The ultimatum on Iran was quite clear: either accept the Western demand for non-proliferation or risk international isolation like in the first decade of the Islamic revolution.
Despite various forms of rhetoric before the crucial meeting with the three foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, Iran's establishment eventually chose wisely and opted for non-proliferation rather than isolation.
"This is an everlasting disgrace and the people want the establishment to revise this humiliating decision," the Islamist daily Jomhuri Islami commented Iran's compliance with the demands by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western countries.
President Mohammad Khatami, however, termed the agreement as "Iran's contribution to world peace" showing the country's serious will to remove all global concerns and create a basis of trust.
According to a joint statement by Iran and the three European states, Iran agreed to temporarily suspend its uranium-enrichment program voluntarily, prepare grounds for signing the additional IAEA protocol after parliamentary approval and cooperate with the agency on the unannounced and unlimited inspection of nuclear sites.
Iran had divided the settlement of the conflict into two parts: the technical part was to be settled with the IAEA, the political part with its main EU partners France and Germany, plus Britain as the closest European ally of the US, Iran's main opponent in the row.
The issue also had internal dimensions. Mohsen Mirdamadi, member of parliament and foreign policy expert of the reformist wing, made clear that the issue should in no way be referred to the UN Security Council which would have been the case if Iran had not followed the Oct. 30 ultimatum by the IAEA to clarify all nuclear activities.
The influential hardliners, however, preferred to follow the North Korean way and even get out of the NPT, risking political and trade sanctions.
The three key players in the issue, President Mohammad Khatami, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani therefore chose the moderate cleric Hassan Rowhani in order to make the final decision acceptable to all political wings.
Rowhani, secretary of the National Security Council, personally held the final talks with Mohammad ElBaradei although the IAEA chief's main counterpart had previously been Vice-President Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh, who also heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.
Rowhani was also in charge to lead the technical talks in Teheran with the three European ministers. However, after the negotiations had continued for more than three hours with no agreement in sight, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi unexpectedly joined the talks.
Insiders say that Kharrazi's appearance in the talks indicated that the political concessions to be made were beyond Rowhani's authority and only within jurisdiction of the establishment's foreign minister.
"Surely there have been more than only nuclear talks," said Iran's UN Ambassador Mohammad-Javad Zarif in a television interview.
"The US had planned a plot against Iran which we neutralized in time through this agreement," he added.
Iran's IAEA envoy Salehi said that not having accepted the nuclear agreement would have forced the country to face "more sensitive issues."
Former president Rafsanjani had said last month that all the pressures on the nuclear projects were brought to bear merely because of Iran's opposition to Israel's policies in the Middle East.
Observers believe that the nuclear agreement has, for now, taken the edge off the EU's demand to acknowledge the state of Israel and drop support for anti-Israeli militia groups.
"This agreement was just a tool for greater US aims in the region and for realizing their final goal which is and has always been toppling Iran's Islamic regime," the daily Jomhuri Islami said.
In the meantime, the state-television network IRIB questioned Iran's insistence that the agreement had been made "voluntarily and temporarily" and not forced by Western pressure.
"Of course the decision was made forcefully-voluntarily," a conservative local reporter commented sarcastically.
UN ambassador Zarif said that Iran fulfilled the European demand to establish "the basis of trust" and now it was up to Europe to fulfil their promises.
The EU promises include putting an end, at least in Europe, to Iran being branded as belonging to what the US called the "axis of evil". The EU also pledged to expand trade talks and aid the country in its effort to enter the WTO.
After signing the additional IAEA protocol, Iran also expects Europe to provide it with the necessary uranium and nuclear fuel for its civil nuclear projects.
"The EU is right now just happy to have defused renewed tensions in the region and prevented another dilemma such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is another lengthy process ahead of all sides," a European diplomat said in Teheran.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS