Gharibabadi: The source of the pollution announced by the agency is completely unknown to us

According to Fars News Agency’s Foreign Policy Group, Kazem Gharibabadi, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to International Organizations in Vienna and the International Atomic Energy Agency, addressed a quarterly meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on NPT Safeguards. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, he explained the positions of the Islamic Republic in this regard to the representatives of the member states.

He stated that there is no safeguard issue regarding Iran’s current nuclear activities, and this important point has been reaffirmed in the current report of the Director General.

Gharibabadi stated that Iran has continued its practical and constructive interactions and working relations with the IAEA and has tried in good faith to answer questions related to some minor issues of the past, noting: “Despite these sincere efforts, unfortunately the IAEA Secretariat , At the cost of hurting its credibility, has taken an unconstructive and hasty approach to reporting on these issues. This can be a barrier to future goodwill interactions between the two parties.

* The source of the pollution reported by the agency is completely unknown to us

Iran’s Permanent Representative to the IAEA stated: “It is unfortunate that, despite Iran’s written explanation of the presence of depleted uranium on May 26, 2021 in one of the locations, the IAEA continues to state that” Iran has not yet provided an explanation. ” As we have said before, based on our research into the history of activities at this site, no history of nuclear activity was observed. Therefore, the source of the pollution reported by the Agency is completely unknown to us.

He added: “Apparently it is the agency’s wrong practice that every time we approach to close an issue, it raises new questions in order to face an open and endless process.” This procedure is completely unacceptable and contradicts the agency’s professionalism.

* The Agency should refrain from politicking and unprofessionalism and be careful with its positions and writings.

Regarding the issue of natural uranium in the form of metal disks, the senior diplomat of our country also noted that the IAEA inspectors have carried out several verification activities of a facility in Iran in this regard and added: In particular, we challenged this issue, which was based solely on a few baseless, unproven, and unreliable images without providing any credible evidence.

He continued: “We have made it clear to the IAEA that it is not possible for Iran to take action on this basis and that the IAEA must correct this misconduct.”

According to Fars, Gharibabadi also expressed serious concern about the magnification of some old trivial issues by the IAEA Secretariat and said: “The existence of Iran’s safeguard statements has a serious impact on the Agency’s ability to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program,” he said.

Gharibabadi stated: The agency should avoid politicking and unprofessionalism and be careful in its positions and writings.

He asked: “How could a small amount of material from more than two decades ago affect the peaceful nature of a country’s nuclear program, when that country accepts more than 20 percent of IAEA inspections worldwide and is the strongest system for about five years?” Is the agency verified there? This statement by the Director General of the Agency is completely unrealistic, unprofessional and unfair, and we hope that the Director General will correct it, because the continuation of this path can have a fundamental impact on our approach to the Agency.

The Permanent Representative of Iran to the IAEA noted that constructive participation requires a positive atmosphere, refraining from making any early judgments, avoiding false concerns or deadlines, and refraining from exaggerating trivial matters.

* It is a bitter irony that the IAEA is unaware of the Israeli regime’s nuclear weapons program in the volatile Middle East.

He continued: “It is a bitter historical irony that the IAEA is unaware of the Israeli regime’s nuclear weapons program in the volatile Middle East.” Unfortunately, the regime ignores the international community by downplaying the importance of the treaty, refusing to accede to it, and refusing to place all of its nuclear facilities and activities under the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Regime.

Gharibabadi pointed out that the Israeli regime now has even more preferential advantages than even countries with nuclear weapons, because those countries are members of the NPT and have numerous obligations, especially under Articles one and six of the treaty; By staying out of the treaty, the Israeli regime is free from any obligations under the treaty and enjoys all the benefits of the IAEA statute, which is related to the NPT.

According to Fars, Gharibabadi also stated: “The current situation has given the Israeli regime the audacity to mock the authority and mission of the IAEA in preventing the diversion of its nuclear materials and activities.” Most importantly, the Israeli regime has become so arrogant that it distorts the facts and criticizes some members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on the grounds that they have obligations because of their membership in the treaty, but that they themselves do not. This is a very serious omission in the work of the agency that must be properly addressed.

* A regime that is not bound by the NPT and its comprehensive safeguards should not be seen as pro-proliferation.

He said: “In such a situation, what is the advantage of membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the full implementation of the Agency’s safeguards?” How can the international community see the IAEA as a serious, professional and impartial partner, while not pursuing a comprehensive safeguards regime for all its members equally and even about the need for verification and inspection of the regime’s core program? Isn’t Israel seriously arguing?

Gharibabadi asked: “Does not the policy of silence and disregard for the Israeli regime’s nuclear program and the policy of non-action in this regard send a negative message to the members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that” membership in the treaty equates to accepting the strongest oversight and verification while staying out? ” From the contract means release from any obligation and criticism and even receiving a reward ?!

He added: “A regime that is not bound by the NPT and its comprehensive safeguards should not be seen as pro-proliferation.” The Israeli regime’s talk of non-proliferation is like the Mafia’s talk of fighting organized crime.

Gharibabadi concluded: “The Agency, as the most relevant organization responsible for maintaining and promoting the three main pillars of the NPT, has a prominent role and should take a clear approach to the unacceptability of the Israeli regime being outside the NPT and Adopt its persistent opposition to placing all of its core facilities and activities under the Agency’s comprehensive safeguards system.

End of message /