As the June 30, 2015 deadline for Iran and the P5+1 to reach a final nuclear agreement approached, Iran's ideological camp, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stepped up its anti-agreement statements. On June 18, 2015, Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Chairman Ala Al-Din Boroujerdi rejected pragmatic camp claims that Iran should, as other countries have, accept the Additional Protocol as part of the comprehensive agreement, in order to resolve the issue of Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) and so that the IAEA could confirm that the Iranian nuclear program is indeed for civilian purposes.[1] According to Boroujerdi, such a move would not end Western pressure on Iran and therefore Iran should reject the demand to inspect its military facilities and question its nuclear scientists.
Also on June 18, the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is the mouthpiece of the ideological camp, claimed that the pragmatic camp's expectation that the U.S. - the "serial killer of agreements" that had in the past, it said, violated its past agreements with the Soviet Union and North Korea - would honor the nuclear agreement with Iran was baseless. Calling on the negotiating team to get ready for American violations, the paper also rejected the argument by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif that cementing the agreement in the UN Security Council would ensure that the U.S. would implement it.
A few days earlier, on June 15, the IRGC weekly Sobh-e Sadeq stated that Iran could become an international nuclear model and change the global order if it could thwart Western demands to inspect its facilities. Iran, it said, is energy independent and therefore it should reject the economic and nuclear incentives offered to it by the West to cut back activity at the Fordo and Arak facilities, and should continue with the goal of enrichment on an industrial scale.
Following are excerpts from several statements on this matter:
Boroujerdi: "No Country In The World Has Shown Transparency On The Nuclear Issue Like Iran Has"
In a June 18, 2015 interview with the Iranian website Snn.ir, Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Chairman Ala Al-Din Boroujerdi said: "In my opinion, John Kerry is talking nonsense because his broken leg hurts. He is sick, and you can't expect much from a sick man. Iran's nuclear program focuses on nuclear facilities, and Iran has opened these facilities' doors to local and foreign journalists, even to CNN, in its increased transparency. No country in the world has shown transparency on the nuclear issue like Iran has...
"The Additional Protocol would have to be ratified by the Majlis. This means that the [Rohani] government does not have the authority to accept it. It is unacceptable to compare Iran to other countries that have ratified the Additional Protocol. This is because few countries in Iran's situation would do so; the reason for this is that there is great political sensitivity about Iran due to its status as a unique country and the West's constant aspiration to pressure its nation and its government.
"Therefore, there is no doubt that while many countries have ratified the Additional Protocol, comparing Iran to other countries is unacceptable. If we can be the exception to the Additional Protocol vis-à-vis inspection of military installations and talks and meetings with nuclear scientists - this would be very good. We too seek to draft such a protocol."[2]
Kayhan: What Guarantee Do We Have That The Americans Will Not Violate The Agreement?
In a June 18, 2015 editorial titled "The Serial Killer Of Agreement," the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is the mouthpiece of the ideological camp, stated: "Two weeks remain until the ultimatum set for the nuclear negotiations, and sources close to the talks say that the language of the agreement is full of parentheses that are unlikely to be bridged in the remaining timeframe. These doubts are increasing, and turning into certain knowledge [that an agreement will not be reached], since the Americans are backtracking from their positions... Even if an agreement is reached... we must not forget that it will stretch over more than a decade, and, according to published reports, it is unlikely that after that period the attitude towards Iran's nuclear activity will be normalized and will exist based on the NPT [as it does for all other parties to the treaty].
"One subject up for debate in the negotiations these days is the American effort to set up a mechanism to reactivate the sanctions on Iran if it violates the agreement. American officials explicitly state that they are maintaining their hostile view of Iran... and that they cannot base the agreement on trust and must therefore take into account a worst-case scenario.
"Does the Iranian negotiating team also hold this view of the agreement's framework, essence, and future? What guarantee do [we] have that the Americans remain committed to the agreement and will not violate it? If they do violate it, how will Iran react? Those who are excited [about the agreement, i.e. the pragmatic camp] will say that the guarantees for this agreement will come in the form of a Security Council resolution. [However,] such a guarantee is more a legal gesture than a substantial and practical measure. Legal and international relations experts both say that international laws are [as fragile as] spider webs...
"Nothing beats history and experience in properly understanding the dimensions of this issue. The nuclear talks have in fact become [bilateral] negotiations between Iran and the U.S., [in the guise of] attempts to prevent nuclear arms proliferation. Such negotiations and agreements are rare in the world, and only last a few decades at most... Their eventual doom [proves] that America is essentially untrustworthy.
"At the height of the Cold War, America and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [ABMT] to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; it was signed in 1972 by Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev. Under this treaty, each country could possess only two anti-ballistic missile complexes, each restricted to no more than 100 missiles. In 1973, it was agreed that each country would have only one such complex... Three months after the September 11 attacks, George Bush announced... that his country was dealing with threats that could not be effectively combated due to the 1972 treaty... [so] America announced the end of this treaty and withdrew from it...
"In 1979, Jimmy Carter and Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty [i.e. SALT II], under which the two countries were meant to reduce their strategic missile [arsenals] to 1,320... The treaty was never implemented because of interference by the White House and Senate, and after several years of debate, the Americans officially announced its end.[3]
"In 1994, America and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework in Geneva... Pyongyang committed to freezing its heavy water reactor, export its nuclear fuel to a third-party country, and allow the IAEA [to conduct] special inspections [of its nuclear facilities]. Washington committed to reducing the obstacles to trade and investments with North Korea, lifting some sanctions on communications and financial services, constructing two 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors, transferring half a million tons of crude oil per year until the construction of the light-water reactors was complete, and normalizing relations between the two countries. The Americans, who were supposed to construct the reactors together with Japan and South Korea, never did this, and the oil shipments were only delivered after delays due to various excuses, and in the end were stopped altogether. In 2002, America officially announced that it did not recognize the nuclear treaty with North Korea and stepped up its pressure on it. This resulted in North Korean nuclear breakout and nuclear weapons armament. The outcome of the negotiations and agreement between America and Libya are also clear enough today to require no clarifications.
"Yes, this is the truth. Today Iran is sitting at the negotiating table with a country like this - a country that easily tramples agreements that it has signed and remains committed to them only so long as they serve its interests. A look at the above cases makes the following question even more necessary and requires an even deeper answer: What guarantee is there that America will maintain its commitments [to Iran], and what will be Iran's response to repeated violations of the agreement [by the U.S.]?"[4]
Sobh-e Sadeq: We Fear The Loss Of Iran's Nuclear Achievements And The Country's Takeover By The West
A June 15, 2015 article in the IRGC weekly Sobh-e Sadeq stated: "The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1... have arrived at a point that is sensitive, because of their impact on the international balance of power. If Iran can maintain its nuclear rights and beat back Western greed - such as in the matter of inspection of military facilities and the questioning of military and nuclear officials, as well as in the lifting of the sanctions - it will undoubtedly achieve the status of a country that stood fast against the six global superpowers, and will attain unique international status. Iran is becoming a global model in the nuclear field, and other countries will undoubtedly join it as a nation with independence, freedom, and tremendous scientific and technical capabilities.
"On the other hand, if the West can force its greed on Iran and harm its nuclear rights, or manages to achieve its more general goals - inspection of Iran's defensive and missile capabilities, and implementing its plan of humiliating Iran by questioning military and nuclear officials - Iran will be presented to the world as a model of defeat.
"The West is presenting a false scenario: If Iran meets its demands in the negotiations, it will receive special nuclear and economic support from the West... Media and political circles in the West are presenting a plan to establish an international consortium to assist Iran's physical research, including the redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor. They [the West] believe that if Iran forgoes the current setup of the Fordo and Arak facilities, it could benefit from joint research with other countries in order to redesign these facilities.
"The West is depicting its entrance into Iran's economy - especially the fields of oil and gas - as a groundbreaking move towards Iran's economic leap forward, and even as a factor that will strengthen [Iran's] power in the region... However, behind their words is a significant point, and that is the principle of self-reliance and the domestic nature of Iran's economic and nuclear achievements. The truth is that the West cannot stand for a country, even a nation, that arrives at great achievements on its own, because it views such a country as a model that will undermine [the West's] aspiration for supremacy and absolutism, and [fears that such a country] could form the basis of a global movement against the West's continued takeover attempts.
"In the nuclear arena, Iranian scientists have achieved a great deal, thanks to the considerable national persistence [in pursuing], for example, fuel [i.e. uranium, enriched to a level of] 20%, construction of the Arak research reactor, and the token operation of Fordo. There is a scenario in which the West, on the pretext of establishing a consortium to redesign Arak and Fordo and, ostensibly, to involve the world in Iran's nuclear development - is actually preventing new nuclear achievements by Iran and is bringing local [Iranian] achievements under its control.
"In the economic arena, Iran has taken many steps in its oil and gas [industries] in order to become independent. The removal of domestic companies and capabilities in these areas - on the pretext of the entrance of [Western] oil and gas giants - threatens Iran's industries and obstructs Iran's economic self-reliance, particularly with regard to its achievements in recent years in our oil and gas industries...
"Therefore, we must ensure that nuclear and economic agreements will not impact Iran's self-reliance in nuclear enrichment at a level of 190,000 SWU [Separative Work Units], or its other nuclear rights. We must not let any harm come to Iran's achievements of recent years in industrial self-reliance, inter alia in our oil and gas industries."[5]
Endnotes:
[1] For more on these claims by the pragmatic camp, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1167, Nuclear Negotiations At An Impasse: Leader Khamenei Rejects Agreement Reached On Token Inspection Of Military Sites And Questioning Of Scientists; U.S. Willing To Close IAEA Dossier On Iranian PMD, To Settle For Inspecting Declared Nuclear Sites Only, And To Rely On Intelligence; EU Objects, June 11, 2015.
[2] Snn.ir, June 18, 2015.
[3] The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, but was honored until it expired in 1985.
[4] Kayhan (Iran), June 18, 2015.
[5] Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), June 15, 2015.
