On Friday morning, June 13, 1404, following the Israeli terrorist attack on Tehran and a number of other cities in the country, a number of military commanders, scientists, and civilians were killed.
The Israeli regime’s aggression against Iranian soil was not limited to nuclear and military facilities and the assassination of nuclear scientists, but industrial facilities and civilian targets were also attacked, which resulted in the martyrdom of a number of people, both military and civilian.
The aggression against Iranian soil occurred while institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency did not condemn Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In fact, this was the first time since World War II that the agency did not condemn an attack on a country’s nuclear facilities.
On the other hand, the UN Security Council also did not issue any resolution or statement condemning this crime.
In response to this aggression and based on the rights enshrined in the UN Charter regarding the right to self-defense, Iran responded to this aggression by targeting military targets in the Occupied Lands and ultimately this war led to a ceasefire.
After this aggression, the United States again spoke of "zero enrichment" in possible negotiations with Iran, and on the other hand, the European Troika has also announced its readiness to activate the snapback mechanism to restore Iran sanctions.
To know more about the issue, the TABNAK reached out to 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.
Here is the full text of the interview:
During and after the Iran-Israel war, the U.S. has sought negotiations with Iran. The U.S. still insists on ‘zero enrichment,’ while Iran emphasizes its right to enrichment. Do you think there is a balancing point between these two positions?
This is of course the crux of the matter. After only citing "no nuclear weapon for Iran" as its red line, the Trump administration shifted back to the most extreme position of "zero enrichment" that was held for years before the JCPOA, probably under the influence of Israel and the American hardliners, and in the clear knowledge that this has constantly been a red line for Iran. Apparently, this position is now supported by Russia, which will not help find a compromise solution.
It has been announced that in the upcoming Iran-U.S. negotiations, Oman will no longer serve as a mediator, and Norway and China have been mentioned instead. What do you think is the reason for this change?
Oman has been discreet about its mediation but has been critical of the Israeli and US strikes against Iran and is also probably discouraged by the Trump administration's attitude on "zero enrichment". It remains to be seen whether Oman will definitively give up, and in any case new mediators will need to be accepted by both sides and demonstrate deep knowledge of the issue.
If China acts as a mediator, it seems the Iran issue will be framed within a larger package deal between China and the U.S. Is the U.S. willing to grant China such a leverage and accept it as a mediator in Iran’s nuclear case?
China has strong interests in helping solve this crisis, be it only to facilitate its access to Iran's oil and gas, like it was motivated to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. But it seems unlikely that China will be accepted by the US as a mediator outside a broader negotiation framework, including on tariffs.
The European Troika appears determined to trigger the "snapback mechanism." Iran has also stated that it will respond appropriately if this measure is implemented. How will the activation of the snapback mechanism affect the future of nuclear negotiations?
There are indeed strong statements by the Europeans hinting at snapback in August, but they are conditional on Iran's clear commitment to a diplomatic solution and a new nuclear agreement. The Europeans are aware that resumption of sanctions would jeopardize any prospect of negotiations.
