NOURNEWS – In an interview with Nournews, Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), emphasized that the organization is prepared for any scenario regarding attacks on Iran's nuclear sites. "The AEOI is prepared for any scenario in this regard, and as Iran progresses in the nuclear field, it becomes more dominant. They know that it is no longer possible to push Iran back, even with an attack."
The outlook for Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is as unclear as it is clear, given the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as Western claims. The first step in creating a clear outlook may be the IAEA's strong condemnation of Israel's threats against Iran's nuclear sites or the start of the process of lifting sanctions by the West.
In the midst of the ongoing regional crises, Nournews sat down with Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesperson for the AEOI, to discuss the developments between Iran and the IAEA. Here is the full interview:
Nournews: The Director-General of the IAEA stated about a month ago that for real and rapid progress in technical talks, prerequisites need to be met. Given Iran's extensive cooperation with the IAEA in recent years, how do you evaluate the outlook for Iran's relations with the IAEA?
KAMALVANDI: Grossi believes that negotiations to revive the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) need to take place, and from this perspective, he is trying to define the IAEA's role. He has already raised some points with the AEOI prior to this. The IAEA had information about Iran's nuclear activities before, but following the implementation of the Strategic Action Law, we reduced some of our commitments, including the IAEA's extraneous monitoring. Assuming the resumption of talks and the parties returning to the JCPOA, naturally, some of this past needs to be rebuilt.
From Iran’s perspective, the ground is prepared, and Tehran is ready to address this issue. However, implementing it requires serious talks. In these talks, there is an equation with two parts: One related to Iran's commitments and the other to the commitments of the other side and the issue of sanctions and lifting them.
Until there is a clear horizon for lifting sanctions, discussing the details of rebuilding is premature, especially since we have the Strategic Action Law, which the parliament has approved, and its main demand is the lifting of sanctions. Iran's goal is to lift sanctions, and if they show us a horizon for fulfilling their commitments, Iran is willing to provide the ground for this to happen.
Rafael Grossi has recently claimed that he wants to clarify the ambiguities regarding the alleged locations of uranium enrichment in his visit to Iran. Where has the file of these claims reached and what has Iran's response been to the agency, and why has this issue been raised again?
The agency has not announced that enrichment has taken place somewhere, but believes that it has observed contamination and has asked Iran to explain these contaminations. These contaminations can occur anywhere, even in the customs of a country or in various places such as parts where there are unusable iron. Atomic contamination, like any other contamination, can be easily transferred from one place to another. Even assuming the existence of enriched contamination, the issue is not very important, since the nature of these contaminations is natural uranium.
The IAEA believes that even assuming the existence of contamination, this issue can be fabricated and even the result of sabotage. As there have been acts of sabotage by the enemy in the country, especially in the nuclear industry. That's why we believe there is no reason for these cases to remain open. Usually, the Director-General of the IAEA announces the safeguard cases of each country in his annual report, known as (SIR), until these cases are resolved, this action is a kind of auditing of each country's nuclear file. Based on the agency's rules, cases related to Iran's nuclear activities should also be included in this report, but these cases are presented in various forms in both the annual and safeguard reports, indicating that this movement is political and not technical, and is intended to pressure the Islamic Republic to implement its plans through media hype and blackout.
It should be said to the public inside and outside that even assuming there is a question about contamination, this issue is not very important. The agency itself has indicators such as SQ, which means the loss of a significant portion of materials, which would be meaningful and worrisome if there is a deviation.
The goals of the groups that transfer such cases to the Board of Governors, and the Board of Governors instructs the Director-General to pursue, are political. If these issues are really examined technically, safeguard, and impartially, they will be resolved quickly. As it was previously claimed that there were four undeclared locations, and now it has been reduced to two. Regarding the 84% enrichment issue, which caused a lot of noise and political reactions, the agency announced after investigation that such an incident did not occur, and it was found that the enrichment was instantaneous and maybe a particle remained, but after entering the final tank and homogenization, it should be checked whether the enrichment reached that percentage or not. Unfortunately, the correction of this issue and the agency's confirmation did not have much reflection in the international media, and this shows that the hype and re-publication are done to the extent that it helps to create a bad image, but when an issue is resolved and minds need to be clarified, it is not highlighted much in the media.
Some strategic experts believe that given the continuation of the war in Gaza and Ukraine, and the US and Europe's illusion that Iran is against the West in these conflicts, US and European officials have removed the negotiations on lifting sanctions and, consequently, resolving the problems between Iran and the IAEA from their priorities. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any serious progress in the negotiations. What is your opinion on this?
Placing the Ukraine war alongside Iran is again part of the same general policy that the West is pursuing, which is to create a bad image of Iran's actions and show it as an international security threat. However, Iran has repeatedly emphasized that it has played no role in the Ukraine war and has not sent any missiles. These issues can be easily resolved and lifted, and Iran and Ukraine can discuss and convince each other based on documents and announce the reality to the world. However, unfounded claims are political, and if the West decides to create a bad image, it will affect all areas of Iran's relations with them.
This issue is not limited to Ukraine, and what is happening in the region and in Gaza is of the same type. The West is using Iran's positions to its advantage, while everything in the region is clear. The crimes in Gaza, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the accusations against Netanyahu of genocide and crimes against humanity are all clear.
More than 42,000 people have been martyred in Gaza, and many damages have been inflicted. If the US wants to understand the magnitude of the disaster, it can multiply the number by 200 to understand the depth of the disaster, which would be around 8 million deaths and 20 million injuries. These events are happening, and the West is behind them. Can the US really not stop this massacre? Nearly 400 UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions have been adopted, which have not been implemented by Israel, and Tel Aviv has not paid attention to them. The US has also allowed the adoption of these resolutions against Israel. With this situation in international conditions, when a country like Iran speaks of justice and humanity, it is pressured with excuses such as sending weapons and building nuclear weapons, while none of these accusations are real and are all part of creating a bad image and escaping their responsibilities.
At the same time, media hype about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites has been analyzed in some media, first, please state the Islamic Republic's position in response to these threats. Another question is why the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not react to these hype and threats.
Attacks and threats to attack Iran's nuclear sites are not new and have been carried out in various ways in the past, such as explosions and industrial sabotage. At one point, Barack Obama openly said that if he could, he would have dismantled the nuts and bolts of Iran's nuclear industry. So far, they have done everything they could against Iran's nuclear industry, and if they haven't done something, it's because they couldn't, not because they didn't want to.
We have always taken these threats seriously and will continue to do so. Based on this, we have designed and predicted that even if they are foolish enough to attack, the damage will be minimized. Today, fortunately, we are in a position to announce that if they are foolish enough to attack, regardless of the response that Iran will give, the Atomic Energy Organization has also taken measures to ensure that even if they attack, they will not be able to do anything.
Iran is invincible in various areas today, and this invincibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran should have become clear to them by now. In the nuclear field, Iran is becoming more and more dominant, and they know that it is no longer possible to turn Iran back, even with an attack.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that such an event will occur, and even if it does, it is highly unlikely that they will inflict significant damage on Iran. Even if damage occurs, the country can quickly compensate for it because the knowledge is in the minds of our experts, we dominate the technology, the plans exist and are on paper, and only need to be implemented. Therefore, these threats are not serious and worrisome for us, but we are always vigilant.
We have asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to act in this regard. There are international treaties and resolutions regarding these threats, and the Board of Governors has recently emphasized that threatening to attack or attacking nuclear sites is prohibited. This threat should be condemned by the international community, and it is the responsibility of the Agency to condemn it. Iran has verbally and in writing asked the Agency to react, but unfortunately, political considerations have led to their silence. This silence is to the detriment of all countries and the Agency, and this institution is obliged to take a stand and emphasize its principles and not allow insecurity to prevail in the nuclear space.
Iran has repeatedly emphasized and stressed that it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons, and the Leader has issued a fatwa declaring the construction and use of such weapons to be forbidden under Islamic law. These days, some circles are trying to alter Iran's nuclear doctrine with certain claims. Has a new view on this subject been presented at the level of the agency?
Although the Atomic Energy Organization focuses on technical aspects, this does not mean that it is not paying attention to other dimensions, such as the legal, safeguard, and jurisprudential aspects. One of our first actions in the organization was to launch a series of seminars on nuclear jurisprudence. One of the dimensions discussed was the fatwa of the Leader, which emphasized this important point. In all the articles and studies conducted by the clergy, it has been emphasized that in the Islamic view, weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and nuclear weapons, or any weapon that is not used in a targeted manner, have no place.
It is possible that some opinions may be expressed in this regard, but there are two perspectives to consider: the first is the religious and ideological perspective, which is embodied in the fatwa of the Supreme Leader, and the second is the official positions expressed by the official authorities of the country. Since the fatwa takes precedence over all policies, it is natural that the policy of not building nuclear weapons is at the forefront of the Iranian policies.
Although the topics discussed may be presented out of concern, they may be exploited... but Iran's position has been clearly announced with the strongest decree, namely the fatwa, by the highest religious authority, who is also in the highest political position in the country.
I believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran, given its capacity and ability, does not need nuclear weapons, and this is recognized internationally. In today's world, nuclear weapons do not have a deterrent effect against wars. What is certain is the reference to the official positions of the authorities, which has been explicitly stated and emphasized by Iran on several occasions.
The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has expressed his willingness to visit and talk to Iranian officials in recent months. Is a specific time planned for this trip?
The Director-General's trip to member countries of the Agency is a normal and natural matter, and it's not necessary to make a big deal out of it. However, the Director-General, based on his own policies, has brought up this issue in advance. There have been some discussions about this trip, but it requires preparation to make it a successful trip for both sides. During Mr. Eslami's trip to Vienna, there were discussions about this trip, but the exact time has not been determined yet and is still under consideration.
The Strategic Action Law of the Parliament to protect Iran's nuclear rights was one of the topics that has been criticized in recent months. Has this law created an obstacle in the path of cooperation between Iran and the IAEA?
This law, from a temporal perspective, was a timely law. If it were a few years ago, we might have had objections to it. But this law was proposed at a time when sanctions were in place, and our movements were somewhat conservative. The Strategic Action Law made a leap forward in this regard, and if there has been progress in the past few years, it is because this law removed some obstacles and allowed the nuclear industry to accelerate, especially in the field of research and development.
However, we must not forget the purpose of this law. This law was passed to lift sanctions, and it must achieve this goal. We hope that with the policies adopted by us and, more importantly, the policies of the opposite side, sanctions will be lifted. The opposite sides of Iran must come to their senses and realize that they cannot impose their will through pressure.
There is a fundamental difference between the West and us in terms of objectivity and subjectivity. We accept the promise of an event. The reality is that the West has imposed sanctions on Iran without providing a perspective for lifting them. Therefore, it is natural for Iran to use all its levers of pressure. The Strategic Action Law is defined in this context, and with the lifting of sanctions and the opening of the space, this law will achieve its goals, and what the opposite side wants, namely more surveillance to prevent the diversion of Iran's nuclear program, will be achieved. This is feasible, and surveillance can return to what it was before, provided it is not one-sided and both sides can achieve their goals.
The West must come to the understanding that it cannot impose its will on a country like Iran and force Tehran to do whatever it wants. The Strategic Action Law is also defined in this regard, and as soon as the sanctions and pressures are lifted, the government has the authority to return to the desired surveillance with the coordination of the parliament. If they are really worried, they can have their surveillance. These surveillance and inspections were also in place before the Strategic Action Law, and the IAEA has announced in 15 reports that Iran has fulfilled its commitments, but they did not fulfill theirs. The Strategic Action Law was passed one and a half years after the Westerners did not fulfill their commitments, and from the perspective of the trends, it was completely natural. If you don't consider these trends, you might have a different interpretation of this law and consider it to be an obstacle, but I see these two as being on the same path, and this law has the title of protecting the rights of the Iranian people, which is achieved by lifting sanctions and pressure. Until that happens, this law is justified. This is my expert opinion, that this law has created capacity for the country, and Iran can use this capacity in the technical and political dimensions, and I hope this law will achieve its goals.
NOURNEWS