IAEA independent approach can result in settling remaining issues

TABNAK, Apr 09 - Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations says that Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have had a long-term cooperation; a cooperation that, if foreign political pressures on the IAEA are removed could lead to the resolution of the few remaining differences between the parties.

News ID: 6238

Date: 09 April 2025 - 11:32

Amir Sa’eed Iravani, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations announced that Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have had a long-term cooperation; a cooperation that, if foreign political pressures on the IAEA are removed and that institution adopts an independent, technical, impartial, and professional approach, could lead to the resolution of the few remaining differences between the parties.

The full text of Iravani's speech at the U.N. session is as follows:

Statement by

H.E. Mr. Amir Saeid Iravani

Ambassador and Permanent Representative

of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations

Before the United Nations Disarmament Commission

New York, 8 April 2025

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Mr. Chair,

At the outset, let me congratulate you on your election as the Chair of the 2025 substantive session of the Commission and the Vice-Chairs and Chairs of the Working Groups on their assumption.

My delegation appreciates the able leadership of the outgoing Chair, Ambassador Usman Jadoon of Pakistan, and stands ready to fully cooperate with you during the current substantive session of UNDC.

Aligning with the Non-Alignment Movement statement delivered by Indonesia, we would like to make the following remarks in our national capacity.

Mr. Chair,

The international community is witnessing a troubling deterioration of global peace and security, driven by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, the unchecked spread of armed conflicts, record-high global military expenditures, and the continued existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons in national stockpiles.

Rather than seeking diplomatic solutions grounded in international law and multilateralism, we are increasingly seeing a resort to the use or threat of force, foreign military interventions, unilateral coercive measures, and political intimidation.

Mr. Chair,

The persistent lack of compliance with existing commitments by nuclear-weapon states remains the primary policy obstacle that has impeded meaningful progress within the disarmament machinery over the years.

We emphasize the UN Disarmament Commission's (UNDC) vital role in strengthening and advancing international disarmament, particularly in the area of nuclear disarmament. UNDC has not provided a consensus recommendation on nuclear disarmament for a significant period of time and therefore, We stress the urgent need for tangible progress in Working Group 1 during the current cycle. We call on Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) to demonstrate the necessary political will and flexibility to move forward. In this context, we underscore our position that the use of rolling text within UNDC is essential to facilitate consensus-building.

Mr. Chair,

Nuclear-weapon states have not only failed to fulfill their disarmament obligations but have actively pursued the renewal and modernization of their nuclear arsenals.

On February 19, 2025, the US launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) as part to demonstrate the readiness and effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrent. These developments underscore a troubling trend among nuclear-weapon states toward the qualitative and quantitative improvement of their arsenals, in stark defiance of their disarmament obligations.

Particularly concerning is the posture of NATO member states, which continue to demand non-proliferation from others while maintaining and relying on nuclear weapons themselves. Five NATO countries currently host U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil. In addition, more than 40 countries rely on the U.S. extended nuclear deterrence policy.

These actions are in direct contradiction to their legally binding obligations under the NPT and commitments made at its Review Conferences. Despite these violations, some of these very states continue to level baseless and politically motivated allegations against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

Mr. Chair,

I would like to underscore that Iran remains committed to the NPT and works constructively with the IAEA to ensure transparency and compliance with safeguards agreements. To that end, Iran has allowed extensive IAEA inspections, amounting to 22% of all IAEA inspections. This level of inspection has never been carried out in any country before in history.

Iran and the Agency have been cooperating with each other for a long time, which enables them to resolve their few remaining differences provided that external political pressures on the Agency stop and the IAEA adopts an independent, technical, impartial, and professional approach.

Mr. Chair,

With six decades of deception and clandestine WMD arsenal, the Israeli regime, the sole possessor in the Middle East, enjoys the backing of the United States and has consistently opposed all initiatives, including Iran’s proposal since 1974, to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

To demonstrate a genuine commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the international community must address this glaring exception and compel Israel—an outlaw regime that has openly threatened others with nuclear annihilation while falsely accusing them of proliferation—to renounce its nuclear arsenal, join the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon party, and place all its nuclear facilities and activities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.

Mr. Chair,

While new technologies contribute significantly to global social and economic development, they must not become the monopoly of a few countries. Moreover, the possible implications of these technologies in the context of international security must not be used as a pretext for imposing parallel export control regimes or unilateral coercive measures that infringe upon the inalienable rights of states to access and benefit from such technologies.

We firmly oppose the weaponization of emerging technologies and reiterate our unwavering position in favor of their exclusively peaceful use through legally binding international agreements.

I thank you Mr. Chair