Russia says threats of using military force against Iran’s nuclear sites ‘unacceptable’

TABNAK Mar. 05 - Russia has strongly condemned threats of using military force against Iran's nuclear facilities, warning that such actions would have catastrophic consequences.

News ID: 6091

Date: 05 March 2025 - 14:25

“Endless claims against Iran are unacceptable,” Russia's Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov stated during a session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Board of Governors on Tuesday.

“And even more so threats to use military force,” he added, referring to recurrent threats by the United States and its allies of deployment of aggressive and destructive force against the nuclear sites based on unsubstantiated and unexceptionally disproven allegations that the Islamic Republic was pursuing “nuclear weapons.”

“Such an escalation will bury any possibility of a diplomatic settlement of the situation and will inevitably lead to a military-political escalation, not to mention irreparable radiological and humanitarian consequences, and not only for Iran and the Middle East region,” the envoy cautioned.

Iran strongly cautions about the dire consequences of a potential act of aggression, potentially involving the Israeli regime and the US, against its nuclear facilities.

“Iran remains the most verified IAEA Member State, unlike the non-nuclear states that criticize it, in some of which, by the way, socio-political circles are openly discussing the issue of creating their own military nuclear program,” Ulyanov underscored.

“The high level of expenses envisaged by the [IAEA’s] Secretariat, amounting to over 10 million euros per year for JCPOA verifications alone, speaks to the continuing intensity and scale of the Agency's verification activities in Iran,” he said.

The official was referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and others, including Russia, the US, the UK, France, and Germany.

“All these figures are contained in the [IAEA] Director General's report,” Ulyanov noted.

Also on Tuesday, however, Elbridge Colby, nominated for the position of the US’s undersecretary of defense for policy, talked of the necessity of presenting credible military options to prevent Iran from, what he called, acquiring “nuclear weapons.“

This is while, Iran’s nuclear doctrine is based on Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei's fatwa (religious decree) categorically banning production, possession, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

The Israeli regime, Washington’s most cherished regional ally, even acted on its routine threats of attacking Iran, launching, what Tel Aviv has called, “precise and targeted” military assaults against various sites across the Islamic Republic, reportedly including a nuclear research facility, last October.

The Islamic Republic, though, has dismissed suffering any extensive damage from the aggression, and announcing that whatever damage that might have been caused by the attacks has been repaired so far.

Ulyanov asserted that with just over six months remaining until the “Completion Day” of the JCPOA, all involved parties had to adopt a constructive approach towards engagement with the Islamic Republic before and beyond this date.

"The diplomatic resource remains, but political will is needed to use it. The IAEA Director General [Rafael Grossi] can also play an important constructive role here," he noted.

The US left the deal in an illegal and unilateral move in 2018, returning all the unlawful sanctions that the accord had lifted, and mounting even more such measures against the Islamic Republic as part of former president Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy.

The UK, France, and Germany pledged to return Washington to the deal, but failed to live up to their promise, and even followed the latter’s course of returning their economic bans against Iran.

The European trio has even threatened to try to activate the so-called “snapback” mechanism that fully reinstates the United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Ulyanov reminded that with their violations of the JCPOA, the trio had lost any right to invoke the deal's mechanisms, including the snapback provision.

He cited a 1971 ruling by the International Court of Justice and a 2020 decision by the United Nations Security Council rejecting a similar attempt by Washington to reimpose sanctions on Iran.

"We recommend that Berlin, London, and Paris abandon their illusions about the snapback and instead focus on finding a political and diplomatic way out of the situation they have created," the official said.

The envoy, meanwhile, pointed to Iran’s “showing maximum patience for a year” after the onset of the US’s “maximum pressure” approach, and “fully complying with the JCPOA and Additional Protocol until February 2021, despite the unilateral actions against it."

Iran will not engage in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear program unless the White House steps back from a recently reinstated “maximum pressure” campaign, Foreign Minister Araghchi says.

The Islamic Republic then set off a series of countermeasures, which Ulyanov defined as, Tehran’s “exercising its rights under the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231 [that has endorsed the deal], gradually reducing its compliance with the deal.”

Activating the “snapback” amid the circumstances, he added, was "not only irresponsible but also unlawful."

The countries seeking to punish Iran for its nuclear activities were the same ones that violated their own commitments under Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, he underlined.

According to the envoy, Tehran has, meanwhile, consistently expressed readiness to return to full compliance with the JCPOA if the United States and its European allies took reciprocal steps.

However, Western reluctance to engage in good-faith negotiations were preventing such prospects, Ulyanov said, arguing that the West’s approach reflected an "opportunistic and far-fetched" stance rather than a genuine commitment to resolving matters.