Iran has not met E3 conditions to avoid snapback, France says - Reuters

The chief of the UN nuclear watchdog said on Tuesday that Iran's ties to the body must continue despite a European move to trigger international sanctions and that rejecting inspections would only increase Tehran's woes.

"Our relationship with Iran is permanent (and) must continue," Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in an interview with the BBC outside the UN headquarters.

"Iran has very clear commitments and obligations ... those are permanent, as I said, and they go beyond the issue of the snapback."

"If they were to start saying no to inspections, then there will be a bigger, a new problem, and we don't want, I don't think we need, a bigger problem in Iran.

Grossi added that Washington was keen, despite President Trump having said the Iranian nuclear program was "obliterated" by US attacks in June, to mend Iran-IAEA ties.

"There are some exchanges, I must say that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is very active on those I, for one, I am in constant contact with him," he said.

"I know that in spite of all these difficulties that are very clear for everyone to see, and the actions in June are proof of that, there's still a will here in the United States to have an agreement that would, you know, put this relationship back to normalcy."

"The E3 and EU urged Iran to take practical steps within the next days, if not hours to address longstanding concerns around its nuclear program," the German foreign ministry said after European powers met Iran's top diplomat in New York.

"These include resuming direct talks with the US and access to all Iranian nuclear sites for the IAEA, in line with its obligations," it added.

"As E3, we are prepared to complete the snapback process if necessary, but that will not mark the end of our engagement. We'll remain committed to finding a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program."

Below are excerpts from Khamenei's televised speech:

"In the current situation, negotiating with the US government would, first and foremost, do nothing to help our national interests — it would bring us no benefit and would not avert any harm."

"Negotiations with the US under present conditions also entail serious harms for the country, some of which may even be irreparable."

"When we say it is not to our benefit, it is because the American side has already predetermined the outcome of negotiations. They have declared that the only talks they accept are those that end with Iran shutting down its nuclear activities and enrichment."

"That is not negotiation; that is dictation, it is imposition. To sit down and negotiate with a party that insists the result must necessarily be exactly what they want and say—is that negotiation?"

"They say: let us negotiate, and the result should be that Iran has no enrichment. And just days ago, one of their deputies declared that Iran must not have missiles either—not long-range, not medium-range, not even short-range. They are saying Iran must be left empty-handed, unable even to respond, if attacked, at an American base in Iraq or elsewhere."

"Such words are bigger than the mouth that utters them and are not worthy of attention. We have not and will not give in to pressure in enrichment or in any other matter."

Uranium enrichment

"Now this man, the American side, is insisting that Iran must have no enrichment at all. In the past, others said we should not have high-level enrichment, or that our enriched material should not be kept inside the country—things we did not accept. But now they are saying: no enrichment whatsoever, absolutely none at all. What does that mean?"

"Well, clearly, a proud nation like the Iranian people will slap the mouth of the one who says this and will not accept it. We will not submit to pressure in this matter (uranium enrichment) or in any other."

"The other side has threatened that if you do not negotiate, such and such will happen—whether it be bombing or other threats, sometimes vague, sometimes explicit. That is a threat. Accepting such negotiations would signal that Iran is vulnerable to threats. It would mean that whenever we face a threat, we immediately become afraid, tremble, and submit. That is what it would mean."

"And if such susceptibility to threats were to emerge, it would never end. Today they say: if you enrich, we will do this. Tomorrow they will say: if you have missiles, we will do that. Then they will say: if you maintain ties with such-and-such a country, we will act; if you do not maintain ties with another, we will act. It will all be threats, and we would be forced to retreat at every step."

"No honorable nation accepts negotiations under threat, and no wise politician endorses it."

"Ten years ago, we signed an agreement with the Americans, under which they were supposed to lift sanctions and normalize Iran’s nuclear file at the IAEA. The other side may now say, 'in exchange, we will give you such-and-such a concession.' They are lying. Whatever they claim to offer as a concession is false."

A team of IAEA inspectors is on its way to Iran in the event that Tehran and European powers reach a deal this week to avert the reimposition of UN sanctions, Reuters reported citing the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi.

The UN nuclear watchdog director general said there were "intense" conversations between him, Iran, European powers and the United States to find a solution.

"We have just a few hours, days, to see whether something can be achieved, and this is the effort in which we are all embarked on," Reuters quoted Grossi as saying.

"Of course, countries that want to produce nuclear weapons enrich up to 90 percent purity," Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday.

"Since we have no need for weapons and have decided against nuclear arms, we have not taken it that far; we have raised it to 60 percent, which is a very high level, a very good figure, and necessary for some of the domestic needs in our country."

Israel and the United States accused Iran of racing toward a bomb when they launched surprise attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in June - a campaign which ended two months of US-Iranian talks over Tehran's disputed activities.

The official US intelligence assessment in the run-up to the war was that Iran's leadership had not decided to pursue a weapon.

"The other side has threatened to bomb Iran if we do not negotiate," Khamenei added. "Accepting such negotiations would signal the Islamic Republic’s susceptibility to threats, and if it happens, there will be no end: first they demand the nuclear program, then the missiles, and then they move on to every issue."

"Iran lacked the technology to enrich uranium, and our enemies did not want us to have it. Our scientists managed to achieve the know-how," he added.

He said enriched uranium is very valuable for Iran as it has applications in various aspects of people's lives.

"People benefit from enriched uranium in agriculture, industry, nutrition, environment, education and research, power generation, and many other areas."