US proposal is unrealistic, lacks clarity on sanctions relief - Nour News

Abolfazl Zohrehvand, a member of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, said the 2003 agreement, which led to the Tehran Declaration, was a "strategic mistake" that should not be repeated.

In October 2003, Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and permit enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and avoid referral to the United Nations Security Council.

The agreement was signed by Iran's then-Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rouhani, along with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany at Tehran's Saadabad Palace. It temporarily averted escalation of the nuclear dispute.

However, following the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at the Isfahan facility in August 2005 and enrichment at the Natanz facility in early 2006. By April 2006, Iran announced it had successfully enriched uranium to a purity level of approximately 3.5%, marking a significant advancement in its nuclear capabilities.

Zohrehvand said in an interview with Didban Iran that Tehran agreed in 2003 to suspend enrichment, signed the Saadabad agreement, and fulfilled its commitments by sealing the Natanz enrichment facility and the yellowcake production facility in Isfahan.

However, despite several rounds of negotiations, Iran’s request for reciprocal measures from the West went unmet, he added.

He said during that period, President Mohammad Khatami had tried to formally transfer a centrifuge to Tehran University to demonstrate Iran’s mastery of centrifuge technology. However, he said, then-Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi contacted British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to coordinate the move, only to be told it was not permitted and that all centrifuges had to be dismantled.

Zohrehvand also noted that following a visit to Tehran, the German foreign minister went directly to Israel and announced, “We told the Iranians to dismantle their enrichment program entirely.”

According to Zohrehvand, today’s Western demands echo the same expectations as those of two decades ago.

“This same model is being repeated again,” he warned.

Zohrehvand said while a temporary suspension of enrichment in return for sanctions relief might now be acceptable, it would be naïve to believe that the United States would be satisfied with such a deal.

“If resolving the issue merely means suspending or halting enrichment, it could happen—there’s no problem with suspending enrichment for a few years in exchange for the suspension or lifting of sanctions,” Zohrehvand said.

“But believing that the Americans would be content with that is simplistic.”

Abolfazl Zohrehvand, a member of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, warned on Sunday that Tehran should not repeat the "strategic mistake" it made in 2003 by signing the Saadabad Agreement with world powers.

In October 2003, Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and permit enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and avoid referral to the United Nations Security Council.

This agreement, which led to the Tehran Declaration, was signed by Iran's then-Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rouhani, along with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany at Tehran's Saadabad Palace. It temporarily averted escalation of the nuclear dispute.

However, following the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at the Isfahan facility in August 2005 and enrichment at the Natanz facility in early 2006. By April 2006, Iran announced it had successfully enriched uranium to a purity level of approximately 3.5%, marking a significant advancement in its nuclear capabilities.

Read more

Iran has long been preparing to defend its nuclear facilities against a possible military strike, defense and security analyst Farzin Nadimi said in an interview with Iran International.

"Israel’s past attacks on Iran were exploratory," Nadimi said, adding that “if an assault is launched with the goal of destroying all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would require precise planning and consideration of Iran’s defense capabilities—something the Islamic Republic has been preparing for over many years.”

Nadimi said Tehran has built an integrated air defense network under Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters — Iran’s central command for air defense — uniting the capabilities of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and the army.

Since the late 2010s, the Islamic Republic has worked to unify its air defense systems under a project known as the “Great Prophet System,” according to Nadimi.

Iran’s adversaries are more concerned about the ideological and civilizational impact of the Islamic Revolution than its nuclear capabilities, top Iranian cleric and former politician Mostafa Pourmohammadi said on Sunday.

“There are more than 10,000 nuclear warheads in the world that could destroy the Earth,” he said in an interview with the semi-official ISNA news agency. “But they accuse us of wanting to build a nuclear bomb and make a fuss about it. Is America’s real concern that we might get close to an atomic bomb?”

The former presidential candidate and head of Islamic Revolution Document Center said the “deeper concern of Iran’s enemies is the erosion of ideological foundations within their own societies.”

Pourmohammadi also warned against abandoning negotiations entirely. “Tying everything to negotiations is a mistake, but that mistake should not become an excuse to withdraw from the principle of negotiations,” he said.

Iran is unlikely to agree to a comprehensive nuclear deal under the current level of US pressure, international relations researcher Hossein Aghaei told Iran International.

“The Islamic Republic sees the right to enrichment, preservation of centrifuges, and nuclear infrastructure as deterrence tools, and does not want to lose them,” Aghaei said.

“If what we read in the news is correct—that the United States has backed down from its original conditions and seeks a middle-ground deal acceptable to Tehran—even under those circumstances, there are red lines for the Islamic Republic that could become problematic,” he added.

“If the current level of pressure continues, the Islamic Republic will not agree to a comprehensive deal,” he said, warning that Tehran faces a binary choice: “Either it accepts the US-proposed deal or moves toward greater tension.”