Home  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy policy  |  Site map

« The China-Russia-Iran Axis | Main |

Iran TV: Space Program (English)

»


January 24, 2008

Iran TV Reviews Nuclear Case

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Broadcast 23 January on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Broadcast 23 January on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Translation

Announcer: Last night and today two meetings were held in Europe in which Iran's nuclear case was discussed. The first meeting was in Berlin Germany. The foreign ministers of the 5+1 Group met to work out an agreement about approving a resolution against Iran but after the meeting, according to what was reported by this group's foreign ministry offices and the Western and regional media and press, differences in the 5+1 Group prevented them from reaching an agreement about a new resolution against Iran.

In Brussels also Mr. Jalili, the secretary of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, accepted the invitation from the European Parliament to attend a meeting of the deputies of this parliament and in reply to questions from these deputies he explained the Islamic Republic of Iran's positions about its peaceful nuclear activities.

In our news interview program today we will discuss this subject with a respected expert. To this end we have invited Mr. Anadi, an expert on political affairs. Greetings and welcome Mr. Anadi!

Anadi: In the name of God the Merciful the Compassionate, greetings to you and the viewers of the News Network.

Announcer: Today we broadcast Mr. Jalili's remarks live from Brussels and the European Parliamet, which covered a broad range of topics. However we want to discuss the nuclear issue. What is your evaluation of this press event--which cannot be called a press conference--in the context of Iran's nuclear diplomacy?

Anadi: Mr. Jalili and his remarks in the European Parliament were in reality a continuation of the nuclear diplomacy that went with Dr. Jalili's trip to China. Both were important, China because of its membership on the IAEA Board of Governors, the Security Council and the 5+1 Group, the Parliament of the European Union because of its role and place in the structure of the European Union and because Europe's leaders are members of the 5+1 Group.

Therefore in this context explaining the positons and views of the Islamic Republic of Iran helps clarify the issues, because technically this clairfication began with the Islamic Republic of Iran's interactions with the IAEA in the month of Tir [22 June - 22 July]. At the level of positions and views it appears that in these talks and face-to-face meeting this clarification will help eliminate ambiguities that may have arisen due to propaganda. It appears that Dr. Jalili's remarks and his responses to the questions from the deputies of the European Parliament are important, as well as his emphasis on the fact that the course Iran has adopted is irreversible.

In other words, Iran will continue to enrich uranium. This is being in done in cooperation with the IAEA and where there have been ambiguities, they are being resolved step by step, partly through Mr. El Baradei's trip four weeks ago and the statement that was issued.

If we come together in the framework of nuclear diplomacy, this will show that the Islamic Republic of Iran is working to build confidence in this new round of diplomacy.

Announcer: One of the points Mr. Jalili emphasized is confidence-building. He said confidence-building is a two-way street. Have the Europeans traveled the other side of this road to gain the confidence of Iranians?

Anadi: If we put the indicators for European Union and American behavior side by side with Iran's behavior on the other side, I think this has been a one-way street. In other words Iran has always built confidence, The Western side has always presented the same maximum demand that Iran stop uranium enrichment. They even demanded at one point that Iran completely dismantle its enrichment facilities. They have now backed off a little and are saying the enrichment should be stopped right where it is, with for example 3,000 centrifuges. Overall, they have not acted reciprocally against the steps Iran has taken.

When Iran voluntarily suspended enrichment and implemented the Supplementary Protocol and gave a report in excess of 1,000 pages to the IAEA. The IAEA inspections themselves took more than 2,000 man days at Iran's nuclear facilities. Inspections have begun recently in the framework of the 20 Tir [11 July] agreement to resolve six points of ambiguity. The Plutonium, the Polonium-210, the centrifuges and the metallic uranium have been resolved, and talks have been held about the contaminations at Tehran University and it has been agreed that this will be resolved in the next four weeks.

These things show that Iran has taken great steps to build confidence; it has announced that we are not pursuing a nuclear program with military objectives, and even the Americans themselves have announced this in the report from their intelligence institution. These things show that Iran has taken very good steps to build confidence, and the international community had confirmed this, the 118 member nations of the Non-Aligned Movement have confirmed this, the 57 nations in the Islamic Conference Organization have confirmed this.

On the other side however we see that this political approach still exists and they are still trying to approve this revolution against Iran. This is damaging.

Announcer: You mentioned the resolution they are trying to approve and the meeting of the 5+1 Group, which apparently did not achieve that much. What were the objectives holding this meeting, and what were the consequences of its failure?

Anadi: This meeting was held after the grace period that was in Resolution 1747. This grace period ended on 3 Khordad [24 May]. That was 8 months ago. They tried several times to hold a meeting and were only able to meet in the form of a teleconference. They were able to hold this meeting of the 5+1 Group only on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly in the month of Mehr [23 September - 22 October]. Since that time they have not met as a group of foreign ministers.

This meeting that was held in Berlin is a new round of American efforts. It had two objectives. One was to decide about Mr. Elbaradei's reprot in the month of March, and another objective could be to pass a resolution on the eve of the elections that are about to take place in Iran, to influence them in some way. However what really matters for the negotiations and the interviews with Mr. Lavrov and others who were present at the Berlin meeting is that it did not accomplish anything specific. They said they agreed on the overall content and there are no new sanctions.

However the issue is that America in making the effort to pass this new resolution, for which they had prepared a third draft they gave to the Europeans, was done to intensify the psychological pressure on Iran, and this carried the message that America is still standing by its former positions that Iran should stop enriching, and in reality America has not been too happy with this interaction Iran and the IAEA have had.

Announcer: It appears that statements differ about the positions that have been adopted. Especially, the Chinese and the Russians take one position and the rest take another. Mr. Lavrov emphasized after the Berlin meeting that IAEA's position and cooperation between Iran and the IAEA must be reinforced. However the Westerners take another positon! How do you analyze this difference?

Anadi: These differences within the 5+1 Group have actually existed since the beginning. Every time they have had a meeting the Chinese and the Russians have had one front and Americas and the English had another. Then the French and the Germans played in the middle. France is now with America and England with the positions it has adopted, but there is still a contrast of views between China and Russia and the rest. The reason is that the Russians and the Chinese believe interaction has begun between Iran and the IAEA and has brought positive results. This must continue. Sanctions have brought no results.

The report from America's intelligence institutions says that Iran has no military pilgram, and when they themselves say there is no such issue there is no reason why Iran should be pressured by a resolution for security reasons.

The next point is a report the American CIA published stating that since the year 2003 when sanctions on Iran were intensified Iran has signed $20 billion in agreements with foreign companies. This shows that sanctions are not that effective. Therefore the Russians and the Chinese put these two factors together and concluded that we must solve the Iran issue through the IAEA. Intensifying sanctions polarizes the atmosphere and causes Iran to reduce its cooperation.

Announcer: In the draft that was presented mention was made of accepting the two sttrong Security Council resolutions and the issues of suspending uranium enrichment in Iran. Why do they emphasize suspesion so much?

Anadi: That first point where they emphasized the two resolutions legally in the UN goes back to Security Council Resolution 1396 of Farvardin 85 [21 March - 20 April 2006]. However where they are emphasisiing the suspension of uranium enrichment, this is the demand America, England and France are pursuing and at appears that China and Russia are in agreement about this, but they differ on how this suspension should be achieved. The Chinese and the Russians do not believe in the intense measures America, England and France are advocating.

Behind what they are saying that Iran should stop uranium enrichment is the fact that they do not want Iran to become a peaceful nuclear power. They are making every effort to make Iran stop enriching uranium.

Announcer: The Russians want a temporary suspenison!

Anadi: Their methods are different. American was a complete stop, while the others are talking about joint enrichment for example.

Announcer: Suspension can have different meanings. There is a maximum view. They could be talking about a complete halt or a suspension to get beyond this current crisis.

Anadi: These are two different issues. One is that the Americans want a complete suspension, but they believe that if Iran suspends for a short period of time, well the last time we suspended for a few months it lasted two years. They are using the same tactic now. At first the suspenison could last a week or a month, and they will amend

Announcer: In the draft that was presented mention was made of accepting the two sttrong Security Council resolutions and the issues of suspending uranium enrichment in Iran. Why do they emphasize suspesion so much?

Anadi: That first point where they emphasized the two resolutions legally in the UN goes back to Security Council Resolution 1396 of Farvardin 85 [21 March - 20 April 2006]. However where they are emphasisiing the suspension of uranium enrichment, this is the demand America, England and France are pursuing and at appears that China and Russia are in agreement about this, but they differ on how this suspension should be achieved. The Chinese and the Russians do not believe in the intense measures America, England and France are advocating.

Behind what they are saying that Iran should stop uranium enrichment is the fact that they do not want Iran to become a peaceful nuclear power. They are making every effort to make Iran stop enriching uranium.

Announcer: The Russians want a temporary suspenison!

Anadi: Their methods are different. American was a complete stop, while the others are talking about joint enrichment for example.

Announcer: Suspension can have different meanings. There is a maximum view. They could be talking about a complete halt or a suspension to get beyond this current crisis.

Anadi: These are two different issues. One is that the Americans want a complete suspension, but they believe that if Iran suspends for a short period of time, well the last time we suspended for a few months it lasted two years. They are using the same tactic now. At first the suspenison could last a week or a month, and they will amend it and make it more than a year.

In the present stage there is the principle is that it should for a short period. There is the point that at the Madrid Conference atted by Mr. Larijani, secretary of the Supreme Natonal Security Council, representing the Islamic Republic, met with Solana, he said the term suspension has been removed from Iran's nuclear vocabulary.

This shows that the gap is wide. Iran is no longer talking about suspenision and they must speak with us based on the existing situation to resolve the issue. They are still back at the first step, and this really has to change. This orientation is not the answer, and experience has shown this. If it were the answer the three resolutions that were approved would have driven Iran in this direction. However we see that Iran has its own nuclear activities, which have become industrial, and it is continuing its cooperation with the IAEA. Therefore there is no decision about political pressure. Why isn't the other side receiving this message? They are still insisting on that same previous position!

Announcer: One sees contradictions in the Russion position. One the one hand they are sending fuel to the Bushehr pland, and on the other they are taking part in the Berlin meeting. Is this a contradiction?

Anadi: Apparently it is, especially since while they are sending fuel they published a statement saying Iran really ought to respect the provisions of the resolutions, which require Iran to stop enriching uranium. On the other hand they are taking in the 5+1 Group and they voted for the previous resolution about Iran. Their positions sometimes differ from those of the West and go back to Russia's own national interest. On the one hand they are cooperating with us on nuclear issues and on the other they are cooperating with America. They are really playing a two-sided game, one side must have their point of view and the other side must have ours.

Elbaradei's reports are also two-sided. On the one hand the reports confirm that Iran's nuclear activities have not deviated, and on the other hand they say Iran's activities are not clear. In other words the reports give a dual message that will be heard by both sides based on the interest they want to secure.

However with respect to Russia sending fuel to Iran, it is true that the West has announced that with the sending of this fuel Iran has no need to enrich unranium, but the mere sending of fuel to Iran shows that the Russians have distanced themselves to some extent from the West in their positions and have come closer to us, as was seen in Mr. Lavrov's remarks at the Berlin meeting.

This resolution provides that the 5+1 Group should have direct talks with Iran, and this is something new that did not previously exist in this form. These things show that the Russians have insisted a little regarding the Western postions and this has also caused them to change the language of the resolution somewhat.

Announcer: It appears the Russians are trying to win Iran's confidence by sending fuel to it, leaving us with no reason enrich uranium and reinforcing the case for our suspending enrichment. Do you think something like this is happening?

Anadi: This is true, and previously the issue has also been raised that it is not economical for Iran to have the fuel cycle because they are providing the fuel for this Bushehr power plant. They have announced this, but a point that exists is that Iran is doing this based on its existing track record. Look at Iran's record of coooperation with people who were supposed to deliver fuel to us, and this never happened.

In view of this dark background, it is natural for Iran to want to stand on its own feet. In view of the objective of producing 20,000 megawatts of electrical power, it is natural that Iran prefers to have the ability to produce fuel domestically so it will not have this worry in case for any reason Russia decides not to give us fuel. Iran must have a domestic fuel production capabiity so we can meet our needs ourselves.

Announcer: How long do you think the West will continue to insist on its demands about Iran and how long will it be before the West actually accepts a nuclear Iran?

Anadi: I think most of the West has come to realize that they must be prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. Mr. Brzezinski and others have said this. If we take this view, which is being discussed at the university level in the Europe and America and also has its adherents in public opinion, it appears they must move in this direction

These resolutions don't have any teeth. This resolution 1347 is much milder. Or for example this draft resolution that has just been discussed and has not been published makes no new demands. It just adds a psychological load to the other resolutions. These things show that the Westerners themselves are slowly concluding that they are going to have to back off. It is time for them to look for an honorable solution instead of making these maximum demands and risking their prestige.

It appears that things are moving in this direction Some people believe Mr Elbaradei is making clearer reports and is raising the issues more capably. Changes are taking place in America because of their elections, and Russia and China are playing a stronger role. Overall these things help with the acceptance of the idea of living with a nuclear Iran.

Announcer: Do you think Iran's cooperation with the IAEA is important?

Anadi: Naturally this is important. Consider the complicated climate that existed before 20 Tir [11 July] when they was talking about the resolution and even a military confrontation. After Iran's program with the IAEA began on 20 Tir [11 July] with several trips including one to Iran by Mr. Elbaradei himself, the political tensions subsided and the climate became more centered on legal and technical issues. The IAEA became a prominent issue again. Before that everything revolved around the Security Council and the IAEA had been driven to the sidelines. We are now seeing the IAEA at the center again, and the participants at the Berlin conference emphasized themselves that we should give a greater role to the IAEA.

Mr. Lavrov said this clearly. He said the language used at the beginning of the resolution had a penalizing quality, but when this was suspended he emphasized that the negotiations must continue and be supported. This in itself shows that Iran's cooperation with the IAEA has to a great extent been able to a great extent to alleivate the pressure.

Announcer: Do you think the main problem of America and the West is that the IAEA is the primary arbiter of Iran's nuclear case?

Anadi: The problem is that the America and the West have made every effort to refer Iran's case to the Security Council and make it a security issue because it is a threat to world security. Topics are placed on the Security Council agenda that are security issues because circumstances have demanded their referral to the Security Council and because of Article 8. They thought that by referreing Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council they would achieve this demand.

Their concern now is that with the IAEA's return to prominence Iran's nuclear case will cease to be a security issue and become an ordinary and routine issue. This the main reason they are worried and they do not want this to happen at the level of the IAEA.

The IAEA is a specialist authority where America does not have a veto. It is correct that America is a member of the Board of Governors, but the IAEA tries to resolve issues through talks, negotiations and technical studies rather than through resolutions and threats.

Taken together, these things tie America's hands and prevent it from putting more pressure on Iran. At the same time Iran has support on the IAEA from powerful sources such as the Non-Aligned Movement, which has always taken strong positions against the Western nations.

Announcer: Do Mr. Soltanieh's policies help strengthen the positions of the Asian nations in the UN?

Anadi: Yes, this helps and reinforces Iran's nuclear diplomacy and positions.

Announcer: In light of these things, what are your predictions about Mr. Elbaradei's next report on Iran's nuclear case?

Anadi: Of course it is difficult to predict but based on the previous trend I expect that Mr. Elbaradei will publish another two-sided report and he won't be very clear about this issue, but since this is his personal role as general manager of the IAEA, when the IEAA is reinforced his position is reinforced too, just as he was forgotten when the case was referred to the Security Council.

Now in this situation I think his report will be positive, but we should not think that with his next report Iran's case will be completely closed. This will not happen!

Crossposted to the Satellite News.



Posted by John at January 24, 2008 7:53 AM





Helpful Sites