Iran Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi (L) with International Atomic Energy Agency Secretary General Rafael Grossi, Vienna, Austria, September 1, 2020
European nations have stepped back from a showdown over Iran’s threat to inspections of its nuclear facilities, in the hope that Tehran may agree to informal discussions about the 2015 agreement with the 5+1 Powers.
The UK, France, and Germany withdrew the US-backed plan for the International Atomic Energy Agency to criticize Iran over its recent limits on inspections.
Almost two weeks ago Tehran withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Additional Protocol, having acceded to it alongside the July 2015 deal with the 5+1 Powers (US, UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia).
The step meant Iran can block snap inspections by the IAEA of its nuclear facilities. The Rouhani Government also said it will withhold surveillance videos for at least the next three months.
See also Iran to Proceed with Limits on Nuclear Inspections
The three European powers responded with the resolution for the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors at its quarterly meeting. The text called on Iran to answer the Agency’s questions about the origin of uranium particles recently found at several undeclared, apparently obsolete sites.
But just before the deadline for submission of the resolution, IAEA head Rafael Grossi announced a new diplomatic mission to get Iran’s cooperation:
We are trying to sit down around the table and see if we can resolve this once and for all.
We are going to be starting this process of focused analysis of the situation with a technical meeting which will take place in Iran at the beginning of April which I hope will be followed by other technical or political meetings.
Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, had threatened to withdraw the February accord with Grossi permitting monitoring over the next three months.
A “French diplomatic source” said the European countries believe they have Iranian concessions allowing Grossi to work on outstanding issues, as well as the prospect of a meeting between Iran, the US, and the rest of the 5+1 Powers.
“If we had gone through with the vote (on a resolution) it would have made it more difficult to quickly start this meeting,” the source said.
Earlier this week Iran rejected the European Union’s invitation to the informal discussion, seeking a US return to the deal after Donald Trump’s withdrawal in May 2018. However, the Biden Administration signalled that there might be a prospect of back-channel talks.
Foreign Minister Zarif gave no signal of such a possibility on Thursday. Instead, he used Twitter to reject any negotiations to revive the 2015 deal and called for the removal of veto power in the UN Security Council:
JCPOA cannot be renegotiated—period.
If 2021 is not 2015, it's not 1945 either. So let's change UN Charter & remove the veto—so often abused by US.
Let's stop posturing—which we both did 2003-2012 to no avail—& get down to implementing JCPOA—which we both actually signed on to.
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) March 4, 2021
“Of course a guy named Eric Brill, who has no expertise on Iran but supports the Ahmadinejad “victory”, would not understand why transparency would be necessary in the event of a disputed election.”
Releasing the disaggregated ballot box tallies was the necessary additional transparency, along with an investigation of all claims and a recount. You can’t get fairer than that. Even if all the Form 22s had been published, this would still not have satisfied those pursuing conspiratorial theories of fraud.
“Disaggregated ballot box tallies” is a meaningful phrase — it is no more than a series of unverified numbers put out by a regime which had already anointed Ahmadinejad as the “winner”.
Khatami pens a letter to Khamenei claiming he has never opposed the Islamic Republic’s system: https://www.dw.com/fa-ir/a-56728913
Dr. Alireza Marandi, physician and former MP (and brother of the well-known TU professor of American studies), has criticized the letter as “strange” considering that Khatami appeared to ally himself to those rejecting the 2009 election outcome: https://fararu.com/fa/news/478624/
Marandi states that the denial of the democratic outcome by the losing parties caused Iran great difficulties and strengthened the hands of those in the West seeking to penalise the country over its nuclear program. Although Khatami has never publicly stated that the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fraudulent, he has never stated that it was legitimate either. Kayhan editor, Hussein Shariatmadari, has called on Khatami to apologise and admit his mistake.
Since the protests in 2009 were not about overthrowing the system but about the failure of the system to live up to its stated principles, e.g., in the Constitution, there’s no issue here — except for Marandi trying to score a political point v. Khatami.
And given that there was no transparency about the election’s outcome — as well as repression of the opposition — Khatami’s point is a more than fair one.
No transparency?
1. All candidates had observers at the polling stations and during the count.
2. The results of all 46,000 ballot boxes were made known.
3. All allegations of irregularities and anomalies were investigated.
4. There was a recount of a random sample of up to 10% which was televised.
The opposition failed to accept the democratic verdict as according to both the Constitution and election law.
Khatami’s younger brother has claimed, without evidence, that 8 million votes were added and that only 32 million actual votes were cast: https://iranintl.com/en/iran/khatami-8-million-votes-were-added-ballot-boxes-2009
Rastgoo,
1. Many observers for opposition candidates were unable to observe, because of detention or intimidation.
2. Many observers never signed declarations of the counts.
3. The regime has never produced the Form 22s, documenting the counts from the polling stations.
4. Almost no “irregularities” were investigated. Instead, opposition campaign offices were shut down before, during, and after the election, and opposition parties were soon suspended.
5. There was no transparency about the “recount”, including the selection of the 10% sample.
Otherwise, great comment!
S.
From Eric Brill’s analysis on opposition claims about the 2000 election: https://brill-law.com/iran-2009-election—100710.html
“At least one Iran analyst (Scott Lucas) has pressed the Form 22 argument even further, insisting (a year after the election) that Ahmadinejad’s election was invalid because the Interior Ministry did not scan all 45,692 Form 22’s – signatures, thumbprints and all – and post PDF images of them on the Internet. It is not clear why the government should have undertaken this effort, which Mousavi himself never requested (nor did any other candidate, in this election or any other) and which Iran’s election laws do not provide for.”
Like I say, first provide evidence that the results of just one ballot box tally is incorrect or invalid.
Rastgoo,
Of course a guy named Eric Brill, who has no expertise on Iran but supports the Ahmadinejad “victory”, would not understand why transparency would be necessary in the event of a disputed election.
Thanks for adding this!
S.
UN condemns mass killing of poor desperate people in Sistan province that happened last week, the official number is 23….
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-pakistan-protests-un/un-condemns-up-to-23-killings-in-irans-border-area-with-pakistan-idUSKBN2AX130