Main Stories

The Rahbar Brings Clarity To Iran’s Nuclear Stance

Waseem Shehzad

Rabi' al-Thani 09, 14472025-10-01

---

Despite weeks of discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European trio—Britain, France and Germany—little has been achieved to advance a negotiated solution to the contrived crisis over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. On September 23, in a televised address to the Iranian people, the Rahbar Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei clarified the Islamic Republic’s position.

He said: “They [the US and its European allies] have announced that the only acceptable result of negotiations is the shutdown of Iran’s nuclear activities and enrichment. So, we would sit at the table, and the outcome of the talks would be exactly what they had dictated in advance.”

“That is not negotiation,” the Rahbar stated, “that is dictation, that is imposition.”

He asked: “To negotiate with a party where the result must necessarily be what they want, and what they say; is that negotiation?”

He also pointed to recent US demands for Iran to abandon not only its long-range but even short-range missiles. The aim is to render Iran so weak and defenseless that it cannot respond in any form of aggression.

The Rahbar reminded both the officials and the people that 10 years ago, Iran had signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It shut down its nuclear facilities, sent out enriched uranium, and stopped enrichment. In return, they promised to lift sanctions against Iran.

What did the collective west do? “They broke all promises and even tore up the agreement. Our nuclear problems multiplied,” he said. With this background, “negotiations with the US are a total dead end. For them, it may bring benefit, but for us, it is pure harm with no benefit,” the Rahbar said.

It is such clarity and wisdom that has guided the Islamic Republic of Iran for more than four decades to weather the raft of sanctions, assassination of its nuclear scientists and in June a direct attack by the zionist entity and the US. The aim of this illegal aggression was regime change but it failed miserably. People of all backgrounds and outlooks stood by the Islamic system of governance.

Let us recall how the current impasse was reached. The UN Security Council failed on September 19 to continue the suspension of sanctions on Iran that had allowed relief under the JCPOA. Another attempt by Russia and China at the Security Council on September 26 to delay sanctions and give diplomacy a chance also failed.

The JCPOA was signed by Iran and the P5+1—the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany as well as the European Union—in July 2015. This was ratified by Security Council resolution 2231 under which pre-2015 UN sanctions against Iran were suspended. The resolution also established a mechanism to reimpose sanctions in case of “significant non-performance” by any of its participants.

The resolution, however, was clearly one-sided and drafted in a manner that it targeted Iran. After all, how would sanctions be imposed on the US or the Europeans if they failed to fulfill their obligations, which they did?

As soon as the JCPOA came into force in July 2016, the US pressured the Europeans to not lift banking restrictions or open normal trade with Iran.

The ‘snapback’ mechanism was illegally employed by Britain, France and Germany on August 28, accusing Iran of being in ‘breach’ of the JCPOA. The trio did not fulfill any of their obligations when the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in May 2018. In his first term as persident, Donald Trump also imposed a raft of sanctions against Iran, in complete violation of the terms of the JCPOA.

The Europeans did nothing to honour their obligations yet they called on the Security Council to invoke the snapback mechanism. The JCPOA is dead, killed by Trump and buried by the Europeans yet it is being used against Iran.

Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council, challenged the legality of the snapback provision. Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia was quite explicit. He said that there were no legal, political or procedural reasons to allow the “snapback” mechanism or to vote on the draft resolution, and accused the European trio of acting outside both resolution 2231 and the JCPOA.

He said the three had failed to follow the dispute settlement mechanism and instead imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran, which he described as “illegal”.

“Attempts on the part of the European countries to present the situation as though they have the right to activate the punitive provisions of prior resolutions, while themselves failing to fulfil their own obligations…cannot hold water,” Ambassador Nebenzia said.

A day before the UN vote, Iran withdrew its resolution presented at the annual conference of the IAEA. It called for prohibiting attacks on nuclear facilities. China, Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua, and Venezuela also endorsed the resolution.

The US exerted heavy pressure on member-states and blackmailed the agency threatening to withhold funding if the resolution was not withdrawn. It became clear that the resolution will not gather enough votes because of US pressure.

What did the resolution call for? It stated “that no form of attack or threat of attack shall be directed against nuclear sites and facilities under IAEA safeguards.” Does that sound unreasonable?

It further stated that: “such attacks pose grave risks to the IAEA safeguards regime, international peace and security, the safety and security of nuclear material, sites and personnel, human health, and the environment, while also jeopardizing the development and peaceful use of nuclear energy and undermining the overall credibility and integrity of the non-proliferation regime.”

Why did the US oppose a resolution that called for prohibiting attacks on nuclear facilities of member-states? On June 13, Israel targeted Iranian nuclear and military sites. Ten days later, the US also struck three Iranian nuclear facilities.

While alleging that they will not allow Tehran to have a bomb—Iran is not making a bomb—the zionist war criminals possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. They have alleged since 1996 that Iran is about to acquire a bomb. This vile propaganda has been repeated by the US and the Europeans and their media outlets.

Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA following the June criminal attacks on its nuclear sites. On September 9, however, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors access to all its nuclear facilities. These will include visits to sites bombed by Israel and the US during the 12-day zionist-US war on Iran.

The administration of President Massoud Pezeshkian should consider this carefully. The IAEA has on numerous occasions shown clear bias against Iran. Its director general Rafael Grossi is a zionist agent. On five previous occasions, before visiting Tehran, he visited Tel Aviv to confer with Israeli officials.

Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has contemptuously dismissed all calls to open its nuclear facilities to international inspections.

So, why would Grossi confer with the zionists? He wants to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations. Grossi confirmed this in an interview with Al-Jazeera English. He needs the zionists’ support because of their influence in western capitals.

Grossi’s anti-Iran position is crystal clear. A day before the zionist war criminals unleashed their illegal attack on Iran on June 13, the agency had issued a report that found Iran ‘noncompliant’ with its commitments to international nuclear safeguards. IAEA inspectors act as zionist-western spies.

It may be time for decision-makers in Tehran to seriously consider withdrawal from the NPT. It has neither guaranteed its rights nor prevented attacks on its nuclear facilities.

Perhaps Iran should revise its nuclear doctrine as well and go for the bomb as a deterrant.

---