West Sets IAEA on a Destructive Course

Date: 07 June 2022 - 21:53

News ID: ۱۰۳۴۲۴

VIENNA (Dispatches) - The United States, Britain, Germany and France have submitted to the UN nuclear agency’s board a draft resolution criticizing Iran for allegedly not fully answering the IAEA’s questions on uranium traces at undeclared sites.
Submitting the text, reportedly little changed from a draft circulated last week, means it will be debated and voted on at this week’s quarterly meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation Board of Governors.
Iran has warned of retaliation and consequences. Iran’s ally Russia opposes such a resolution.
“Those who push for anti-Iran resolution at IAEA will be responsible for all the consequences,” Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein Amir-Abdollahian said on Twitter in a message about the talks.
Last week, Amir-Abdollahian said any political action by the United States and its three European allies at the IAEA “will undoubtedly be met with a proportionate, effective and immediate response from Iran”.
A senior Iranian official on Tuesday urged the IAEA to refrain from pursuing any political agenda in his work, stating that the Islamic Republic is strongly opposed to an anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors.
Speaking with the IRIB TV1 television channel, Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s former envoy to the IAEA, explained that the agency submits two separate reports to each meeting of the Board of Governors, one on Tehran’s compliance with its nuclear-related obligations and another on its compliance with the NPT Safeguards Agreement.
In its second report, the IAEA “claimed to have documents showing nuclear-related activities in some sites and called on Iran to cooperate with the agency and clarify the matter. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for its part, cooperated with the agency in good faith and on the basis of transparency,” he said.
Gharibabadi, who is now the Iranian Judiciary chief’s deputy for international affairs and secretary of the country’s High Council for Human Rights, stated that Iran had provided adequate explanations to the IAEA after tiny amounts of nuclear particles were found in one or two locations.
“I think there are two main reasons why the IAEA has amplified the issue and put it high on its agenda. One reason is the constant political pressure that the United States, some Western countries, and the Zionist regime have been exerting on the agency,” he said, pointing out that the occupying regime of Israel itself is not a signatory to the NPT.
Gharibabadi stressed that IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has “undeniably strong political tendencies,” saying all IAEA reports have been influenced by outside political pressures and the political approaches of the director generals.
He went on to say that the agency lacks an independent role. “If there were no political pressures on the IAEA, the chances for resolving the issue between Iran and the agency would be very high, as our explanations for the two sites are technically and scientifically valid,” he added.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Gharibabadi said that IAEA resolutions are

legally non-binding even if adopted.

“I hope that Western countries and the U.S. would come to their senses and opt not to officially submit the resolution, because they know the move will further complicate the situation. I hope they would not take such a destructive step. I am opposed to any resolution against the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether at the IAEA Board of Governors, the Security Council, or the UN Human Rights Council,” he said.

Gharibabadi also called on Iranian authorities to prevent the adoption of such resolutions, because the Islamic Republic is the most transparent country in terms of nuclear activities.

Even if the IAEA passes an anti-Iran resolution, it has no legal bearing in the international arena, but it can still be an achievement for its masterminds in order to ramp up the psychological war against the Islamic Republic, Gharibabadi said.

“Westerners have made their decision regarding this politicized action. The United States has supported it and even prepared a draft resolution, and circulated it among its allies and members of the Board of Governors. They know how destructive their action could be, and that it would seriously damage the initiatives on the table. Hence, if such a resolution cannot be stopped, its architects must bear the cost of its passage,” he said.