China urges parties not to exaggerate Iran safeguards issue

TEHRAN, Sep. 15 (MNA) – A Chinese envoy on Wednesday called on all parties in the Iran nuclear talks to create necessary conditions for reaching a deal, instead of exaggerating outstanding Iran's nuclear safeguards issues.

Wang Chang, deputy head of China's Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Vienna, made the remarks at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors convened on the same day to deliberate the Iran nuclear issue, the Chinese People English website reported.

Wang said that the success of the Iran nuclear talks is contingent on whether a solution acceptable to all parties can be found to resolve the outstanding safeguards issues.

The Iran nuclear talks are aimed at reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran's nuclear safeguards issues are reportedly a major sticking point in the negotiations.

"It is important to note that Iran's outstanding safeguards issues point to possible nuclear activities that took place decades ago, if at all. There is neither urgency nor proliferation risk involved. Besides, the issue of the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program was already concluded in 2015," he said.

He urged the parties in the talks to not overstate the severity of the outstanding safeguards issues or make those issues a major obstacle to future reimplementation of the Iran nuclear deal.

Noting that the Iran nuclear talks have entered the "final critical stage," the Chinese envoy said that the United States, as the originator of the Iran nuclear crisis, should make political decisions and respond to Iran's reasonable demands to promote an early deal.

In response to a statement proposed at the IAEA board meeting by the US and other countries on Iran's safeguards issues, Wang said that putting pressure on Iran would not help resolve the outstanding issues or de-escalate the current crisis.

MNA/PR

News Code 191461

Tags

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
  • captcha