Iran likely to turn off all cameras beyond Safeguards agreement

Chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) announced on Thursday night that Iran has turned off a number of IAEA cameras which were monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities beyond the Safeguards agreement and plans to turn off the rest soon.

“We ended the activities of a number of these cameras and we will do the rest tonight and tomorrow,” Mohammad Eslami told the national TV.

The cameras that have been removed or are being removed were installed voluntarily. Their activity fell outside the scope of the Safeguards agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran embarked on removing such cameras in response to a resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors against Iran late on Wednesday.

The resolution, proposed by the United States and the European trio ‑ Germany, France and Britain ‑  was approved by the IAEA’s 35-nation board with 30 votes in favor, two against and three abstentions. Russia and China voted against the resolution and India, Libya and Pakistan abstained.

The resolution was drafted on the basis of a report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi in which it was claimed Iran had refused to provide answers to traces of uranium enrichment found at three undeclared sites. This is while Iran had provided answers to the IAEA about these alleged sites, which finally led to the conclusion of the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Questions about the alleged nuclear sites, which were referred to as possible military dimensions (PMD), were answered and the issue closed.

“You closed all these allegations and charges within the PMD…. And now you have come and say you want to return to the JCPOA. Okay, return to the JCPOA but why do you reopen the closed package which form the essence of the JCPOA?” Eslami asked.

Prior to the debate on Iran’s nuclear program at the IAEA board, Grossi had visited Tel Aviv for talks with Israeli officials, a move which put in serious question Grossi’s neutrality and professionalism by the Agency under his leadership.

Eslami went on to say that the IAEA, based on its articles 2 and 3, is tasked to transfer nuclear technology to NPT signatories for civilian uses but the reality is that the IAEA is “a pawn of the Zionists”.

It is widely believed that these alleged nuclear sites have been raised by Israel through bogus documents.

“It is regretful that an international institution is exploited in such a way by a fake regime and puts its credibility in question,” the AEOI chief lamented.

Israel, which has been launching an intensive campaign against Iran’s nuclear program for about two decades, has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has about 90 nuclear weapons. It also played a key role in provoking the Trump administration to quit the JCPOA, which was the product of 12 years of negotiations.

The nuclear chief went on to say that all the commitments made by Iran under the JCPOA was beyond the Safeguards agreement and were chiefly intended to create confidence about Tehran’s nuclear activities.

“Why has the Islamic Republic accepted to limit itself and be under more intensive surveillance and control by the Agency for a rather long term? It was just because it wanted to get rid of these accusations and build trust,” he explained.

However, Eslami added, this good intention which was shown in the negotiations and the JCPOA is not being considered at all by the IAEA, including its Director Grossi.

There is no will by Grossi to become convinced of Iran’s answers and this shows that he is a hostage to Israelis and that he has adopted a political behavior toward Iran.

 

Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine

Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was on fire early Friday local time following a Russian attack, according to Ukrainian officials. If it blows up, it will be 10 times larger than Chornobyl! 

"Russian army is firing from all sides upon Zaporizhzhia NPP, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in a post on Twitter. "Fire has already broke out. Russians must immediately cease the fire, allow firefighters, establish a security zone."

Mayor Dmytro Orlov of the nearby town of Energodar said that Russian and local Ukrainian forces have engaged in fierce fighting, resulting in casualties, according to Reuters.

“As a result of continuous enemy shelling of buildings and units of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is on fire,” Orlov said, according to Reuters. He added that the situation poses a threat to world security.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in post on Twitter that it was aware of the reported attack on the plant.

IAEA is aware of reports of shelling at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), in contact with Ukrainian authorities about situation, the agency tweeted.

Ukrainian authorities wrote a letter hours earlier to Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Director Deneral of the IAEA, sounding the alarm that Russian tanks had broken through ‘the block-post’ into Enerhodar.

“The battle is going on in the town of Enerhodar and on the road to the ZNPP (Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant) site,” the letter read, describing the situation as critical, according to the agency.

This comes after Ukrainian officials warned days earlier that Russian troops had increased their military presence near the plant and pointed a multiple rocket launcher at it. Ukraine's ministry of internal affairs said the country's military was headed to the region to defend the plant.

“The armed forces, national guard and civilian militia will do anything to prevent a catastrophe, we are ready to destroy the enemy. But we have to be ready for anything,” Vadim Denisenko, advisor to the minister of internal affairs, said at the time.

Russian forces previously took control of the Chernobyl nuclear site last Thursday, less than 24 hours after the invasion of Ukraine began.

Fighting between Russian and Ukrainian troops around the still-operating Ukrainian nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhya — Europe’s largest — led to stark warnings from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, ABC reported.

Any damage to the facilities, either from the fighting or from interruption of normal operations “could have severe consequences, aggravating human suffering and causing environmental harm,” Rafael Grossi, Director of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, told ABC.

“There is nothing normal,” Grossi added, “about the circumstances under which the professionals at Ukraine's four nuclear power plants are managing to keep the reactors that produce half of Ukraine's electricity working."

Ukrainian officials have asked for a 30-kilometer (18-mile) safety zone around nuclear plants.

Today we’ll look at another rising risk from the fighting — this time in Africa. Then we’ll turn to the passage of a pivotal piece of legislation that could allow victims of water contamination at a Marine Corps base have their day in court.

 

Nine hurdles to revitalizing JCPOA

A West Asia security and nuclear policy specialist at Princeton University, has enumerated nine hurdles to revitalizing Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), nuclear deal that Iran signed with 5+1 nations - five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany - in July 2015.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian points that “snapback” mechanism in JCPOA favors 5+1 nations only. “The ‘snapback’ mechanism built into the agreement allows any country to force the UN Security Council to reimpose multilateral sanctions against Iran if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments. But this is one-sided: There is no such remedy for Iran if other parties fail to do their part,” Mousavian writes.

The article was published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on 19th January 2021, one day before Joe Biden officially sworn in as President of United States.

Following is the text of the article titled “Nine hurdles to reviving the Iran nuclear deal”:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on 8th January 2021 that Tehran was in no rush for the United States to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but, he also said, sanctions on Iran must be lifted immediately.

“If the sanctions are lifted, the return of the Americans makes sense,” he insisted. President-elect Joe Biden has announced his plan to return to the deal soon after he is sworn into office. “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal,” he wrote in an op-ed for CNN, “the United States would rejoin.” His Iranian counterpart, President Hassan Rouhani, has also expressed willingness to return to the deal, stating that, “Iran could come into compliance with the agreement within an hour of the United States doing so.”

Five years ago, after years of intensive negotiations, six world powers managed to sign the world’s most comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. While the agreement was a political one, it was also ratified by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization tasked with verifying the agreement’s technical aspects, Iran was fully complying with the deal for about three years, until President Trump withdrew from it in May 2018. In response to the US violations of the nuclear agreement, Iran too reduced some of its commitments. Most recently, on 4th January2021, Iran announced that it had increased its uranium enrichment levels to 20 percent. Although reviving the agreement is certainly still possible, it won’t be easy. The two sides will need to overcome nine hurdles to make it happen:

First, the sequencing of a mutual return could be an immediate problem. Iran expects the United States to lift sanctions first, because it was the Trump administration that withdrew first. While Tehran’s demand is legitimate, Washington may ask that Iran come into full compliance before lifting sanctions. Indeed, a straightforward reading of the quotation from Joe Biden’s op-ed suggests just that. In this scenario, after Joe Biden’s executive order rejoining the deal, Iran and the world powers can meet and agree on a realistic plan with a specified timeline of proportionate reciprocal actions.

Second is the issue of what compliance constitutes. During the Obama administration there was one major barrier to the full realization of the terms of the agreement: Many primary sanctions, targeting US citizens and permanent residents, organizations, and individuals that engage in trade and business with their Iranian counterparts, remained intact. These sanctions limited the economic benefits of the deal for Iran. The 29th paragraph of the deal clearly states that all signatories will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran. This cannot be achieved without abolishing the primary sanctions.

Third, the Trump administration imposed numerous sanctions against Iran under the guise of terrorism and human rights, aimed at preventing the Biden administration from returning to the deal. For a clean implementation of the agreement, Biden will need to remove all of these sanctions as well.

Fourth, Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement and violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 as well as other international commitments has damaged US credibility abroad. There is now a widespread belief among policy makers in Iran that the United States will simply not live up to its end of the bargain, no matter what that bargain is. This naturally raises the important question: What guarantees are there that the United States will remain committed to the deal in the post-Biden era?

Fifth, because of Trump’s maximum pressure policy, the Iranian economy has suffered hundreds of billions of dollars of losses, while Iran was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the deal. Some Iranian leaders, including Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, have demanded compensation for the economic damage the country suffered after the United States withdrew. The challenge will be to find a mechanism to compensate for the economic damages that the Trump administration inflicted on the Iranian economy.

Sixth, the “snapback” mechanism built into the agreement allows any country to force the UN Security Council to reimpose multilateral sanctions against Iran if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments. But this is one-sided: There is no such remedy for Iran if other parties fail to do their part. This became abundantly clear when the Trump administration first withdrew from the deal and then tried to unilaterally re-impose multilateral sanctions on Iran through the snapback mechanism. It was as if the injurer was demanding punishment for the injured. Although the UN Security Council rejected the US demand, the stunt revealed the structural flaw of the snapback.

Seventh, in the first week of December 2020, the Iranian parliament passed a bill mandating Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization to resume enriching uranium to 20 percent purity. The legislation also requires the Iranian government to cease voluntary implementation of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol within two months of the bill’s enactment if the other signatories fail to fully deliver on their commitments under the agreement. And after three months, the Atomic Energy Organization is obliged to begin using at least 1,000-second-generation centrifuges. In short, president-elect Biden will need to move fast.

Eighth, there were some in the United States who were worried that Trump may start a reckless last-ditch war with Iran before leaving office. While this concern is overblown, there should be no doubt that US partners in the region will do whatever they can to prevent Biden’s return to the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already said as much. To be sure, the hardliners in Iran are also fundamentally opposed to the deal.

Ninth, some pundits and politicians in Washington want Biden to leverage the Trump administration’s sanctions to pressure Iran to accept additional commitments beyond the original agreement as a condition for US return to compliance. These include limiting Iran’s missile capability, extending the “sunset” clauses within the deal, or resolving regional disputes. But from Iran’s perspective, such demands are a non-starter. As the spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry said recently, “No negotiation has been, is being, or will be held about Iran’s defense power.”

Despite these hurdles, Biden should nevertheless seek re-entry into the deal. Only a clean and full implementation by all parties can save the world’s most comprehensive nuclear agreement, contain rising US-Iran tensions, and open the path toward more confidence building measures. That path should include, upon Biden’s issuing an executive order to rejoin the JCPOA, the creation of a working committee of parties to the agreement tasked with ensuring full compliance by all signatories, and a forum, organized by the UN Secretary General, in which Iran and the Persian Gulf countries can discuss a new structure for improving security and cooperation in the region.