TABNAK reached out to Matthew Bunn, an American nuclear and energy policy analyst, currently a professor of practice at the Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University to shed more light on the recent developments around the possible Iran-US agreement mediated by Pakistan and recent conflicts and violation of ceasefire by the US.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Negotiations between Iran and the United States are ongoing, while tensions between the two sides remain high, Washington is reportedly considering introducing a resolution against Iran at the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In this regard, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s representative to the IAEA, has stated that “I think this move could provoke the Iranian side.” In your view, how will Iran likely respond if such a resolution is introduced and adopted?
I hope that the conflict between our countries will be resolved soon in ways that serve both sides’ national interests.
I think that whether or not there’s an IAEA resolution is not the main issue. Ultimately, the main nuclear-related question is can Iran and others reach a state in which the world is confident that Iran’s nuclear program poses little risk of Iran building nuclear weapons, and Iran is confident that it will not be attacked or blackmailed. That will ultimately require a negotiated agreement with limits on and effective international monitoring of activities that bring Iran closer to a nuclear-weapons capability, in return for steps Iran wants, such as assurances against attack and lifting of some sanctions.
What is your assessment of the current negotiations between Iran and the United States? Do you think they will lead to a MoU, and eventually to a comprehensive agreement? On the other hand, do you see a continuation of the current situation, or even the possibility of another large-scale war?
I wish I knew. I fear that this war has undermined US interests, Iran’s interests, and global security, and has no clear end in sight. Iran’s perspective and the Trump administration’s perspective remain very far apart.
