Aug 11, 2015, 3:13 PM

Araghchi:

Missile program ‘not subject to Resolution provisions’

Missile program ‘not subject to Resolution provisions’

TEHRAN, Aug. 11 (MNA) – Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator has responded questions in the Parliament in a marathon meeting lasting 4 hours.

Mehr News parliamentary correspondent watched the meeting on Monday, where Deputy FM Seyed Abbas Araghchi sat in a meeting to respond and address Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission concerns about the JCPOA.

Araghchi told the meeting that the verification by the IAEA would be quantitative; “the Agency has scored a good record in verification in Geneva deal; the reality remains however that apart from the Agency, no other international arbitrator is there to verify the implementation of the commitments; in any case, an international organization should have inspected Iran’s facilities to produce a report to the UN and the 5+1; we managed to work out an arrangement to make the IAEA’s verifications only numerical and quantitative, where the IAEA would have a checklist and verify the implementation of commitment according to simply a top-down list,” Mr. Araghchi told the meeting.

“In doing so, the IAEA has no maneuvering power in interpretation of the JCPOA; it would not change the figures or add or subtract certain amounts,” Araghchi assured the Commission members. In response to the question of ‘unconventional inspections’ inserted in the JCPOA text, Araghchi said that the inspections would be in the framework of the Additional Protocol, which was an internationally recognized conventional treaty and more than 140 countries were members and 120 countries were actively implementing it, and “Iran is not an exception to this general rule.”

“With PMD (Possible Military Dimensions) raised by the west, it had been a matter of concern; however, in the roadmap agreed between Iran and the IAEA, no inspections of Iran’s military centers would be found,” said the senior negotiator. “With R and D, this is quite an achievement for us, since it is recognized by the other parties as part of Iran’s nuclear program; the nuclear technology is a tremendous field, with enrichment being only a part of; the JCPOA even encourages countries to cooperate with Iran in R and D,” he added.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will have the necessary permits to work on enrichment as part of R and D; however, we should abide by restrictions in the number of working centrifuges, which would not significantly affect the R and D; for 10 years, the JCPOA asserts, Iran will be free to work with IR4, IR5, IR6 and IR8 centrifuges; the R and D is not a matter relating to production, but to advance enrichment machines to higher versions, where we will hopefully enter into industrial level of production,” Mr. Araghchi told the Commission member.

“Iran has accepted restrictions on its development of new and advanced machines; after that, we will resume development of IR6 and IR8; furthermore, we have a plan to reach the ambitious 1 million SWU (Separative Work Unit), with Leader’s emphasis on attaining of a 190k SWU as providing feed for a power plant; in the end of 15th year of restrictions, we will have enough fuel for 5 or 6 power plants with IR8 already operative,” he detailed.

Araghchi assured the Parliament commission that UNSC resolution would not drastically impact Iran’s missile test program; “this is not definitely binding for Iran; even if so, any violation by Iran would not be interrprted as violation of JCPOA, as the Foreign Ministry has announced official position on recognizing the Resoltuion; we believe this Resolution would not pose any real trouble for Iran, since our missiles do not fall to the categories subject of the discussions of the Resolution,” Mr. Araghchi said.

Araghchi also touched the fate of Iran’s unfrozen assets; “the unfrozen assets now is in the disposal of the Central Bank, and Geneva agreement mandates release of $700mn installments per month, which has been so in recent few months,” he concluded. 

 

News Code 109165

Tags

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
  • captcha