Mark Fitzpatrick, who was Executive Director of the IISS Americas office and head of the Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme untile 2019, in an interview with TABNAK talked of the EU leverages to pursuade Iran to resume cooperation with IAEA.
Here is the full text of the interview:
Laurence Norman, the Wall Street Journal reporter claimed: "If no cooperation, E3 may well send the Iran file to the UNSC as early as November, I’ve been told. Iran can pretend the issue has gone away. It hasn’t. Worth remembering E3 have 12 months to send June’s non-compliance resolution to Security Council.” It seems the Wall Street Journal reporter is referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolution that was issued before Israel's attack on Iran. Accordingly, Europe intends to refer Iran's nuclear file from the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG) to the UN Security Council. Given that Iran's nuclear file is already subject to Chapter VII of the UN Charter due to the activation of the snapback mechanism, what are the objectives of this new European initiative?
The E3 countries are trying to employ leverage to persuade Iran to accept its responsibility to resume cooperation with the IAEA. When the EU triggered snapback sanctions, some commentators claimed that this action used up the E3's leverage. That assessment was wrong.
The E3 still have additional leverage in threatening to send the non-compliance resolution to Security Council. This threat is an additional reason for Iran to carry out its safeguards obligation to allow IAEA inspections at all its nuclear facilities and sites.
If Europeans do so, ist't it probable that China and Russia would veto it? These two countries, in a joint letter with Iran, declared the activation of the snapback mechanism illegal and stated they would not comply with the UN sanctions.
Russia and China cannot block actions by the IAEA Board of Governors. If there is majority support to report Iran's noncompliance to the UN Security Council, then it will be reported. Russia and China have veto power in New York but not in Vienna. Their ability to protect Iran diplomatically is limited.
Ali Larijani Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council said: "If the IAEA presents a proposal for cooperation with Iran, it will be reviewed by a committee at Supreme National Security Council Secretariat." Larijani also said that DG Grossi 'has done his job and his [upcoming] reports [to BoG] will no longer have an effect.'" What is your assessment of Larijani's statements?
Larijani's statement has a positive element but overall, it is not promising from my point of view. On the one hand, he indicated that an IAEA proposal for cooperation will be taken seriously and reviewed by a committee at Supreme National Security Council Secretariat. Such a review, however, could result in unnecessary delays in responding to the IAEA. Cooperation with IAEA inspections has already been delayed far too long. Larijani's statement about IAEA Director General Grossi's reports no longer having an effect is also a concern if it means that Iran will no longer pay attention to them.
Steve Wittkopf recently stated: "We also receive contacts from the Iranians. You know we hope to have a long-term diplomatic solution with Iran." He added, "We are working on this issue." What is your assessment of these statements?
Steve Witkoff is an eternal optimist, who always tries to put the best interpretation on developments. This kind of optimism can be useful for diplomacy. When driving toward a goal, it is important to try to overcome all hurdles, which can mean ignoring them. Witkoff's statement about having a long-term diplomatic solution is a proper goal. Both sides should strive to reach it.
