TABNAK reached out to Shireen Tahmaasb Hunter, Professor of Political Science at Georgetown University in the US and discussed the recent difences between Iran and US over uranium enrichment and also recent US and E3 anti-Iran draft resolution in IAEA.
Following is the full text of the interview:
The U.S. and three European countries have prepared a draft resolution to submit to the IAEA Board of Governors that would, for the first time in 20 years, accuse Iran of violating its safeguards obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is your assessment of this draft resolution, and what are the chances of it being adopted?
Guessing what are the real purposes behind the US-Europe proposed resolution to the IAEA Board of Governors is difficult. Nevertheless, I believe that Europe is essentially acting out of anger towards Iran because of Tehran's alleged support to Russia in its war against Ukraine. Also, Europe is not happy with being left out of the current nuclear talks between the US and Iran. The US' purpose is to put more pressure on Iran forcing it to accept an essentially unfair agreement. In my view the most important deficiency in the latest US proposal as reported in the press is that it does not specify what sanctions would be lifted (laghv). This time, Iran should not agree to just suspending (Taligh) sanctions. In my view the issue of enrichment is less important. If all sanctions are lifted, Iran could agree to some other way of accessing uranium needed for its peaceful operations. The important thing is to get sanctions lifted because these sanctions have ruined Iran's economy and have had seriously negative consequences for Iranian society. In these talks Iran needs more hard headed pragmatism and less pride.
It appears that if approved, this draft would provide the U.S. with additional leverage during negotiations with Iran. What impact would the adoption of this resolution have on the Iran-U.S. negotiations?
If the sides are determined to reach an agreement, this resolution would not be an unsurmountable barrier. However, if talks are only an exercise in futility, the resolution will make matters more difficult.
Axios reported in its article that 'The nuclear deal proposal the U.S. gave Iran on Saturday would allow limited low-level uranium enrichment on Iranian soil for a determined period of time.' Does this mean the U.S. is accepting domestic enrichment only for a limited duration?
As I mentioned before, in my view the enrichment issue is not as important as getting rid of sanctions. Therefore, if the US and Europe agree to lifting all sanctions, then, compromise on enrichment should be possible, at least for a period as a confidence building measure. However, Iran must make sure that sanctions are truly lifted.
Axios also reported that Iran would agree to an enrichment consortium as long as it is located on its own soil. What kind of consortium do you believe would be acceptable to both Iran and the U.S.?
If the principle of non-domestic enrichment is accepted by Iran other ways could be found for Iran to access enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. A consortium of regional states or an international consortium could be one way Iran can access needed uranium.
Iran considers domestic enrichment a red line and doesn't even view participation in a consortium arrangement as a substitute for domestic enrichment, considering this fact will the U.S. ultimately accept Iran's position on this matter?
It is conceivable that the US could accept a very low level of domestic enrichment for Iran. The real problem is that disagreements over nuclear issue reflect more fundamental disagreement between Iran and the US. If Washington-Tehran had better relations the nuclear issue especially a non-military program would not have acquired such significance as a bone of contention between the two states.
