The ultimatum on Iran was quite clear: either accept the Western demand for non-proliferation or risk international isolation like in the first decade of the Islamic revolution.
Despite various forms of rhetoric before the crucial meeting with the three foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, Iran's establishment eventually chose wisely and opted for non-proliferation rather than isolation.
"This is an everlasting disgrace and the people want the establishment to revise this humiliating decision," the Islamist daily Jomhuri Islami commented Iran's compliance with the demands by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western countries.
President Mohammad Khatami, however, termed the agreement as "Iran's contribution to world peace" showing the country's serious will to remove all global concerns and create a basis of trust.
According to a joint statement by Iran and the three European states, Iran agreed to temporarily suspend its uranium-enrichment program voluntarily, prepare grounds for signing the additional IAEA protocol after parliamentary approval and cooperate with the agency on the unannounced and unlimited inspection of nuclear sites.
Iran had divided the settlement of the conflict into two parts: the technical part was to be settled with the IAEA, the political part with its main EU partners France and Germany, plus Britain as the closest European ally of the US, Iran's main opponent in the row.
The issue also had internal dimensions. Mohsen Mirdamadi, member of parliament and foreign policy expert of the reformist wing, made clear that the issue should in no way be referred to the UN Security Council which would have been the case if Iran had not followed the Oct. 30 ultimatum by the IAEA to clarify all nuclear activities.
The influential hardliners, however, preferred to follow the North Korean way and even get out of the NPT, risking political and trade sanctions.
The three key players in the issue, President Mohammad Khatami, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani therefore chose the moderate cleric Hassan Rowhani in order to make the final decision acceptable to all political wings.
Rowhani, secretary of the National Security Council, personally held the final talks with Mohammad ElBaradei although the IAEA chief's main counterpart had previously been Vice-President Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh, who also heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.
Rowhani was also in charge to lead the technical talks in Teheran with the three European ministers. However, after the negotiations had continued for more than three hours with no agreement in sight, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi unexpectedly joined the talks.
Insiders say that Kharrazi's appearance in the talks indicated that the political concessions to be made were beyond Rowhani's authority and only within jurisdiction of the establishment's foreign minister.
"Surely there have been more than only nuclear talks," said Iran's UN Ambassador Mohammad-Javad Zarif in a television interview.
"The US had planned a plot against Iran which we neutralized in time through this agreement," he added.
Iran's IAEA envoy Salehi said that not having accepted the nuclear agreement would have forced the country to face "more sensitive issues."
Former president Rafsanjani had said last month that all the pressures on the nuclear projects were brought to bear merely because of Iran's opposition to Israel's policies in the Middle East.
Observers believe that the nuclear agreement has, for now, taken the edge off the EU's demand to acknowledge the state of Israel and drop support for anti-Israeli militia groups.
"This agreement was just a tool for greater US aims in the region and for realizing their final goal which is and has always been toppling Iran's Islamic regime," the daily Jomhuri Islami said.
In the meantime, the state-television network IRIB questioned Iran's insistence that the agreement had been made "voluntarily and temporarily" and not forced by Western pressure.
"Of course the decision was made forcefully-voluntarily," a conservative local reporter commented sarcastically.
UN ambassador Zarif said that Iran fulfilled the European demand to establish "the basis of trust" and now it was up to Europe to fulfil their promises.
The EU promises include putting an end, at least in Europe, to Iran being branded as belonging to what the US called the "axis of evil". The EU also pledged to expand trade talks and aid the country in its effort to enter the WTO.
After signing the additional IAEA protocol, Iran also expects Europe to provide it with the necessary uranium and nuclear fuel for its civil nuclear projects.
"The EU is right now just happy to have defused renewed tensions in the region and prevented another dilemma such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is another lengthy process ahead of all sides," a European diplomat said in Teheran.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS