TEHRAN (Bazaar) – Professor Paul Pillar, who was CIA intelligence analyst for 28 years, says if the issues with the IAEA really do get resolved, then Iran's linkage of the two matters would go away and presumably this would improve the chance of a revival of the JCPOA, though not necessarily rapidly.
Pillar told Bazaar news agency that “I certainly agree that threats of military attack do not help to resolve the current impasse.”
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Iran has announced that talks with IAEA will soon resume regarding the disputed issues, and following the agreement, the Iranian technical delegation will be sent to Vienna in the coming days to discuss this matter with agency officials. Can the resolution of these issues lead to the rapid revival of the JCPOA?
A: The safeguards-related issues that the IAEA has had with Iran are separate from the JCPOA, although Iran has been the one that has tried to link the two by making a "closing" of the safeguards file a condition for accepting the EU draft for a new JCPOA. If the issues with the IAEA really do get resolved, then Iran's linkage of the two matters would go away and presumably this would improve the chance of a revival of the JCPOA, though not necessarily rapidly.
Q: Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's representative in international organizations in Vienna and the country's representative in JCPOA negotiations said. I am confident that the remaining issues related to Iran's past nuclear program can be quickly resolved through dialogue with IAEA. What is your assessment of his words?
A: Ulyanov often makes some of the most optimistic statements about the state of negotiations on the JCPOA. What will be critical is whether Iran, if the safeguards issues are resolved, makes any more demands before accepting the EU draft.
Q: The United States has announced that the revival of the JCPOA is not currently on the agenda of this country. Can these statements be considered to persuade public opinion? Because the US has been negotiating with Iran for a prisoner exchange in the midst of Iran's protests.
A: The US statements have been a way of saying that it is up to Iran, especially regarding that attempted linkage with the safeguards question, to show movement if negotiations with a reasonable hope of reviving the JCPOA are to take place.
Q: Robert Malley has recently announced that a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is considered the last option. Don't you think that such threats, which were raised more strongly during Trump's era, did not help to solve the problems?
A: I certainly agree that threats of military attack do not help to resolve the current impasse. Such threats only tend to strengthen the arguments of anyone in Iran arguing that a nuclear weapons deterrent is necessary. But I do not believe that the Biden administration has any kind of pre-emptive military attack on its agenda.
Q: In a conversation with Josep Borrell, Hossein Amir Abdollahian spoke about Iran's message to America through the European Union and declared: “Iran is ready to reach a good, strong, and stable agreement. We presented our opinions in a constructive and forward-looking manner to the American side.” What is your assessment and can the parties start and conclude the talks at this time?
A: Each side has attempted to spin the story of the negotiations to lay blame on the other side. And each has unfortunately made demands that precluded the possibility of a fast and early return to the JCPOA after Biden replaced Trump. But it does appear that over the past few months, the biggest sticking points have been Iranian demands, including the issue of "guarantees" against another US withdrawal and the matter of the safeguard’s questions with the IAEA.
نظر شما