A US and European draft resolution at the UN nuclear watchdog is mildly critical of Tehran but may further sour talks on reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
A vote is expected at the 35-member board of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meeting in Vienna, Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. The resolution from the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom does not seek to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over its failure to satisfy the agency over uranium traces found at three sites.
Reuters news agency reported that the draft resolution said the board "expresses profound concern that the safeguards issues related to these three undeclared locations remain outstanding due to insufficient substantive cooperation by Iran…[and] calls upon Iran to act on an urgent basis to fulfil its legal obligations and, without delay, take up the (IAEA) director general’s offer of further engagement to clarify and resolve all outstanding safeguards issues."
Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s ambassador to the IAEA, tweeted that “for unknown reasons” the US and ‘E3’ “believe that a resolution is the best way to address outstanding safeguards issues,” which Ulyanov called “extremely doubtful.”
As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran is required to satisfy the IAEA though ‘safeguards’ that its nuclear work is peaceful. Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA director general, told the agency’s quarterly board meeting Monday that he was unable to certify this after what he regards as unsatisfactory answers from Iran over uranium traces found by inspectors.
Tehran has downplayed the significance of the uranium traces, which relate to work carried out before 2003, and insisted it has given complete answers. Iran – backed by Russia and China – has argued that ‘technical’ issues of nuclear monitoring, including the ‘safeguards’ issues of pre-2003 work, should be kept distinct from the ‘political’ task of negotiating revival of the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
Reacting to news of the resolution, Vahid Jalalzadeh, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy committee, reportedly said the passing of the resolution would lead Iran to reconsider its role in the JCPOA talks.
This followed Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian tweeting Sunday: "Those who push for anti-Iran resolution at IAEA will be responsible for all the consequences.”
‘Insignificant’ uranium traces
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s IAEA ambassador 2018-21, told state broadcaster IRIB Monday that the agency had established that the “insignificant” traces had come from “one of the countries with nuclear weapons.”
“The agency itself informed us that this uranium was of the type…is from one of the counties with nuclear weapons, not because it is used in nuclear weapons, but because of its origin,” he said.
The IAEA has long investigated Iran’s nuclear work before 2003, when many analysts believed it imported equipment from Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan that might previously have been used to enrich uranium.
But Gharibabadi added to the mystery with a suggestion that “when Esfahan steel was commissioned before the [1979] Revolution, one of these countries was active there.”
While the pre-2003 IAEA probes were given less prominence after the JCPOA, they have re-emerged in part because of documents from 2004-5 released by Israel purporting to show Iran using purloined IAEA files to hoodwink nuclear inspectors.
With Tehran since 2021 restricting its cooperation with the agency to little more than the basic level required under safeguards, the US and the ‘E3’ have increasingly treated the matter as an important issue of transparency.
France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States have been discussing a possible resolution censuring Tehran at the quarterly board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, while China and Russia have warned this could upset negotiations over reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement.
The most contentious part of Grossi’s report referred to the discovery of uranium traces at three sites in Iran linked to nuclear work carried out before 2003.
“Iran has not provided explanations that are technically credible in relation to the Agency’s findings at three undeclared locations in Iran,” he said. “Nor has Iran informed the Agency of the current location, or locations, of the nuclear material and/or of the equipment contaminated with nuclear material, that was moved from Turquzabad in 2018.”
Grossi told the board – which meets from today until June 10 – that he could not confirm Iran’s adherence to its ‘safeguards agreement’ as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty “unless and until” Tehran provided “technically credible explanations for the presence of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at Turquzabad, Varamin and ‘Marivan’ and informs the Agency of all current locations of the nuclear material and/or of the contaminated equipment.”
While these issues do not directly relate to talks to restore the 2015 agreement, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), they are seen by the US and three European states as a crucial issue of Iran’s credibility.
‘Technical’ issues
Iran quickly rejected Grossi’s speech to the agency board. Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said the IAEA chief had made a “hurried response” with his report. “We had planned a third round of discussions but he didn’t wait,” the spokesman said, adding that any resolution would “impact negatively on cooperation with the IAEA and on the nuclear talks.”
Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, told al-Jazeera television that Iran had given “very precise answers” to the IAEA. According to an agreement reached by Grossi in early March, Tehran was required to give written replies by March 20 and satisfy the agency over any queries by June 21.
Iran, China and Russia have all argued that questions arising from Iran’s pre-2003 nuclear work are ‘technical’ and should not derail ‘political’ efforts to revive the JCPOA, from which President Donald Trump withdrew the US in 2018, imposing ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions that prompted Iran after 2019 to expand its nuclear program beyond JCPOA limits.
Majority vote
While in the past welcoming the ‘technical’ role of the IAEA, Tehran criticized last week’s trip by Grossi to Israel, which is not an NPT signatory and which is the only nuclear-armed Middle East state. Iran’s English-language outlet Press TV accused Grossi and Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett of “collusion,” and contrasted Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal with Iran facing extensive IAEA inspections.
Any vote at the IAEA board on a resolution critical of Iran will be made by a simple majority of the 35 members, but a referral to the United Nations Security Resolution would be in different circumstances to 2005-6 when Russia and China voted for international sanctions at the UNSC.
Grossi told the board the IAEA was open to continued dialogue with Iran to resolve all issues. “As in the past, and in order for the agency to be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, the agency remains ready to re-engage without delay with Iran to resolve these matters,” he said.
Grossi told a press briefing: “These issues will not go away.”
Former diplomat Fereydoun Majlesi offered Etemad Online a pessimistic assessment on Sunday [June 5]. "There is no hope in the nuclear negotiations to revive the JCPOA," he said, adding that everything is working against Iran and that Israel utterly threatens Tehran with air strikes on its nuclear sites.
Majlesi reminded that Israel has said war against the Islamic Republic will no longer remain limited to Israel and the areas at its borders and from now on it will strike the very country where threats emanate from.
In the meantime, Etemad Online observed that US State Department Spokesman Ned Price has said that an agreement might be within reach only if Iran gives up its maximalist positions. This is while Tehran repeats its demands and Iran watchers predict hard days ahead for Tehran.
Majlesi told Etemad Online that those responsible for the negotiations are taking it toward a "final solution" in which there is no hope for any positive result from the negotiations. "The group who wishes for the annihilation of Israel through jihad appear to be approaching a serious operational point," Majlesi said. He reiterated that the final solution means war and bloodshed.
On the other hand, former lawmaker Mehrdad Lahouti says that there is a will in the Iranian government to make the negotiations fruitful and to lift the sanctions. Lahouti said he believes the talks will bear fruit as Iran is determined to secure an agreement with the United States, and President Joe Biden badly needs the agreement while Europeans can save face by being involved in a deal that reduces tension.
Lahouti told Nameh News that unlike what most people believe, the final decision-maker in Iran is not the Raisi Administration. He added that even under former president Hassan Rouhani in 2015, it was the “political order” that supported the deal and made sure that it was completed.
"Political order" is a jargon used by Islamic Republic officials to refer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. "That was how the Iranian parliament managed to approve the deal [JCPOA] within 20 minutes," Lahouti maintained, adding that "If it was not for approval from the higher up, the Guardian Council would have stopped the ratification."
Lahouti's remarks appear even more optimistic than they look, as some hardliners are adamant to make sure that there will be no agreement. Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of hardline daily Kayhan, which is linked to Khamenei’s office, told Didban Iran website that Iran should ban the IAEA inspectors' visit to its nuclear sites.
He added that "If Iran wanted it could have made nuclear weapons and the IAEA, the United States and Europe would have not been able to do a damn thing." He said: "We expect Iranian officials to ban IAEA inspectors visit to our sensitive nuclear and security sites in order to blind the eyes of the CIA and Mossad."
Shariatmadari claimed that "UNSC resolutions against Iran will have no value and this is something the United States and the three European states that have suggested to refer Iran's case to the Security Council know very well."