Latest news with #MasudPezeshkian
American Military News
03-07-2025
- Politics
- American Military News
European Powers Alarmed As Iran Halts Nuclear Oversight
This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. Iran has enacted a decision to suspend its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), alarming European powers who called the move 'disastrous.' Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian on July 2 enacted a law passed last week — after Israeli and US airstrikes over 12 days hit its most-important nuclear facilities — to stop cooperating with the UN nuclear watchdog until Tehran receives guarantees that its nuclear sites and scientists are safe and that its right to enrich uranium domestically is assured. Suspending cooperation with the IAEA means Iran will halt inspections, reporting, and oversight activities under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Giese said the decision sends a 'disastrous signal,' insisting that cooperation with the watchdog is 'crucial' for 'diplomacy to succeed.' A day before the implementation of the law, French President Emmanuel Macron urged Russian leader Vladimir Putin to persuade Iran to resume cooperation with the IAEA, which the Kremlin agreed to, according to RFE/RL sources. Putin also expressed support for a diplomatic resolution, potentially including a zero-enrichment outcome in Iran — a non-starter for Tehran. Macron warned that without a solid deal between Tehran and Washington on Iran's nuclear program, European powers would begin the process of re-imposing UN sanctions against the Islamic republic. The United States and Iran had engaged in five rounds of indirect negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program before the talks broke down, prompting Israel to launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and military targets on June 13. The United States entered the conflict on June 22, joining Israel by striking three major Iranian nuclear sites, including the heavily fortified underground facility at Fordow. Eric Brewer of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative, said 'a new and dangerous phase' had begun with Iran's decision to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. 'The task of understanding what's happening at Iran's nuclear sites, new and old, will fall entirely on intelligence organizations,' Brewer, a former US intelligence analyst, wrote on X. In an interview with CBS News aired on July 1, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi indicated that Tehran remains open to talks with the Washington. 'I don't believe negotiations will restart as quickly as that,' Araqchi said, responding to Trump's suggestion that talks could begin as soon as this week. Still, he emphasized, 'the doors of diplomacy will never be completely closed.' But Trump this week appeared to change his stance on talks with the Islamic republic, writing on his Truth Social platform that he is 'not offering Iran anything…nor am I even talking to them since we totally obliterated their nuclear facilities.' The full impact of the 12-day conflict with Israel on Iran's nuclear program is still uncertain. While Iran claims its nuclear facilities were heavily damaged, it has pledged to press on with its program, insisting it remains peaceful. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi stated last week that Iran could restart uranium enrichment 'in a matter of months.' Tehran has repeatedly accused the UN nuclear watchdog of bias, alleging it collaborates with Western nations and Israel against Iran. For years, Grossi has criticized Iran for what he sees as a persistent lack of cooperation in the agency's efforts to investigate previously undisclosed nuclear sites. This ultimately resulted in the IAEA Board of Governors last month issuing a rare non-compliance resolution against Iran, which Tehran claims facilitated Israel's attacks.
Asharq Al-Awsat
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Iran: To Talk or Not to Talk, That is the Question
With the Trump administration sending conflicting signals about its intentions on dealing with Iran, the Iranian leadership is once again divided on how to respond. One faction is trying to paint a grim picture in which the US will give Israel enough support to inflict a heavy defeat on Iran to complete the defeats already inflicted on Tehran's allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Such a humiliation will encourage the regime's opponents both inside and outside the country to take to the streets and seize power while a demoralized Revolutionary Guard will do what it did in Syria, that is to say run for economic crisis cover to save its skin. The same faction argues that the current economic crisis has sapped the will and energy of the regime's dwindling support base, making regime change a real possibility for the first time. So, how to negotiate such a dangerous bend of the road? The faction's luminaries, including President Masud Pezeshkian suggest opening talks aimed at preventing a war and allowing things to cool down. But who should one talk to? Talking to the US is supposed to be verboten according to "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamanei who sites a fatwa by the founder of the regime, Ruhollah Khomeini, to that effect, plus an act of the 'Islamic Majlis,' the ersatz parliament that endorses the ban. The answer is: the European trio of France, Germany and Great Britain which coincidentally have bumpy relations with Washington. The theory goes that the trio will welcome a diplomatic coup to restore part of the prestige they have lost because of President Donald Trump's decision to exclude them from his Ukraine peace initiative and plans for the future of Gaza. But what could one talk about without being forced to offer concessions that result in a massive loss of face? The talk party suggests that Iran should offer to freeze its nuclear program for two to three years at the end of which it would decide which direction it should take. Right now, Iran is spending vast resources on a program that has no obvious civilian or military use or justification. In exchange, the European trio will use the mechanism provided by the UN Security Council's resolution 3221 to avoid opening the path for taking military action against Iran. The above mentioned resolution expires in October, making any unintended consequence a possibility. A deal with Europeans could help ease pressure on Iran, inject some vitality in a moribund economy and help prevent a massive popular revolt. Those who market the above analysis assume that the US, and for that matter Israel, will stand by and see how the Iranian adversary bounces back from the edge of doom. That analysis is opposed by the faction still totally loyal to Khamenei who insists that any show of weakness could accelerate moves towards regime change. His advice is to stand firm and prepare for war. The first step is to build a war chest. This is done by reducing the supply of foreign currency to the market to allow the national currency to fall further. The currency which fetched $1 with 650,000 rial now needs 900,000. This is a trick used by the Allies when they invaded and occupied Iran in World War II. Because their expenditures in Iran were in the local currency, they forced a 50 percent devaluation of the rial. Now used by Khamenei, that trick increases the state's purchasing power while reducing the purchasing power of Iranian families including the state's military and civilian personnel. To partly compensate for that, the key personnel needed in a war are granted exceptional bonuses. Khamenei, who controls law and order forces, has put them on partial alert to nip any revolt in the bud. This is accompanied by a massive crackdown against potential dissidents, especially in Tehran with reports of arbitrary arrests. All this does mean that the "Supreme Guide" isn't prepared to perform another of his "heroic flexibilities" by accepting a deal with the "Great Satan" to sit out Trump's four-year tenure, a game that led seven consecutive US presidents up garden path, allowing Iran to approach its golden jubilee. Today, to talk or not to talk is a question not only for rival factions in Tehran but also for powers that, rightly or wrongly, are convinced that there could be no regional peace and stability without persuading or forcing what Francois Mitterrand called "le grand perturbateur"(the big troublemaker) to change or to be changed.
