What is Iran’s response?

By Parviz Esmaeili
The result of Iran's approximately two-month long expert study on the 5+1 group's nuclear package was handed over to the envoys of the six powers yesterday.

When Tehran announced that it had gained access to the complete nuclear fuel cycle in April, the West was forced into a passive stance in the nuclear standoff because Iran had managed to develop nuclear technology without violating international law or its obligations as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

However, the West's efforts to regain the upper hand resulted in Resolution 1696 being issued by the UN Security Council, which has no legal basis.

The fact that the words "Security Council" had been mentioned in the nuclear package showed that the United States had adopted the strategy of maximum pressure in a bid to pressure Iran to decide between the evil (Security Council action) or the lesser evil (the 5+1 group's offer).

Iran's response to the offer was not influenced by Resolution 1696, although it did not ignore the concerns of the international community.

As the Islamic Republic has demonstrated its compliance with international law to the world, it must also assure Iranians that it will not exchange their national rights for unilaterally imposed legal obligations.

Since it made the nuclear breakthrough, Tehran will no longer accept ambiguous and unilateral approaches to the nuclear issue. Likewise, it cannot allow the major powers to arbitrarily interpret international law in such a way so as to ignore Iran's inalienable rights, which have been enshrined in international treaties.

Thus, Iran's response unblocked the West's dead ends so that Iran can realize all its rights under Article 4 of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the international community can also be assured of Iran's commitments under articles 1 and 2 of the NPT. This can serve as a model for the IAEA and the international community on how to deal with other countries' nuclear programs.

Iranian officials cannot relinquish the nation's rights to prevent the West from taking illegal actions against the country! The reply shows that since world peace is important for Iran, it is even ready to slow its pace in efforts to attain its rights in order to encourage the West to return to the path of international law.

Despite the West's political propaganda, Iran delivered its response by the previously announced date. But the three European Union countries should not forget that they received Iran's nuclear proposal in March 2005 but took over four months to give their response, which they delivered on August 5, 2005.

The text of the 5+1 group's proposal and Resolution 1696 showed that Iran still favors talks and compromise and that the West favors suspension. Therefore, their statements about accepting Iran's rights enshrined in the NPT, without referring to Article 4, are empty words.

Meanwhile, from a technical point of view, suspension of Iran's nuclear activities is not the same as depriving the country of nuclear industry. Once a country acquires the expertise, technology, and equipment, it will not lose them with suspension.

If the West's problems in convincing the world would be solved with suspension, Iran could help them in the course of negotiations in this regard.

And if the West is seeking to impede Iran's nuclear industry, it should realize that Iran has passed this stage.

That's why most senior Western diplomats advise their governments to cooperate with Iran to reach a compromise.

Iran welcomes the Western countries' proposals for long-term cooperation in the nuclear, energy, trade, agricultural, political, and information technology spheres, but it believes that the West should prove its sincerity about these incentives by entering into talks to clear up the ambiguities and provide guarantees for the implementation of these proposals.

Thus, Iran invited the West to decode the ambiguities.

Arriving at a compromise does not necessitate suspension of Iran's entire nuclear program. According to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the NPT, the IAEA can not hinder a country's peaceful nuclear activities, even in the course of inspections.

It took the IAEA 27 years to verify the peaceful nature of Japan's nuclear program, but that country's nuclear activities did not cease even for a moment. It is not acceptable to apply double standards to different countries.

If international law and the terms of the NPT prevail in the talks on Iran's nuclear dossier instead of the egotism of certain powers, and if the spirit of understanding and compromise replaces hegemonic attitudes and double standards, Iran and the West will reach an agreement in the nuclear row.

Now the ball is in the West's court and the world is sitting in judgment.