Your trusted source

Press TV has interviewed political commentator Mostafa Khoshcheshm to talk about International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano’s recent visit to Tehran.

Press TV: Let’s look at the significance of his [Amano] visit. Is it significant? What exactly can be accomplished in your perspective?

Khoshcheshm: Hello and thank you very much for having me on board. You know, it is a very important trip, but we should first take a look at the history of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA. Back a decade ago when the IAEA was operating under the then-director general Mohamed Elbaradei, the IAEA had six major questions about Iran’s atomic activities in the past, of course, in 2006. And all these issues were resolved.

One of them pertained to the detonators, nuclear detonators, which are known as EBW detonators, and everything was resolved. Actually Iran responded to the questions. Elbaradei sent his deputy, Ollie Heinonen to Tehran twice and they visited Parchin, which is a military site and not a nuclear site, under the IAEA rules, they cannot visit military sites but Iran provided them with access to this military site and then they came up with the idea that there has been no diversion in Iran’s nuclear activities.

Then, the National Intelligence Estimate, which is given out by 16 US intelligence bodies in two separate reports in 2007 and 2010, verified Iran’s peaceful nuclear program at least since 2003. So, everything was resolved, but when the IAEA director general was changed and Yukiya Amano goes to power through the support that he received from the United States under the pressures of Washington, he started over again and again to raise the same old issues, including the EBW detonators.

Press TV: Mr. Khoshcheshm, let me just jump in here. Are you saying then it depends on who the head of the IAEA, as for how the organization actually deals with this issue concerning Iran?

Khoshcheshm: No, no. It is not dependant on who is leading the IAEA. It is the point is the IAEA is under US pressure and when they do not find anything wrong with Iran’s nuclear program; they raise the same old issues again and again. No, since President Hassan Rouhani rose to power, he brought with himself a new kind of dialogue. He said he is a man of interaction and dialogue.

So, Iran started what our leader called a heroic flexibility in its talks at least in the nuclear issue, the US-led West. So Iran tried to show that it’s really flexible, but there should be an end point to everything. Now, here today, President Rouhani and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) chief Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi, both try to make the IAEA chief Mr. Amano understand that there is an endpoint to Iran’s flexibility.

Now, Iran has always asked “OK, if you want to know about the same old issues, you should tell us when is it going to end?” That is number one. You should give us assurances that you... and then again, this is the third time we are talking about the same detonators. Number two, President Rouhani tried in his statements to make Mr. Amano understand that Iran is not going to give up an iota of its nuclear rights. Iran is going to continue its nuclear enrichment if there is going to be any kind of deal under the Geneva nuclear deal, that Iran sign with the six powers. Iran will not give up its enrichment. Iran will continue the civilian use of the nuclear technology.

Press TV: So, where do the nuclear negotiations stand? On the one hand, Iran is saying that it will not back away from its red lines. It will continue uranium enrichment. It will continue its civilian nuclear activities. On the other hand, we see the P5+1, specifically we can say the United States coming back and forth and demanding many of those things first of all, they sort of changed their perspective about the enrichment in general. But still, they want some of the installations to be inspected and other things. So where does that leave Iran at this point in time, if Tehran is not willing to back down and it does not seem like the other side is willing to have honest negotiations. So now what?

Khoshcheshm: This is our red line. President Rouhani today and also in his recent statements in the last two or three months, he has repeatedly stressed one single point that, if you misunderstood me, I am here to correct you. The point is I am not going to give up anything. Our missile technology is our red line. It is not going to be included in any kind of talks. Also, Mr. Salehi told Amano today that the EBW detonators, we have provided you with detailed information.

Today, my colleagues have provided Amano with whatever they needed to know and they asked to know and the next step, we hope, he said of course, we hope is going to be a wrap up of this issue. So that was a kind of warning to the IAEA that Iran is not going to give up its rights and Iran is not going to play with the same old issues to waste time and this was the warning that Iran has repeatedly given to the world states, world rulers and the IAEA chief.

Press TV: Are you optimistic that this impasse is going to be resolved in the near future?

Khoshcheshm: Well, everything depends on one single thing. The United States should first come to realize that Iran is an established nuclear state. It means that it has a nuclear cycle and it is not going to give it up. Number two, it should come along with this newly emerging power that is Iran. Number three, the US should take care to think of its own interests, not Israel’s interests, if it is going to take care of Israel’s interests, no it is not going to be resolved.

If the White House rulers, if they think of their own nation’s interests then they should accept a nuclear deal with Iran. They should come to understand and feel this perception and this concept that Iran is not going to retreat and when they come to this point, that they really understand and they find some belief in this and maybe they will change their course and they would not ask for the inclusion of missiles or human rights issues in the talks and we know that it is not going to be so. If they want to resolve this issue, they should go on a logical path.