In June 2010, in a letter to the former European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the Secretary of Supreme National Security Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saeed Jalili, said that Iran is still ready to resume talks with the P5+1 group but three questions have to be addressed first:
1) It should be clear whether talks are carried out with the aim of interaction and cooperation or continuing animosity and violating the rights of the Iranian nation?
2) Will you bound to the logic of dialogue which requires avoiding any type of threat or pressure?
3) What is your view regarding the nuclear weapons of the Zionist regime?
One day before the initiation of the nuclear talks, Iran’s announcement of producing yellowcake conveyed a message to the P5+1 group that the country would continue its efforts to preserve the rights of Iranians.
One day before the talks begin, the assassination of two nuclear scientists (Dr. Shahriari and Dr. Ali Mohammadi) by the death squads affiliated with the P5+1 countries, showed that the purpose of the talks is not interaction and cooperation, but the continuation of hostility and violation of the rights of the Iranian nation. Therefore, this phenomenon represented the answer of the West to the first question.
Adopting resolutions in Security Council against Iran a long time ago reveals the response of the West regarding the second question. But on the eve of the new talks, there was a new response from the West, which was to use “terror” tactics in addition to “threatening” and “imposing sanctions.” This showed that West has no commitment to the logic of the dialogue.
But with regard to the third question, which is about the nuclear weapons of the Zionist regime, we face a dual logic that justifies the possession of nuclear weapons merely for the P5+1 counties as well as the Zionist regime and not for other countries, especially Iran. Moreover, they stated that not only Iran should stop perusing nuclear weapons but also the country must never seek peaceful nuclear energy! Therefore, there would remain no common grounds in nuclear talks.
Given such differences and disagreements in the interests of the two sides of this question is posed that why West is so insistent on and eager for dialogue while the Islamic Republic of Iran is not averse to dialogue? The West peruses the policy of continuing the dialogue with the aim of gaining more leverage. This strategy worked to some extent during the reform government of Iran. But during the administration of Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and in response to the slogan that “nuclear energy is our absolute right,” this policy was no longer perused and the Islamic Republic joined the world’s nuclear club while relying on the dignity of Iranian people and achievements of its nuclear scientists.
Since then, great strides have been made, and our scientific and practical needs in the field of nuclear technology have been resolved through the efforts of the country’s authorities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified and declared the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, and the world has recognized the oppression of our nation and the cruelty and arrogance of the world powers. That is why the Non-Aligned Movement and The Organization of Islamic Cooperation did not accept the logic of the West’s interaction with Iran and repeatedly defended Iran’s nuclear rights. Therefore, the international consensus against Iran was broken. Now the world looks at the Security Council and P5+1 as a criminal gang, which not only wants to stop the Iranian nuclear program but also seeks to deprive all nations of such rights. However, the second question is: Why does the Islamic Republic of Iran welcome nuclear talks?
The Islamic Republic of Iran does not show any disagreement with respect to the continuation of the talks for two reasons: First, the country finds itself seeking to promote the logic of its legitimacy. Nobody would say that enjoying scientific achievements in nuclear technology is limited to a few countries; therefore, the West had to recognize this right, albeit apparently. Second, the Islamic Republic of Iran does not really seek to produce a nuclear weapon. Hence, carrying out negotiations in this regard is already ruled out. Third, Iran aims at nuclear disarmament of P5+1 and especially the Zionist regime as the greatest threat in the Middle East. Iran will find this goal reached provided that nuclear talks continue through a logical framework that is intended by Iran. The fourth reason is that the Islamic Republic of Iran wants to show that the West is not honest and truthful and because of that has turned to posing threats, imposing sanctions and carrying out assassinations and killings. Accepting the cost of dialogue Iran looks at the “outcome,” which is the principle of revealing the truth. In fact, Iran’s “cost-benefit analysis” in this regard is correct.
Fifteen months after the Geneva II Talks, the Geneva III Talks took place while the P5+1 countries had experienced an unprofitable and costly strategy of pressure and sanctions against Iran more than before and this has brought them back to the negotiating table. Western countries that have so far failed in their policies towards Iran, thought that they would be able to reach their goals at negotiating table; however, they did not imagine that the Geneva III Talks would be turned into a trial on their alignment with terrorists.
The atmosphere of the Geneva III meeting was strongly influenced by the martyrdom of Professor Majid Shahriari, a nuclear scientist in our country. Saeed Jalili, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and the head of the negotiating team of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while honouring this martyr has challenged the P5+1 countries by posing this question that why you did not condemn the assassination of such prominent academic personality? The Security Council should be held accountable since the names of the Iranian nuclear scientists had been exposed by the IAEA inspectors and the Security Council adopted a resolution against such individuals and therefore terrorist attacks were carried out to enforce that resolution.
While enjoying the privileged regional, political, and economic capabilities, the Islamic Republic of Iran has more than ever been prepared to start negotiations through its clear logic and power. As in the Geneva I Talks and Geneva II Talks, the Iranian negotiating team did not allow the rights of the Iranian nation to be violated in the Geneva III Talks.
Undoubtedly, the continuation of the talks requires that western countries change their wrong strategy of the past since holding talks while adopting two different strategies will be fruitless. As Jalili stated before the Geneva Talks that the future path will be outlined based on the conduct of the other party.
Now, P5+1 countries are facing a crucial test that is the level of their compliance with the Geneva III Talks agreement. This is described by the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council as “holding talks to cooperate based on the common ground.”
Istanbul Talks
Following the Geneva III Talks, the two sides agreed that a new round of talks would be held in Istanbul, Turkey. The first round of talks between Iran and P5+1 countries in Istanbul was held in a positive atmosphere. During the Istanbul Talks, Iran did not allow the other party to address and discuss the old topics and instead has provided the P5+1 group with a model of partnership and cooperation. Through this round of talks, Jalili has presented several specific offers to the P5+1 group all of which were welcomed by the two sides.
It should be noted that the first round of talks gave the P5+1 group a shock. Two important events took place in the course of this round of talks: first, Iran did not allow Westerners to raise issues outside the agenda of the “dialogue for cooperation” and they did not insist on doing so; second, Iran presented practical proposals to the P5+1 for cooperation in specific fields and called for their response.
At the end of this round of negotiations, the P5+1 group accepted that the practical proposals offered by Iran would be the subject of the second round of talks and bilateral negotiations. This shows that unlike the P5+1 media propagations before the talks now this group is adopting a more realistic approach.
It seems that the West is pursuing an important goal in this round of talks with Iran that is to reach an agreement within which a long-term negotiation process will be outlined. It can be said that good progress would be made in the Istanbul Talks only through such a framework. This framework specifies the steps to be taken by each party.
It seems that Iran does not take issue with formulating such a framework, called the “negotiating modality,” but at least two points should be considered in this concept:
1) This modality should not include and address issues that violate the rights of Iran.
2) Issues that are to be discussed and addressed through this modality should be defined as a “common ground for cooperation.”
Though American and European media have tried to translate these talks into nuclear talks, Tehran denies such claim and has stated that talks can address a wide range of regional and global issues and that Iran is interested in holding nuclear talks over three main issues namely disarmament, non-proliferation and the United States’ nuclear-weapons that are deployed in Europe. In other words, Istanbul was a setting through which Iran showed the failure of the West.
The negotiating team of our country in these talks has warned the parties present in Istanbul about the Western computational errors regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. The computational errors of the West in the international system have increased sharply in recent years. The increase of insecurity in Afghanistan and the failure of NATO in the war with the Taliban, the vast efforts of the West to dissolute Muslim countries including Sudan, interference of the United States and France in the internal affairs of Lebanon through supporting the formation of a tribunal for Rafiq Hariri assassination, public support of the rioters and the anti-revolution people by individuals such as Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice etc. are the issues that Iran has reminded the other party to be aware of during the talks in Istanbul. On the other hand, the issue of nuclear disarmament of the great powers is an international demand that Tehran has repeatedly addressed. Likewise, Non-Aligned member states that constitute two-thirds of United Nations members have brought up this issue.
Although the United States and Russia, as the two main countries that possess weapons of mass destruction in the world, are trying to maneuver on the START Treaty in order to pretend that they take important steps towards the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (to which there is no guarantee given by the White House and the Kremlin) but Tehran has explicitly stated that the agreements and treaties on nuclear-arms control should be applied to all countries regardless of whether they are rich, poor, perusing nuclear technology or not, etc.
The reduction of nuclear weapons can never replace the United States’ major commitment to completely eliminate its nuclear weapons. Generally, all prohibited nuclear weapons should be abandoned without exception. Hence, not surprisingly the nuclear power countries of the world always play a game with numbers as happened between the White House and Kremlin during the Cold War. Nuclear disarmament is considered as a “red line for great and dominant powers in the international system.”
The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France have always sought to conceal information of and stop measures related to their deadly nuclear weapons. Istanbul negotiations taught the West that they should be ready to accept Iran as a powerful country and live alongside it as Jimmy Carter, Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright had stated. This is the point from which members of the P5+1 have repeatedly tried to get away, but eventually, they will accept such a fact. Meanwhile, the only task of Iran is to refer to the international and political balance sheet of the West which is full of errors and mistakes reminding the P5+1 group of the faults of the imperialist system.
Ambassadors Who Would Reflect Iran’s Nuclear Reality
The ambassador of the Troika of the Non-Aligned Movement, the chair of the Group of 77, the ambassador of the Arab League to the International Organizations, the Ambassador of Venezuela, the Syrian ambassador, the head of the Asia and the Pacific Group and the ambassador of Oman on behalf of the 120 countries to the IAEA are some individuals and groups representing international community and the public opinion of the world who arrived in Tehran in order to visit Natanz enrichment facility, the heavy water reactor in Arak, and to talk with Iranian authorities so that they will become an ambassador for showing the reality of Iran’s nuclear technology. The West did not use this historic opportunity. However, the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the utmost goodwill, invited the European Union to join the representatives of the majority of countries, but the European Union states did not seize such a historic opportunity for promoting solidarity and cooperation and observing Iran’s activities.
The ceremony of unveiling of our two nuclear achievements was attended by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization and foreign invited delegates. One of the two achievements was the production of deuterated compounds which have vast applications in various fields of science and research at the Arak Heavy Water Reactor Facility. Some points should be addressed with respect to such acclaimed action of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency:
- Something above all international agreements
- Only IAEA Can Assess Iranian Nuclear Program
A) An Action Going Beyond All International Agreements
1) Iran is committed to transparency measures more than what the international laws including NPT and Additional Protocol are required whereas most of the countries that question Iran and violate the international laws are not willing to take such measures; the countries which have hundreds of nuclear warheads yet threatened and sanctioned Iran only on the pretext that its nuclear activities might be diverted in the future.
2) Iran’s transparency measures were a good response to American and Zionist media propaganda, which could give Iran the upper hand through future negotiations and lower the bargaining power of the opposing side.
3) People who have been travelled to Iran represent 120 countries and around two-thirds of the world’s population. If they could convey the message of good faith and the lack of diversion of Iran’s nuclear activities, they will make a fundamental change in the attitude of countries that had accepted Western claims about Iran.
4) After visiting the Arak Heavy Water Facility, the representatives of the IAEA member states in a meeting emphasized that such measures would bring more transparency to Iran’s nuclear activities. They also criticized the policy of some countries in politicizing Iran’s nuclear issue and emphasized the transparency of such a program. Thus, using the delegates’ presence in Iran who acknowledged the transparency of its nuclear programs, the country has turned the subsequent claims made by countries such as the United States against itself to be considered against 120 countries of the world.
B) Only IAEA Can Assess the Iranian Nuclear Program
1) Inviting the IAEA delegates, Iran is conveying this message that only the IAEA can assess Iran’s nuclear program and hence no other country has the right to hold Iran accountable for such activities. Nonetheless, Iran is still holding negotiations with P5+1 with the aim of building trust within the international arena. Yet, if they call for illegal demands, Iran will follow the legal path concerning this issue, that is the IAEA instructions and protocols.
2) During their presence in Iran, these individuals condemned the assassination of our nuclear scientists by the Zionist regime, because they observed Iran’s progress with their own eyes. Since such progress had been achieved due to the efforts made by the young Iranian scientists thus those delegates realize the reason for killing Iranian elites and scientists.
3) Undoubtedly, such measures should be called a worthwhile initiative in the way of applying public diplomacy and informing the world’s countries and media of the rightful views of the country.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments