Following activation of snapback mechanism against Iran and the consequences of it, 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 his remarks:
The resolution to extend the continuation of the lifting of international sanctions against Iran was not passed in the UN Security Council, so the Security Council sanctions against Iran will be reinstated from September 28. The U.S. representative at the Security Council meeting stated that there is still an opportunity for genuine diplomacy and called for a return to diplomacy. Is there a possibility of compromise between the parties by September 27?
This is a very dangerous game of brinkmanship because the window for a diplomatic solution is very short. However, the high-level segment of the UN General Assembly that will take place in the coming days may offer opportunities for a compromise, essentially in the form of a conditional extension of the deadline.
Previously, Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had reached a new cooperation agreement, under which the IAEA could, under certain conditions, inspect even the sites in Iran that were damaged in the war. Why was this cooperation not considered significant by the Western parties?
This was only one of the preconditions set by the Europeans to give up the snapback process. The other ones were the resumption of US-Iran bilateral talks and more transparency from Tehran on the fate and location of the stockpile of highly enriched uranium, both of which haven't been fulfilled.
Prior to the vote on this resolution, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, had proposed to the European parties that if they cancel the activation of the snapback mechanism, in return, Iran promised to dilute its 60% enriched uranium. This proposal from Iran was rejected by them. What, in your opinion, is the reason for this?
Based on their history since 2002, mutual relations between Iran and the West suffer from a major lack of trust. This is why the JCPOA included a very intrusive verification mechanism. Because Iran, since the US withdrew from the JCPOA, has increasingly suspended the implementation of its commitments, the Europeans have become more demanding in terms of verification of compliance and want the IAEA to be able to inspect all aspects of the program and certify that it is purely peaceful.
Iran has announced that if the snapback mechanism is activated, it will cease cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran ends its cooperation with the IAEA, what scenarios can be predicted for Iran’s nuclear program and the reactions of the opposing parties, particularly the United States and Israel?
These statements are not very helpful since Iran is under legal obligations within the NPT to cooperate with the IAEA, irrespective of the behavior of other states. If Iran makes the strategic decision to withdraw from the NPT like North Korea did, first it will need to explain its reasons to the UN Security Council, and then such a decision will undoubtedly fuel the suspicion that Iran wants to cross the threshold and develop nuclear weapons. This would be the worst-case scenario, for some the "self-fulfilling prophecy", and the start of a major crisis that will benefit no one.
