Iran-P5+1 Talks Should Be Based On Realities Not Illusions

Tehran, May 21, IRNA - As its name denotes, a “Comprehensive Plan of Action” is a complicated issue which should be dealt with much care and in due time, said the English-language newspaper ˈIran Dailyˈ in its Opinion column published Wednesday. Therefore, no negotiations aimed at achieving such an agreement can be expected to reach a rapid result. However, negotiations till date, between Iran and the P5+1, on Tehran’s nuclear energy program have relatively progressed in a suitable way and therefore they can be expected to reach good results in the future, the daily added. Also, efforts made by Iran to prove that its nuclear energy program is transparent and exclusively peaceful, in addition to Tehran’s show of respect for all international rules and regulations, clearly shows that the Islamic Republic has been – and still is – ready to address and resolve such concerns on the part of international community, the paper stressed, suggesting a few points to be considered: 1. Firstly, it should be made clear whether other parties to nuclear talks are actually concerned that Iran’s nuclear energy program is non-peaceful, or are in reality looking to first limit and then dismantle Iran’s nuclear activities. If they really seek to have their concerns dispelled, they should note that through its unprecedented cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and by showing total transparency regarding its nuclear energy program, Iran has already proven that the other parties’ concerns are not based on objective evidence and are mostly the result of illusions and propaganda. However, if the P5+1 group is actually seeking to achieve other goals, it goes without saying that no negotiations can be successful under such conditions. Up to the present time, it seems that the negotiating parties are trying to reach an agreement with Iran over all the aspects of the country’s nuclear case. To this end, the negotiating parties may face some simple and difficult issues. However, there are two points that raise hope in the success of the ongoing nuclear negotiations. Firstly, it should be noted that the time frame for reaching an agreement as well as the full scope of Iran’s nuclear activities, especially the uranium enrichment process, are complicated issues in nature and it would take some time before the negotiating parties manage to reach a comprehensive agreement on these issues. The second consideration which will help the success of negotiations is the high emphasis put by the Iranian negotiating team on transparency over the its program provided that other parties have actually accepted Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy within framework of NPT. 2. Currently, both sides suffer from a mutual lack of trust. The Americans are distrustful of the Islamic Republic. This pessimism and distrust have roots in extensive Iranophobic efforts, which have caused the West in general to look upon Iran’s realities with permanent doubt and pessimism. Therefore, even when faced with the factual reports of the IAEA [about Iran’s nuclear energy program], Western countries still look for illusionary excuses to shape the realities on the basis of their own mentality. They have already a mentality and they want to shape all the realities on the ground according to that mentality. So, if they are really concerned about Iran’s nuclear energy program, they should put the highest emphasis on the need for Iran to show transparency about its nuclear activities, instead of forming their mentality on the basis of total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear energy program. They should pay due attention to the IAEA’s reports on Iran’s nuclear activities as well. During the past four months that have lapsed since the Geneva agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 last November, the IAEA has conducted very extensive and complicated inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities all of which have proven beyond any doubt the legal nature of Iran’s nuclear activities. Therefore, the negotiating parties with Iran should pay due attention to these realities and avoid coming up with new excuses every day in order to put more pressure on Iran that is indeed counterproductive. 3. Given Iran’s confidence-building measures, the other parties should make a final decision on lifting the sanctions they have imposed against the Islamic Republic. It would be against the letter and spirit of the agreement, which the two sides are supposed to reach, to expect Iran to go through the bureaucratic maze of the other negotiating parties – for example, to wait for final decisions of the US Congress or the United Nations Security Council – in order to have sanctions removed. The other negotiating parties cannot expect Iran to abide by its obligations as per the agreement while sanctions continue relentlessly. Of course, it is quite natural for Iran to comply with its obligations and prove beyond any doubt the peaceful nature of its nuclear energy program, but the other parties should, for their part, take the necessary steps to totally remove anti-Iran sanctions. Of course, sanctions imposed on Iran have many aspects. There are certain sanctions, which have been imposed by the UN Security Council while another part of sanctions has been imposed by the US Congress and is considered unilateral and transnational. Such sanctions have been imposed by US against third countries that previously cooperated with Iran in various fields. These sanctions are very unfair and at loggerheads with all the norms of international law. Finally, there are unilateral sanctions imposed by the member states of the European Union against the Islamic Republic. All these sanctions should be removed. In other words, if negotiations are supposed to bear fruit, all kinds of sanctions should be removed in proportion to measures taken by the Iranian side. This, however, has not been the case so far. The Western countries have shown that they are not willing to lift anti-Iran sanctions and are, in fact, using these sanctions as a means of mounting pressure on Iran over its nuclear energy program. To do so, they have largely ignored the fact that in their entirety, the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities are legal and within framework of the regulations enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). At present, there is no doubt that all nuclear activities of Iran are peaceful and carried out with total transparency. 4. Last but not least, we are dealing with an ambiguous and dual situation here. The Iranian negotiating team is eager to clearly know what it will achieve in return for the confidence-building measures that it is supposed to take. If Iran is simply going to see ambiguous responses with regard to sanctions, for example, if Tehran is supposed to wait for a decision by the US Congress or go through a lengthy procedure through the UN Security Council, or wait for the green light from all the member states of the European Union before sanctions are lifted, it is clear that such responses are vague at best and will not help nuclear talks achieve the desirable result. * The article is written by Gholamali Khoshroo, who was Iran’s former deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs.