Last week before US attack on Iran nuclear facilities, TABNAK reached out to Marc Finaud a senior advisor and associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former French Foreign Ministry spoksman to have an interview with him about the Israeli aggresion on Iran while Iran and US were in talks.
Here is the full text of the interview:
Israel attacked Iran under the pretext of Iran's nuclear issue. This action took place while Iran and the U.S. were engaged in negotiations. Some argue that scheduling the sixth round of talks served as cover for Israel, ensuring the success of their surprise operation against Iran. What is your assessment?
It is difficult to know for sure. One scenario is that Netanyahu launched Israel's attack to torpedo the US-Iran talks and ignore Trump's aversion for military intervention. The other is that Trump staged the talks to reduce Iran's readiness. One thing is sure, Trump, even when he announced the negotiations with Iran, continued to threaten Tehran with a potential Israeli attack as a means of pressure on Iran, in the expectation that the Islamic Republic would accept a deal on Trump's conditions.
For the first time since World War II, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not condemn an attack on a country's nuclear facilities. Additionally, the IAEA's emergency meeting about Israel attack’s on Iran was significantly delayed. What is your assessment of this?
The Director-General of the IAEA was clear about the illegality and the dangers of military attacks against nuclear facilities just like in the case of Ukraine. However, the Board of Governors is divided between those who condemn the Israel strikes and those who justify them by Iran's violations of its safeguards obligations.
Trump has issued a two-week deadline to decide whether or not to enter a war with Iran. It seems that if the U.S. gets involved in this war, Iran will destabilize the region, seriously threatening American interests. What is your assessment?
This is of course a major risk that makes Trump hesitate to launch a military intervention in support of Israel. He is also probably aware that, although most Americans support Israel and are favorable to an Iranian defeat, many people, including in his own camp, voted for Trump's platform of rejection of "endless wars" and prefer isolationism. Moreover, part of the business lobby that was interested in the prospects offered by the lifting of sanctions against Iran or the potential investments in the Persian Gulf region, may also discourage Trump from this military adventure because of the chaos it may cause.
The Geneva meeting between Iran and three European countries has begun. Iran has stated that it is willing to discuss nuclear and other issues—provided Israeli attacks cease. Meanwhile, Trump has declared that it is unlikely Europe can bring an end to this war. Do you think these negotiations will yield results?
It is not surprising that the Europeans, who were at the origin of the JCPOA and made serious efforts to salvage it after Biden's election, are again attempting a mediation to avoid escalation and return to a diplomatic solution. But it is also not surprising that Trump prefers a bilateral deal with Iran, that he could claim credit for and that could marginalize the role of the EU and the IAEA, which would make it ineffective. Apparently, Iran has made a clever move to accept to include non-nuclear issues into the agreement, such as the missile program and the "Axis of Resistance" that were off the table previously. The key issue remains the degree of uranium enrichment by Iran that all the parties are ready to accept. The burden will be on Iran to explain and justify what it intends to do, if anything, with highly enriched uranium apart from a weapons program.
