Iran Dismisses E3’s ‘Unreasonable’ Demands in Bid to Prevent Sanctions

In a recent interview with Iran’s national broadcaster IRIB, Ali Larijani discussed Iran’s stance on the ongoing negotiations regarding the nuclear deal and the challenges posed by European nations. The primary keyword here is the “nuclear deal,” a critical topic in international relations that continues to evolve.

Larijani revealed that Tehran has made significant concessions to meet many of the Europeans’ demands, but it has firmly resisted proposals that it considers unacceptable. He stated, “The Europeans proposed conditions that no rational person would agree to,” emphasizing Iran’s determination to stand its ground.

According to Larijani, the three European signatories of the 2015 nuclear agreement—Britain, France, and Germany—requested a “new design” for cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This demand was made in exchange for retracting their request to trigger the snapback mechanism. The snapback process, which was invoked on August 28, threatens to automatically reinstate all UN sanctions against Iran by September 28 unless a satisfactory arrangement is reached.

Larijani elaborated that the European demand was directly related to aggressive actions by the US and Israel against Iran in June. He explained, “They told us that if you redesign cooperation with the IAEA, we will withdraw the snapback request.” This request implied that Iran would need to establish an entirely new system due to the military attacks on its nuclear centers.

This incident marked the first time in history that nuclear facilities faced military aggression without any response from the IAEA director general, the Board of Governors, or the UN Security Council. The Israeli regime’s attack, which began on June 13 and lasted for twelve days, was later complemented by unlawful US airstrikes targeting three nuclear facilities monitored by the UN nuclear agency.

Despite these challenges, Larijani stated that Iran is prepared to allow inspections of nuclear facilities “if security and safety conditions allow.” He mentioned a deal reached in Cairo with the IAEA on September 9, describing it as “broadly acceptable.” However, he noted that European states still did not retract their snapback request.

Larijani also mentioned that Russia had suggested a six-month delay in triggering the snapback to facilitate negotiations, a proposal Iran accepted. In contrast, the Europeans put forward additional conditions, including direct talks with the United States. He remarked, “It is interesting that Europe’s condition was for us to negotiate with America. That shows the actual weight of these countries.”

While expressing Iran’s willingness to negotiate in a 5+1 format that includes the US, Larijani pointed out that the Europeans declined this offer and decided to escalate the matter to the UN Security Council. He highlighted that the US was not only focused on reviving nuclear talks but also on expanding discussions to encompass Iran’s missile program.

He stated, “If you say negotiation must end with what they want, no sensible person will accept it,” emphasizing Iran’s firm opposition to any attempts to limit its missile capabilities. Larijani recalled that under the 2015 agreement, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium to 3.5 percent and up to 20 percent for the Tehran reactor. He criticized the countries that signed the previous agreement, noting, “Those who had signed the previous agreement suddenly said we should not have any enrichment at all.”

Larijani clarified that the US and its allies specifically demanded Iran to reduce the range of its missiles to below 500 kilometers. He warned, “This condition means they want to take away the only significant defensive or deterrent capability we have. Naturally, Iran will resist such a condition and not only resist but respond strongly.”

He reiterated that Iran does not oppose negotiations in principle, stating, “The problem is not sitting down to talk. No one is against dialogue. But if you say the outcome must only be what they want, no rational person will accept such a negotiation.”

Regarding the implications of the snapback mechanism, Larijani stated that any changes would primarily impact sanctions, with “95%” of sanctions already in effect. He dismissed the idea that the snapback mechanism could legitimize military action against Iran, emphasizing that UN resolutions make “no reference” to authorizing such force.

He added that Tehran had implemented measures to shield its economy from potential fallout and would utilize “special mechanisms” during crises to prevent adverse effects on citizens’ livelihoods and to limit market disruptions.

Larijani firmly stated, “This mechanism absolutely does not legitimize military operations because none of these resolutions make any reference to military action.” However, he acknowledged the possibility that some nations, particularly the United States, might disregard legal constraints as they have in the past, including during the June conflict.

He concluded by affirming that Iran would continue to enhance its military readiness and deterrence capabilities, noting that post-war evaluations had identified both strengths to build upon and weaknesses to address. “After the war, we carried out evaluations to see where our strengths and weaknesses were. We reinforced the strengths and compensated for the weaknesses. Today, the armed forces enjoy a good deterrent power, and progress in this area is going well,” he asserted.

This ongoing situation highlights the complexities surrounding the nuclear deal and the geopolitical dynamics involved. As negotiations continue, the future of Iran’s nuclear program and its international relations remain in a precarious state.