NOURNEWS – In an interview with Nournews, Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), emphasized that the organization is prepared for any scenario regarding attacks on Iran's nuclear sites. "The AEOI is prepared for any scenario in this regard, and as Iran progresses in the nuclear field, it becomes more dominant. They know that it is no longer possible to push Iran back, even with an attack."
The outlook for Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is as unclear as it is clear, given the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as Western claims. The first step in creating a clear outlook may be the IAEA's strong condemnation of Israel's threats against Iran's nuclear sites or the start of the process of lifting sanctions by the West.
In the midst of the ongoing regional crises, Nournews sat down with Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesperson for the AEOI, to discuss the developments between Iran and the IAEA. Here is the full interview:
Nournews: The Director-General of the IAEA stated about a month ago that for real and rapid progress in technical talks, prerequisites need to be met. Given Iran's extensive cooperation with the IAEA in recent years, how do you evaluate the outlook for Iran's relations with the IAEA?
KAMALVANDI: Grossi believes that negotiations to revive the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) need to take place, and from this perspective, he is trying to define the IAEA's role. He has already raised some points with the AEOI prior to this. The IAEA had information about Iran's nuclear activities before, but following the implementation of the Strategic Action Law, we reduced some of our commitments, including the IAEA's extraneous monitoring. Assuming the resumption of talks and the parties returning to the JCPOA, naturally, some of this past needs to be rebuilt.
From Iran’s perspective, the ground is prepared, and Tehran is ready to address this issue. However, implementing it requires serious talks. In these talks, there is an equation with two parts: One related to Iran's commitments and the other to the commitments of the other side and the issue of sanctions and lifting them.
Until there is a clear horizon for lifting sanctions, discussing the details of rebuilding is premature, especially since we have the Strategic Action Law, which the parliament has approved, and its main demand is the lifting of sanctions. Iran's goal is to lift sanctions, and if they show us a horizon for fulfilling their commitments, Iran is willing to provide the ground for this to happen.
Rafael Grossi has recently claimed that he wants to clarify the ambiguities regarding the alleged locations of uranium enrichment in his visit to Iran. Where has the file of these claims reached and what has Iran's response been to the agency, and why has this issue been raised again?
The agency has not announced that enrichment has taken place somewhere, but believes that it has observed contamination and has asked Iran to explain these contaminations. These contaminations can occur anywhere, even in the customs of a country or in various places such as parts where there are unusable iron. Atomic contamination, like any other contamination, can be easily transferred from one place to another. Even assuming the existence of enriched contamination, the issue is not very important, since the nature of these contaminations is natural uranium.
The IAEA believes that even assuming the existence of contamination, this issue can be fabricated and even the result of sabotage. As there have been acts of sabotage by the enemy in the country, especially in the nuclear industry. That's why we believe there is no reason for these cases to remain open. Usually, the Director-General of the IAEA announces the safeguard cases of each country in his annual report, known as (SIR), until these cases are resolved, this action is a kind of auditing of each country's nuclear file. Based on the agency's rules, cases related to Iran's nuclear activities should also be included in this report, but these cases are presented in various forms in both the annual and safeguard reports, indicating that this movement is political and not technical, and is intended to pressure the Islamic Republic to implement its plans through media hype and blackout.
It should be said to the public inside and outside that even assuming there is a question about contamination, this issue is not very important. The agency itself has indicators such as SQ, which means the loss of a significant portion of materials, which would be meaningful and worrisome if there is a deviation.
The goals of the groups that transfer such cases to the Board of Governors, and the Board of Governors instructs the Director-General to pursue, are political. If these issues are really examined technically, safeguard, and impartially, they will be resolved quickly. As it was previously claimed that there were four undeclared locations, and now it has been reduced to two. Regarding the 84% enrichment issue, which caused a lot of noise and political reactions, the agency announced after investigation that such an incident did not occur, and it was found that the enrichment was instantaneous and maybe a particle remained, but after entering the final tank and homogenization, it should be checked whether the enrichment reached that percentage or not. Unfortunately, the correction of this issue and the agency's confirmation did not have much reflection in the international media, and this shows that the hype and re-publication are done to the extent that it helps to create a bad image, but when an issue is resolved and minds need to be clarified, it is not highlighted much in the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment