What are Iran’s options after the Western draft resolution to force it to reveal its nuclear sites? | policy

Iran faces a decisive diplomatic test and turning point after Paris, Berlin, London and Washington submitted a draft resolution to the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency demanding that Tehran fully adhere to international treaties, disclose its nuclear sites, and allow the agency to examine them when needed.

From his point of view, Hosni Abidi, professor of international relations at the University of Geneva, believes that there is a clear relationship between US President Donald Trump’s recent statements regarding the possibility of reaching an agreement with Iran and the step of submitting the Western draft resolution.

Trump had confirmed during his reception of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House yesterday, Tuesday, that Iran wants to reach an agreement, and that it is likely to reach an agreement with it, stressing at the same time that Washington eliminated Tehran’s nuclear capabilities “quickly and with great force.”

According to Obaidi’s interview with the Beyond the News program, Iran has no choice but to engage in negotiations with the IAEA and Western countries to preserve its nuclear gains and interests.

Also, Tehran considers itself bound by international obligations as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and any rigid position – Obaidi says – may lead to the loss of negotiation opportunities and open the door to additional Western pressure, including the possibility of referring the file to the Security Council.

The draft resolution comes at a very sensitive time after Iran suspended its cooperation with the agency last July following a 12-day war launched by Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear facilities, which reflects the fragility of trust between the parties.

“Extremely careful”

However, Iran’s concept of the agreement differs from the American interpretation, according to the director of the Spirit of Peace Foundation for Diplomatic Studies, Hamid Reza Gholamzadeh, explaining that Tehran seeks to reach a fair understanding that includes discussing the terms and conditions, while the Americans see that the agreement is limited to dictating conditions.

Gholamzadeh added that any talk about an approaching agreement with the United States is interpreted in Tehran with extreme caution in view of previous experiences such as the 12-Day War, where negotiations were used as a pretext to launch military attacks on Iranian facilities.

He explained that Iran seeks to avoid any escalation, but at the same time it will not accept the will of the Western parties being imposed on it or being forced to accept conditions it has not agreed to.

In this context, Gholamzadeh stressed that uranium enrichment for Iran is a “red line that cannot be waived,” and that it seeks to obtain clear security guarantees before any new step.

In his response to the developments, he stressed that Iran had made gestures of good faith by cooperating with the agency, but it believed that any adoption of the draft resolution would constitute a basis for escalation, and might force it to stop cooperation if it considered that the goal was not to negotiate but to impose its will.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi described the European Troika’s efforts to issue a resolution against Tehran at the International Atomic Energy Agency as “irresponsible” and “provocative.”

International dimension

For his part, Iranian affairs expert Clement Terme stressed that the European Troika seeks more transparency to avoid future attacks by Israel and the United States, considering that clarifying information about enrichment and nuclear sites will prevent a “new military confrontation.”

Term did not rule out referring this file to the Security Council “if Iran does not cooperate,” nor did he rule out that Russia and China would use their veto power, which would add an international dimension to the tension and increase the complexity of the negotiations.

He expressed his conviction that the absence of accurate information about the volume of enriched uranium and the damage to facilities leaves Europe confused, and allows Iran to use the time to gain more influence and improve its negotiating position.