The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog told Reuters in an interview published on Thursday that a new agreement would be needed to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.
Over the past year, Iran began gradually violating its commitments to the JCPOA, a response to the US unilaterally withdrawing from the deal in 2018 by reimposing sanctions. Iran’s president and other officials insist these violations are easily reversible and that Iran can quickly come back into compliance in exchange for sanctions relief. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seems to disagree.
“I cannot imagine that they are going simply to say, ‘We are back to square one’ because square one is no longer there,” Rafael Grossi told Reuters. “There is more (nuclear) material, … there is more activity, there are more centrifuges, and more are being announced. So what happens with all this?”
Iran is currently enriching uranium at 4.5 percent, slightly higher than the 3.67 percent agreed to under the JCPOA. Iran is also stockpiling about 12 times more low-enriched uranium than the deal allows. But despite Grossi’s comments, enrichment could easily be scaled back, and the uranium stockpile could easily be exported to Russia, who makes fuel rods for Iran.
The other violations are new centrifuges being operated underground at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facilities. The move underground came after an explosion in the facility in July that damaged centrifuges, likely a case of Israeli sabotage. Iran has said this move is also reversible if the US lifts sanctions.
When asked if there would have to be a “deal within a deal,” Grossi responded: “Oh yes, oh yes. Undoubtedly. It is clear that there will have to be a protocol or an agreement or an understanding or some ancillary document which will stipulate clearly what we do.”
Iran’s public stance on the deal is that they will not negotiate any new arrangements with Washington until the US lifts sanctions and returns to its commitments under the JCPOA. For his part, Joe Biden has said he plans to work with Iran to return to the JCPOA and then negotiate a follow-on deal on top of it. Biden’s plan seems like it could be acceptable with Tehran, but Grossi’s comments are a sign of the complications ahead.
“There is more (nuclear) material, … there is more activity, there are more centrifuges, and more are being announced. So what happens with all this?”
“enrichment could easily be scaled back, and the uranium stockpile could easily be exported to Russia, who makes fuel rods for Iran.”
So simple.
Yes, it would be simple. But scaling these things back are not what the US/Netanyahu want. What they want is for Iran to stop building missiles, whether or not they could be nuclear armed.
The very simple question the reporter could have asked was “weren’t all these conditions also true back when the deal was first made? Iran had to revise and limit its program and did so back then? What’s different now?” Notice that such elementary questions don’t tend to get asked …
Iran will need to give more while it gets less?
Already it has lost half of everything promised, so now it should lose more?
This is neocon fantasy land.
Fingers crossed, let’s hope that less neo-con heads prevail, but since this is yet another Centrist Neocon/Neolib Dem administration, I don’t know… although they did sign the original agreement in the last one, so there’s that.
just take a look at Bidens appointees they should worry us all.
Even 3 years ago the IAEA would never stoop to such blatant meddling in international politics.
No longer neutral, objective orsticking to facts and science.
Utterly unfit for purpose as their recent dispicable and shameful overturn of their own inspectors has shown.
The IAEA is now a complete waste of space on this planet.
Yes, most international organizations have been under “new management” , after a series of very aggressive “lobbying” so the countries in question insure they offer a suitable candidate. Organization monitoring chemical weapons — ditto.
But the word has gone around — and it is clear who resorts to such “techniques” and who is not.
The question is — what happened to JCPOA? It is an international treaty, and adopted by UN SC. Then US withdraws from the agreement, pretending that it was a normal thing to do. US was in violation of JCPOA at that point. Other signatories remained, but no European country actually fulfilled the terms. Even the new payment mechanism set up for the purpose, never fulfilled its initial objective.
Having not ever implemented the Agreement, US and European countries are now talking about renegotiating! IAEA is just aping what Western countries are now finally admitting. There was no implementation of JCPOA, nor was there any intent of implementing. The objective is to keep Iran underdeveloped, and its location as link between Central Asia and Indian Ocean rendered useless.
Where will this go from here? Once again, the West is arguing for another decade of negotiations.
But the process will be less clear as the limitations on arms purchases expired, while the most unreasonable demand for missile control is being floated as a new subject of negotiations. China has signed a 20 year agreement with Iran encompassing trade, infrastructure, military, etc. agreement. Russia is already in the process of developing arms deals, and is working on Iran’s nuclear power plant. Iran is increasingly integrated with Asia. Its economy decoupled from West, not in any way dependent in the West, will now take a more decisive and robust turn.
Up until now, there was a hope that European powers would honor the deal, and bring US around. Not any more. The West simply waked away from the agreement, Europe pretended for a while to stay – without actually meeting obligations.
Now, all Western countries and US are in violation. The dissembling by the head of IAEA, is legally unsupportable. There is no need to renegotiate the Agreement. Once US returns to the Agreement, all parties must resume their obligations. That applies to everyone — including Iran. Return to compliance is not a problem for Iran.
But all signatories from Europe and US are at present indicating their desire to violate agreement by seeking to renegotiate it. What happens then if Russia and China remain in the Agreement? How can IAEA refuse to monitor Iran compliance — if two remaining signatories demand it?
This time around, I doubt Iran would opt for another negotiations for another treaty — that will have just as much chance of not being violated by US again.
“I cannot imagine that they are going simply to say, ‘We are back to square one’ because square one is no longer there,” Rafael Grossi told Reuters. “There is more (nuclear) material, … there is more activity, there are more centrifuges, and more are being announced. So what happens with all this?”
Rafael Grossi is a liar. What he and the US foreign policy establishment want is for Iran to stop building missiles, whether or not they could carry nukes.
What they want is for Iran to be disarmed and helpless. Then they fully intend to exploit that, once it is as safe as smashing up all those other Muslim countries.
Now that my friend is spot on nothing but total surender by Iran.
Yes, the US owes Iran way more than just what we promised but failed to deliver. But it’s probably a safer assumption that an IAEA official expects the US to get twice what we originally asked for when we break deals, because bullies must be placated.
The IAEA is not a partner of the original agreement hence is way overboard.
Rafael Grossi really needs to shut up and do his real job instead of ranting and being a stooge for Israel, SA and US….!
World organisations controlled by the US – IAEA, UN, OPCW, WADA, IAAF, IOC etc.
A corrupt miserable World.
Yep he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Irainian leaders should not bet the farm on the biden changeing anything he is already backed into a corner by Trump , the same goes for Russia / China infact i think things will get worse with Biden in charge he is a dyed in the wool CHICKEN HAWKE .
The IAEA has already gone through stages of bias, and needs to let the deal get back on track by trusting Iran, which was NOT the cause of the US destruction of the deal negotiated in good faith.