The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is The International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations, It voted to order Iran to cooperate with the agency’s investigation into traces of uranium that were found at three undisclosed sites as the nuclear deal with the country appears less certain.
the decision you made United StateBritain, France and Germany say the council “determines it is necessary and urgent” for Iran to explain the origin of the uranium particles and generally give the IAEA all the answers it demands.
“Iran must now provide the necessary cooperation, no more empty promises,” the United States said in its statement to the Governing Council shortly before the resolution was adopted, with 26 votes in favor of the resolution, five abstentions, and two countries absent, according to diplomats at the meeting. . . Only Russia and China voted against it.
The resolution is not the first time the board has taken action against Iran, but the current resolution contains stronger wording that indicates a possible diplomatic escalation in the future.
One potential action the board could take in the future is a referral to the United Nations Security Council, Behnam Ben Taleblo, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.
Tougher language from the IAEA board on Iranian failures to explain traces of man-made uranium particles at former nuclear sites could serve as a potential path to UN Security Council referral, something Tehran has long sought to avoid by Half-measures and empty promises of cooperation,” Taleblou said.
Taleblou explained that “blaming Iran for these shortcomings should be a price floor” and not a new price ceiling for “an approach based on pressure to confront Tehran’s nuclear violations.”
“If transparency and cooperation are not achieved, then for the integrity of the global nonproliferation regime, Tehran must face consequences,” Taleblou added. “This includes exercising the ‘snapback’ option included in the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).”
The IAEA’s move comes as talks on a nuclear deal stalled, and Robert Malley, the US envoy for Iranian affairs, said. He said last month It will not “waste time” trying to revive talks with Iran in light of Tehran’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters and its support for Russia in its war against Ukraine.
Over the summer, Iranian officials rejected an EU proposal and made more demands in late August and early September. Since that time, anti-government protests broke out in Iran In response to the death of 22-year-old Mohsa Amini, who was in police custody, she was charged by Iran’s morality police in September for not properly covering her hair with the Islamic headscarf, known as the hijab, which is mandatory for Iranian women.
Despite O’Malley saying earlier this week that the United States is continuing its strategy of “sanctions and pressure,” an Iranian official said this week that there is currently an “uninterrupted exchange of messages” between the two countries regarding reviving the 2015 agreement that was scrapped by former President Donald Trump. trump, And Anadolu Agency reported this week.
Lisa Daftary, expert on Iranian relations And the editor of the Bureau of Foreign Affairs, he told Fox News Digital that the IAEA’s latest development “raises questions” in the Biden administration’s approach to Iran and provides evidence that any nuclear deal would be one with a partner who has not shown reason. can be trusted.
“So far, the Biden administration has been under pressure to put the deal on hold because of the regime’s demands but more so because of the young Iranian protest movement, which has managed to attract global attention,” Daftary said. “A development like this underscores once again the importance of supporting the movement in Iran, which seeks to remove a government that cannot be trusted to lead its people or to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Taleblou told Fox News Digital that regardless of any resolution passed against Iran, “the country’s nuclear progress and diplomatic intransigence are increasingly pouring cold water on the prospect of nuclear diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.”
“After all, Western diplomats must ask, what is the point of this diplomacy with a regime that slaughters protesters, proliferates weapons, endorses wars of imperial aggression, and continues to avoid nuclear transparency?” He said.
The White House It did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Reuters contributed to this report.
“Amateur organizer. Wannabe beer evangelist. General web fan. Certified internet ninja. Avid reader.”