Gharibabadi: The West is not ready to negotiate/ The negative effects of Snapback were controlled

Kazem Gharibabadi, Deputy Legal and International Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, answered questions about the talks between Iran and the West as well as the movements of the Westerners in the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency to issue an anti-Iranian resolution.

Negotiation is two-sided and not one-sided

In response to a question about Iran’s readiness for negotiations, Gharibabadi emphasized: “Iran has always been present at the negotiating table and has never left the negotiations.”

He stated that “negotiation has requirements and the conditions must be met”, and added: “Negotiation has two sides and is not one-sided. It is not possible for some parties to just talk about negotiation but not make arrangements for it and in practice seek to impose their demands. This is not a negotiation and the Islamic Republic of Iran has announced this many times.

The senior Iranian diplomat also stated: “Iran is in no rush to sit at the negotiating table where only the imposition of demands is concerned.” The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready whenever the opposite parties provide real conditions and enter into dialogue from an equal position with Iran. But it seems that now they have not prepared such conditions and are not ready for it. Therefore, they should be prepared to negotiate.”

Westerners failed in diplomacy

Regarding the upcoming meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the possibility of presenting a resolution by the three European countries and the United States, Gharibabadi told ISNA reporter: “These countries activated the snapback illegally before, but for the first time they failed in the framework of diplomacy, because the majority of the international community did not support their request. 121 member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as China and Russia, two permanent members of the Security Council, opposed the return of sanctions. Now these countries want to make up for their defeat in the Council of Governors.”

He added: “There is no special incident after the failed snapback that they want to put pressure on the board of governors. Iran’s facilities have been attacked and instead of being responsible, they are trying to put pressure on Iran.”

What problem does the anti-Iranian resolution solve?

Iran’s senior diplomat pointed out that “there is a possibility of passing the resolution, because the composition of the assemblies is such that Western countries have the majority”, adding: “But what problem does such a resolution want to solve?” Iran has always interacted with the agency. Therefore, issuing a resolution only increases the problems and complicates the situation. In fact, these countries should be responsible, not to put more pressure on Iran.

Referring to the failure of Snapback, Gharibabadi said: “They did Snapback, the international community was divided and did not support their ideas. Inside, officials and relevant agencies tried to control the negative effects of Snapback. It was due to this control that they went to the next pressure, because they were not successful in the previous pressure. They will not go anywhere here either; The Council of Governors is not a forum where they want to achieve their political goals.

Iran’s interaction with the Agency is not important for Westerners

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister continued his conversation with ISNA reporter, referring to Iran’s cooperation with the Agency and the possibility of defining a new modality, saying: “We are in contact with the Agency. After Snapback was activated, it was decided to review the agency’s requests in the Supreme National Security Council. It is not the case that the agency has any demand as before and Iran accepts it. The problem is not the Cairo agreement. The main question is that Iran had extensive cooperation with the Agency and we had the Cairo agreement even after the attack and access to undamaged facilities was also given. Where is the place of this in political interactions and did the westerners welcome this cooperation? The answer is negative. This shows that they are not looking for cooperation and interactions between Iran and the Agency.

Senior Iranian diplomat said: “They have defined political goals for themselves and are seeking to exert pressure.” Iran’s interaction with the Agency, the modality and implementation of safeguards are not important for them either. If this is the case, naturally the Islamic Republic of Iran will also review its approaches after issuing the resolution.”

The Cairo agreement has been abandoned

In the end, he emphasized: “I do not mean the Cairo understanding by the approaches; The Cairo agreement has been abandoned. “We have nothing to do with the agency in the framework of the Cairo understanding, but this change of approach will take place in other areas, because when the opposite parties send a message to Iran that they do not care about interaction with the agency, Iran is also forced to review its policies.”