UN Nuclear Chief Tells Pope Francis Iran Talks At ‘Impasse’

But with Israel Hayom, Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi also outlined plans for attacking Iran. He said that the Israeli military had three schemes : “a retaliatory strike…unrelated to the nuclear issues,” the “taking out of the Iranian nuclear installations and auxiliary sites,” and, should the situation escalate, “a full-fledged campaign…[with] the targeting of military sites and other assets.”

Asked to compare with Israeli attacks on nuclear reactor in Iraq – referred to mistakenly by Israel Hayom as Iran – and Syria, in 1981 and 2007 respectively, Kochavi talked of “neutralizing, inflicting major damage to Iran’s nuclear program.”

The parallel may concern United States officials even as Washington has stepped up military co-operation with Israel. The French-supplied Iraqi reactor and the clandestine Syrian operation were at early stages, while Iran has been subject to intrusive international inspections and has enriched uranium stockpiles to 60 per cent purity since the United States in 2018 left the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

‘Lying constantly’

Kochavi appeared to justify an attack by suggesting Tehran was “lying constantly” and had a military nuclear program “working at a very slow pace.” The latter contradicts US intelligence assessments that Iran gave up research into nuclear weapons in 2003 and has not taken a political decision to produce a bomb.

Kochavi claimed Iran planned four bombs, three with uranium enriched to 20 percent and one with 60-percent-enriched uranium. It was unclear if he meant Tehran aimed at ‘dirty bombs’ that spray radioactive material without a nuclear explosion or intended to further enrich existing stockpiles to create enough 90-percent-enriched uranium for four nuclear bomb.

But he held out the possibility that “five different sets of pressure” on Iran could lead to a nuclear “deal [with Iran] that could be called very good and would have no sunset.” These five pressures operated “economically, socially, diplomatically,” coming also from Iran’s “military failures, and the fact that their proxies in the region have not delivered.” The five should be linked, he argued, to “a credible military option.”

Much of Kochavi’s interviews have reflected his concern over ultra-Zionists in the new government of Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. With Israel Hayom, Kochavi defended Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) autonomy in Gaza and the West Bank against political interference to the extent that “only the IDF determines what is moral and what is not; what is appropriate and what is not....”

‘Aggressive line on Iran’

Kochavi said that Gaza was “stabilized” and that “most of the attacks” in the West Bank had been “thwarted,” although “we have no way of knowing when this wave will subside.” With Jewish settlements expanding, last year was the most violent in the West Bank since 2005.

The new government is promoting concern among some Israelis, including those who believe settlements doom the ‘two state solution’ still formally supported by the US. Amos Harel, the Haaretz military correspondent, wrote January 6 that the government was “locked in ultra-hawkish rhetoric” with Netanyahu “espousing an aggressive line on Iran.”

Harel suggested that new defense minister Yaov Gallant, despite a “history of hawkish statements on Iran…[was] not necessarily a hawk on the issues,” but that he faced a power struggle with both Smotrich, who controls finance for the West Bank, and Ben-Gvir, who has already made a visit to al-Aqsa mosque compound, east Jerusalem, seen as provocative by Palestinians.

In Jerusalem Strategic Tribune this month Ksenia Svetlova, a former member of parliament, argued that with the new government the “idea of a two-state solution…seems just as feasible as ending world hunger, leaving most Israelis in limbo.”

Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud and Sameh Shoukry released a statement calling on Tehran to abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which commits signatories to the solely peaceful application of nuclear technology.

While stressing its continued adherence to the NPT, Iran has breached the limits set by the 2015 nuclear agreement, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), from which President Donald Trump withdrew the US in 2018. It has also substantially reduced monitoring of its nuclear facilities by UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA.

The Saudi energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman al-Saud announced Wednesday that Riyadh intended to use domestically sourced uranium to power its future nuclear industry, and that recent exploration had revealed rich deposits. Saudi Arabia, half of whose electricity currently comes from fossil fuels, is expanding solar energy but has also invited international interest in building its first nuclear power plant, with Russia’s Rosatom among those expressing interest.

Using domestic uranium for generating electricity would require enriching the naturally occurring material to 5 percent purity, the beginnings of a process that can produce ‘weapons grade’ uranium enriched to 90 percent. Saudi Arabia signed the NPT in 1988, but several leaders, including Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud, have said Riyadh would develop nuclear weapons if Tehran did.

While Iran find itself in more isolation in recent months, due to international condemnations over its deadly suppression of protests and supplying drones to Russia, officials in Tehran claimed earlier this month that there is a chance for improving ties with Egypt. However, Cairo has remained silent on the issue.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt have drawn closer politically since the ‘Arab spring’ revolts of 2010-13. The statement issued by the foreign ministers Thursday said the two countries had agreed to “support Arab efforts to urge Tehran to not interfere in the internal affairs of regional countries, preserve the principles of good neighborliness, and spare the region from all destabilizing activities, including supporting armed militias and threatening maritime navigation and international shipping lines,” the semi-official Arab News reported.

Riyadh last year extended Cairo a $5-billion aid package. Egypt faces a severe financial challenge including loss of tourism revenue and rising food prices resulting from the Ukraine war, with the International Monetary Fund recently identifying a $17 billion fiscal gap that will require international support in coming years. Public debt is around $400 billion and a third of Egyptians live in poverty.

Egypt, which has seen some US aid blocked over ‘human rights’ concerns, took part in the US-sponsored ‘Negev summit’ last year with Israel and the Arab states – Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates – that ‘normalized’ relations with Israel in 2020. Saudi Arabia has kept to the long-standing Arab League position that normalization requires recognition of a Palestinian state, a goal receding as the new government in Israel aims to speed up Jewish settlements on occupied land.

Speaking to the press Wednesday, Price, the State Department spokesman, said the United States had “no reason to put any stock or faith into the statements” made recently by Iranian officials that they were keen to resume talks over reviving the 2015 agreement, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

“There was a deal to mutually return to the JCPOA that was on the table that was approved by all parties” in September, Price said. “That ultimately went nowhere only because the Iranians weren’t prepared to accept it…The JCPOA hasn’t been on the agenda for some months now.

“There is no denying that Iran presents one of the most complex challenges we face… Its nuclear program has been the focus of successive administrations. Its malign activities throughout the Middle East and in some cases potentially even beyond has been the focus of successive administrations…And now what it is doing to its own people – the repression……[and] the security assistance that it’s providing to Russia – all of these…. represent…one of the most difficult challenges we face.”

While failure to agree JCPOA restoration in either year-long multilateral talks in Vienna or subsequent bilateral US-Iran contacts reflected gaps between Iran and the US over JCPOA restoration, Price’s reference to complexities reflects new complications.

‘On the agenda, but not on the table’

Firstly, Iran’s supply of military drones to Russia has shifted the approach of the three European JCPOA signatories, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. While the European Union foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell has continued diplomatic efforts with Iran, meeting Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Amman in December, European officials have intimated that Iran’s involvement with Russia precludes JCPOA revival.

100%

Europe long held to the JCPOA logic of separating Iran’s nuclear program from other issues, but it has agreed with the US that the drones supply – even if, as Iran says, before the February outbreak of the latest Ukraine hostilities – violates a JCPOA clause restricting Iran trading certain categories of arms.

European states have joined the US in levying new sanctions against Iran over both the drones and Tehran’s response to recent unrest. Hossein Mousavian, former Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and nuclear negotiator, told Al-Monitor this meant the JCPOA was now “on the agenda but not on the table.”

Mousavian said the “Europeans are playing a more active role to create an international consensus against Iran, more because of the Ukraine issue…[and] compared to the US…[had] become ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ in advancing hostile policies against Iran.”

A second complication is the return to office in Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu with a coalition including ultra-Zionists, which has created a new challenge for Washington. While Netanyahu, who has for decades portrayed Iran as on the threshold of a nuclear weapon, is playing up his warm relationship with President Joe Biden, there are clear US nerves.

‘Security and stability’

A Pentagon read-out of the first telephone call, late Wednesday, between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and new Israeli counterpart Yoav Gallant featured Austin warning Israel not to “undermine security and stability in the West Bank,” a reference to speeding up Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian land.

The US read-out referred to agreement “on the need to work together to address…regional challenges, including threats posed by Iran’s destabilizing activities,” while the Israeli defense department statement said Gallant had “emphasized in the conversation Israel’s commitment to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons...”

Something similar happened with Monday’s call between Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State, and Eli Cohen, the Israeli foreign minister. A right-wing Israeli newspaper cited sources that Blinken had proclaimed the JCPOA dead. The US read-out of the call made no mention of this, and a US official subsequently denied it.

Security analysts have also discussed whether growing US-Israel military co-operation, highlighted this week by joint air drills, makes an attack on Iran more likely or is rather a means to rein in a Netanyahu-led Israel.

Axios quoted three US officialsas saying that Blanc is returning to his home agency after nearly two years on detail to the Department of State.

US State Department Spokesman Ned Price said Wednesday that it is a “normal move”.

“The Department of Energy is a critical partner in shaping US policy on Iran’s nuclear program, and in his new role, Jarrett will remain involved in this issue, and returning to his home agency after two years is a normal personnel move,” noted Price.

Blanc was the deputy of US Special Envoy for Iran Rob Malley and a key player in the indirect talks with Tehran over its nuclear program within the last two years.

Axios says Blanc's departure shows that the Biden administration thinks there is no path forward for a return to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran at this juncture.

After 18 months of talks aimed at reviving the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, or JCPOA, negotiations reached a deadlock in September. There have also been calls for Malley’s resignation.

In late October, Malley stated that the US government is not going to "waste time" on trying to revive the Iran nuclear deal due to Tehran's clampdown on protesters, its support for Moscow's war on Ukraine, and the Islamic Republic’s positions on its nuclear program.

The former head of parliament’s (Majles) foreign relations and national security committee Heshmatolah Falahatpisheh told Nameh News in Tehran January 3 that "The United States will return to the JCPOA, but first, Iran needs to do four things: Settling domestic differences and reducing tensions, bringing about relative stability to the country's economy, making those who prevented the revival of the deal during the past two years accountable, and sending a new team to continue the negotiations."

Since negotiations to revive the 2015 nuclear deal or JCPOA broke down in September, the Biden administration and its European allies have put the talks on the backburner and even President Joe Biden said in early November that “JCPOA is dead.”

According to Nameh News, Falahatpisheh is one of those politicians who believe diplomacy should be given yet another chance before pronouncing the JCPOA dead. Falahatpisheh reiterated that Europe and the US will certainly return to negotiations in 2023 and Iran should welcome this.

100%

Falahatpisheh said whatever that has been done so far to save the JCPOA were tactical moves rather than strategic changes, adding that both the United States and Europe are trying to weaken Iran's bargaining power.

Referring to the ongoing uprising in Iran, Falahatpisheh said, the United States and Europe assume that the protests have weakened Iran's bargaining power. That is why they pretend that they do not need to continue negotiations. On the other hand, the positions of anti-JCPOA political figures in Iran contribute to the Western apathy for more talks.

"Under the current situation, it is better for those who always opposed the JCPOA to stop further weakening Iran's diplomacy by commenting on the issue," Falahatpisheh said. He added that "Iran should change its nuclear negotiators and get rid of those who go to the negotiations to disrupt previous agreements rather than reaching a deal."

Falahatpisheh’s was clearly referring to Ali Bagheri-Kani, the chief Iranian negotiator, who is a protégé of Saeed Jalili, a hardliner anti-West ideologue.

100%

In another development, Jalili, one of the staunch opponents of an agreement with the United States, has accused former President Hassan Rouhani of “tying Iran economic development to the JCPOA” and contributing to the current crisis. Jalili and other hardliners know that they being blames for the continuation of US sanctions by preventing a nuclear deal and are twisting facts to blame others.

Jalili, who is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's representative to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, further charged that "the enemy started instigating major protests in Iran and began to make Iran insecure after it found out that its immense pressure on the country's economy will not work." He called the JCPOA "an imaginary" achievement for the previous government.

Meanwhile, hardline lawmaker Ahmad Rastineh advised Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi to "escape the trap of the JCPOA," and called the 2015 nuclear deal "A deceit by the United States."

Repeating a fallacy Iranian ultraconservatives have been trumpeting about the US allegedly sanctioning the export of medicines to Iran, Rastineh said: "When they sanction medicine sales to Iran, how can we expect them to recognize the rights of this oppressed nation." The lawmaker's comment is contrary to Iranian officials' statements denying US sanctions on medicine.

Rastineh charged, "every time US officials talk about starting or stopping the negotiations, in fact, they wish to disrupt Iran's economy and hurt its currency."

In fact, economists and even many regime insiders say that in the absence of an agreement with the West people are sending tens of billions of dollars abroad and no one is investing in the economy.