Significant Meeting with Shamkhani
IAEA chief
Yukiya Amano will visit Tehran on Thursday and will meet with President Hassan
Rouhani and Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National
Security Council, the IAEA announced today. (Bloomberg, 1 July)
IAEA has
sought to re-visit Parchin military complex outside Tehran, where its investigators
allege to have credible evidence that nuclear weapons-related experiments took
place. Resolving Iran’s past nuclear weapon work is an important element in the
ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the world power. Access to all declared
and suspected nuclear sites was part of the framework agreement announced on 2
April in Lausanne. But last week, Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, declared
military sites, like Parchin, off-limits to IAEA inspectors, creating a major
obstacle to reach a nuclear accord during talks in Vienna.
Amano's
meeting with Shamkhani is significant, as he is a key security official with
military oversight. Reporters covering the Vienna talks said on Tuesday that
the U.S. might have offered a new proposal on how to resolve Parchin’s inspection.
Amano’s trip to Tehran could facilitate ways acceptable to the Iranians to
conduct probes into the country’s past work on nuclear weapons.
Photo
credit: IAEA chief Yukiya Amano (Carsten Koall/Getty Images/Bloomberg)
23 comments:
"Access to all declared and suspected nuclear sites was part of the framework agreement announced on 2 April in Lausanne"
Nader, can you point to an Iranian source that states this is the case, that military sites are to be inspected and scientists interviewed? In the the "fact sheets" at the time I've seen, the White House includes this but not the Iranian foreign ministry.
Mark, Additional Protocol requires access to all declared and suspected nuclear sites; and the Iranian negotiating team had accepted the inclusion of the Additional Potocol in the framework agreement, as it was jointly stated by Zarif and EU's Moghirini on 2 April in Lausanne.
BTW, IAEA has visited Parchin before, with the approval of the Iranian leadership. I am at a loss why they should now declare Parchin off-limit on matter of principle. The visit should of course be managed in such a way as to account for Iran's sovereignty and military secrets; which, like the previous visits, probably means a visit to specific buildings within the sprawling Parchin complex, not the base in general. Amano's meeting with Shamkhani will be very significant to see if they can resolve this issue, which could prevent a final agreement if not resolved.
No Nader this is not correct. Iran said from the beginning that military sites are not included. The iranians did not agree to that additional protocol in all term. Do you have a signed copy. You just red it in the nyt or Washington Post and copied this.
In reality the 5+1 agreed to leave the military parts in the agreement. And after a deal was suddenly reached the west said military sites must be included and a min. 12 year stop in nuclear research. This things were never mentioned before. That's the true. But I agree with you in one point. The iranians don't want an agreement neither the us. Unfortunately
Uskowi says that Supreme leader has created major obstacle to reach a nuclear accord......
Would you describe that 'credible evidence...' you cite in your article, and why those 'inspectors' don't want to unveil that evidence to the Iranian side ?
Is it a kind of the "Saddam Hussein's" evidence ?
I am not defending IAEA or saying it has credible evidence that nuclear weapons work were conducted at Parchin, or were not conducted at Parchin. Up to inspectors to answer that question. I am saying that if there is an agreement to abide by the Additional Protocol, then inspection of any site suspected of nuclear weapon work is permitted, no matter if that site is declared, or is undeclared, in a military installation or in a factory or anywhere else.
Your argument is probably against Additional Protocol, or any other agreement limiting Iran's nuclear activities, which is has its own logic and is an important argument, and should be debated. But Iran can't agree to additional protocol, and not allow a visit to Parchin, for example. The government should made up its mind and speaks with one voice. Either sign it and abide by it, or don't sign it. We will see in the next few days what the Iranian decision on this issue would be.
Of course this is just one issue, and there are others as well. But the issues need to be resolved in one way or another. Hope Amano and Shamkhani could fine a way that the inspection can be done in a way that respects the country's sovereignty and military secrets.
There is no such thing as accepting additional protocol (AP) in part not in whole, as you are suggesting. Either you sign AP or not. That's the decision the Iranian government would be making in the next few days. If they go with the AP, then inspection of Parchin is unavoidable. If the decision would be not to sign AP, then there might not be a comprehensive final agreement. That call is up to the Iranian leadership to make.
Amano is in Tehran to see if there would be a way to conduct the inspections that would be acceptable to Tehran. After all the same Parchin has been inspected in the past, during Khamenei's leadership, and no objection on matter of principle were raised then. I am sure they can fine a way if there is a will to strike a final accord.
Nader UskowiJuly 1, 2015 at 11:36 AM
NO,IT DOESNT,I dont know why you keep on repeating this untrue statement,Iran is under no obligation to allow the iaea access to military or "undeclared" sites,they can request it but only under certain circumstances and the final decision is irans,the iaea is NOT unscom/unmovic it cannot go where it likes
The part that you fail to include in your statement "then inspection of any site suspected of nuclear weapon work is permitted" is that it is entirely up to the discretion of iran to allow it or not or if allowed to set the parameters for any such visit,in short the iaea can request to look at a site until they are blue in the face but the final decision is irans,iran has made it very clear that it will not allow the inspection of military sites,ie there will be no fishing expeditions to see what they can see based on little or no evidence,any request has to be backed up with a credible reason and so far the iaea has refused to show iran its [western] supplied "proof" of weapons research
"Is it a kind of the "Saddam Hussein's" evidence ?"
Yes,the very fact that the iaea will not turn its so called "evidence" over to iran proves this amply,sadly under ammano the iaea is little better than richard butlers utterly corrupt unscom,all the hard work of blix and al baredei and the credibility and impartiality that went with it has been discredited/destroyed,very very sad.
Yes, Nader. Am aware of AP offer. However, AP is negotiated between IAEA and country.
Yes, Parchin has been inspected in past. Past inspections revealed no nuclear divergence.
Issue is continual inspections, "anytime, anywhere." IAEA's current reliance on hostile Israeli and MEK sources (which Elbaradei dismissed but Amano does not), as well as hostile Albright and ISIS demonstrates to Iranians the politicized nature of current IAEA regime, as well as concerns they will be required to jump through hoops continuously. From their position, much distrust.
Still, Amano going to Tehran is a good step.
Still looking good, for negotiations, in general.
After Tehran allowed a visit to Parchin the IAEA transfered informations to the US and that was not allowed. And by the way after they had the identity of the guys working in different parts in the nuclear research sites a few of them were killed. So now I hope u can also understand made why the iranians do not agree with such framework.
Agreed.
Anon 9:01 PM,
That's not how Additional Protocol works. Under AP, IAEA can request to visit a suspected undeclared site, let's say Parchin; Iran can refuse the request within a certain period defined in the final agreement, and then it goes to an arbitration body defined in the final agreement for such possibility. In this case, the UN Security Council, or another body, would play the arbitrator role. So it is not the matter of IAEA becoming "blue in the face!"
Anon 0:09 PM,
The thread of conversation here was what happens if Iran signs the Additional Protocol. What you are suggesting is Iran should not. Then that's an entirely a different matter, and under that option Iran can refuse a visit to Parchin. But then there might not be any final agreement under this option. As I said to another commentator above, the choice is entirely Iran's. They have to make that decision in the next few days.
BTW, thanks for all enthusiastic comments this post has generated. It is a crucial issue for Iran. It faces a difficult choice forced upon it by sanctions. Five years ago, another Iranian president compared UNSC sanctions resolution to pieces of torn paper. Well, those pieces of papers have come back to haunt the regime. It's very interesting to see how the Iranian decision will go now. Thanks again.
You are saying Iran is under no obligation to allow IAEA inspectors inside Parchin or any other undeclared sites. That is correct. But as soon as Iran signs the Additional Protocol as part of a final agreement, that ability will be severely limited. This is how it will work: IAEA sends a request to visit a site, Iran either accepts or denies the request, if it denies it, it will go to an arbitration panel already identified in a final agreement, most likely UN Security Council.
What you are really suggesting is that Iran should not sign the AP. That's an important viewpoint and needs to be debated, even though the time for a debate is probably running out, as Amano is in Tehran and the Iranian leadership should decide in the next few days if they will be signing an AP agreement with IAEA. The decision is up to Iran. We will see in the next few days what they would decide. If they decide not to sign the AP, there might not be a final nuclear accord however.
Nader UskowiJuly 2, 2015 at 8:55 AM
Just how have they come back to haunt iran?,the unsc demanded a halt to all enrichment,now not only does it have to acknowledge irans right to enrich but it has to accept substantial enrichment and a continuing nuclear program,those resolutions were just that torn peices of paper and it was iran who tore them up and the unsc had to accept it,score one for iran I`d say.If iran faces difficult choices then what do the p5+1 face?,a rather humiliating climb down from zero enrichment,not one centrifuge to accepting enrichment on an industrial scale,much to the impotent fury of at least two countries,and does the west really think it will get a better deal in the future if it misses this boat,I doubt it
Interesting you believe economic sanctions have not hurt the Iranian economy. The UNSC resolutions, those pieces of torn papers, passed unanimously by all members including friends of Iran, and the resulting UN and later EU/US sanctions, were the main cause of the contraction of the country's economy. That's probably why Rouhani ran on a platform to have those sanctions lifted and won with convincingly.
BTW, the point I made regarding sanctions were in relations to Iran, not P5+1. Appreciate it if you could list their effects on the economies of the six powers. In this blog, we don't follow their economies, but it would be an interesting piece on the eve of a possible nuclear agreement.
If your information is correct, I am sure the Iranian government also has the same info and they would know why they did not allow the inspectors back to Parchin. Then logically they would not sign the Additional Protocol, no one would blame them under those circumstances, and there probably could not be a nuclear agreement and lifting of sanctions. But if that's what the Iranian government believes, the question would be, Why did they go through nearly two years of negotiations knowing full well that PMD and Parchin inspection would be part of the deal? Of course we've seen worst cases in the region, nothing can surprise us any longer!
"Interesting you believe economic sanctions have not hurt the Iranian economy."
Just where do I make this claim?,the point I was making and I notice you do not try to refute was that despite unsc/western sanctions and demands for zero enrichment the west/unsc has had to accept not just token enrichment but enrichment on an industrial scale,as for the sanctions they did hurt iran but the west also paid a heavy economic cost,the europeans especially threw away tens of billions in trade at a time of economic crisis when they desperately needed all the trade and cheap energy they could get,a good example being peugeot who alone suffered the biggest loss in its history because of sanctions,not to mention that europe became even more dependent on russian energy at a time when russia was becoming less willing to toe the western line in europe,and now guess whos lining up offering the best deals they can to get back into iran,thats right its the europeans.So you tell me Nader who had to compromise more over those "torn pieces of paper"?,the unsc/west with its "zero enrichment,not one centrifuge" or iran?
This was not a wrestling match to assign winning or losing scores to. The sanctions caused Iran's economic growth to descend into negative territory for three years, and it is still suffering from the effects. Saying the West was more hurt than Iran, even if true, does not lessen the hurt for the Iranians.
It is truly laughable what some people claim that the sanctions hurt the west more than Iran itself. Since Iran has been allowed to export one million barrels of oil per day and then the monies withheld in western banks on condition of the regimes nuclear behaviour for its release. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq can easily make up for that shortfall of two and half million barrels a day that Iran used to export.Despite the propaganda from these people Iran needs the West more than the West needs Iran.Just look at the average wage of a teacher in Iran $3500 per year as opposed to Turkey $35000 per year. Iran's economy is evaporating faster than lake Orumiyeh.
Post a Comment