ability to produce 20% enriched fuel for Tehran Reactor. However, Iran has repeatedly stated that the country is open to nuclear dialogue and the Vienna negotiations under the aegis of the IAEA had proved this intention whereas the occurrence of any interaction in this regard depends on addressing the proclaimed technical and economic considerations of Iran. However, the Tehran summit attended by the Presidents of Iran, Brazil and Turkey was held given the delay of the Vienna Group in providing the fuel for the Tehran Reactor, broad diplomatic efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran to resolve the issue of its nuclear program peacefully and in line with the policy of countering the measures of the West, especially the United States, to adopt the fourth resolution which would impose sanctions against our country. The negotiations led to the signing of the Tehran agreement that, in the event of the goodwill of the P5+1 group, would provide the ground for breaking the nuclear deadlock. This joint declaration that consisted of ten articles was issued and agreed upon by the Presidents of Iran, Brazil and Turkey on May 17, 2010, in Tehran.
Accordingly, the undersigned have agreed on the following declaration:
1) We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recall the right of all State Parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
2) We express our strong conviction that we have the opportunity now to begin a forward-looking process that will create a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.
3) We believe that the nuclear fuel exchange is instrumental in initiating cooperation in different areas, especially with regard to peaceful nuclear cooperation.
4) The nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations. Such a move should lead to positive interaction and cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities replacing and avoiding all kinds of confrontation that would jeopardize Iran’s rights.
5) Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kg LEU (low enriched uranium) in Turkey. While in Turkey this LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.
6) Iran will notify the IAEA in writing through official channels of its agreement with the above within seven days following the date of this declaration. Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group (The United States, Russia, France and the IAEA) further details of the exchange will be elaborated.
7) When the Vienna Group declares its commitment to this provision, then both parties would commit themselves to the implementation of the agreement. The Islamic Republic of Iran expressed its readiness — in accordance with the agreement — to deposit its LEU (1200 kg) within one month and on the basis of the same agreement the Vienna Group should deliver 120 kg fuel required for the Tehran Research Reactor.
8) In case the provisions of this Declaration are not respected Turkey, upon the request of Iran, will swiftly and unconditionally return Iran’s LEU to Iran.
9) Turkey and Brazil welcomed the continuous readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pursue its talks with the P5+1 countries in any place including Turkey and Brazil, on the common concerns.
10) Turkey and Brazil appreciated Iran’s commitment to the NPT and its constructive role in pursuing the realization of nuclear rights of its member states. The Islamic Republic of Iran likewise appreciated the constructive efforts of the friendly countries Turkey and Brazil in creating a conducive environment for the realization of Iran’s nuclear rights.
Nonetheless, the United States’ objection to this statement and adopting a new resolution against the Islamic Republic of Iran in Security Council with the votes of China and Russia along with the United States in favour, all in all, can be considered as an attempt to preserve the traditional dominance of the great powers through the framework of the existing political, social, and security order in the world as well as the Security Council. Because Barack Obama ran for the presidency on a policy of bringing about “change” in the United States’ global strategy, therefore one of the main goals of the new American policy was to utilize the role of regional actors to address important international issues, including resolving regional crises and fighting against fundamentalism and terrorism through the strategy of “smart power.” Under the same strategy, Obama tried to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue through diplomacy and encouraging Turkey and Brazil to mediate in this dispute.
Finally, the United States and its allies, while expressing their displeasure at the tripartite joint declaration in Tehran (Iran, Turkey, Brazil), embarked on passing the fourth Security Council resolution on Iran’s nuclear issue that was consisted of 38 articles and was adopted by a vote of twelve in favour to two against (Brazil, Turkey) and one abstention (Lebanon). But despite the widespread propaganda of the United States and some European countries that a new season has begun in the United Nations sanctions against Iran, the resolution did not contain more stringent provisions than the previous resolutions of the Security Council. In other words, if the resolution was not passed, fatal damage would be done to American prestige since the country had been trying for about one year to facilitate the process of adopting such a resolution. Hence the United States had to repeatedly make changes in the text of the resolution omitting significant articles such as imposing sanctions on energy and selling gasoline and the ban on the Central Bank’s activity in order to finalize a draft resolution. Whereas, reaching such a consensus was not so simple, but the Americans managed the process of adopting this resolution at the expense of spending a huge amount of money in order to convince Europe, China and Russia. As a result, the United Nations Security Council’s fourth resolution was adopted on Wednesday, 9 June 2010. Accordingly, new sanctions were imposed against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The most important parts of this resolution are as follows:
1) Iran shall not acquire any interest in any commercial-nuclear activity in another state involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology.
2) All states shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missile systems.
3) Seizure of assets of the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Esfahan Nuclear Technology
4) Imposing sanctions on 22 companies and organizations involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities of Iran including the Malek Ashtar University in Tehran, Amin Industrial Complex in Mashhad, Kaveh Cutting Tools Company in Tehran, First East Export Bank, P.L.C. in Malaysia, Shahid Kharrazi Industries and Center for Agricultural Research and Nuclear Medicine in Karaj in addition to monitoring the activities of forty new Iranian organizations.
5) Imposing sanctions on entities owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps including the Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters, Omran Sahel, Rah Sahel and Sepanir.
6) Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
7) Calling upon all states to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from Iran, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the state concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by United Nations resolutions. Moreover, all states shall inspect, seize and dispose of Iran’s marine cargo in international waters in accordance with international law and they shall prohibit the provision by their nationals or from their territory of bunkering services, such as the provision of fuel or supplies, or other servicing of vessels, to Iranian-owned or -contracted vessels, including South Shipping Line Iran and IRISL Benelux NV in Belgium.
8) Recalling, in particular, the need to exercise vigilance over transactions involving Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran, and entities owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; in addition, this article calls upon states to take appropriate measures that prohibit in their territories the opening of new branches, subsidiaries, or representative offices of Iranian banks, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that these activities could contribute to Iran’s nuclear activities.
For the first time, the Security Council Resolution 1929 on Iran was adopted with the two important and influential members of the council voting against, as well as one abstention, Lebanon whereas there had been a consensus in passing all previous resolutions against Iran with the exception that only the Resolution 1803 was passed with Indonesia as the only abstention. However, the reason for the changing of China and Russia’s positions and therefore favouring American and Western measures to exert more pressures on Iran regarding its nuclear program would lie with the type of their relationship with the United States rather than their affirmative votes in recent resolution (Qalkhanbaz, 2010: 6).
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments