When Iran turned to Europe more than two years ago to address the controversy surrounding its civil nuclear program, it created an opportunity. Since the second world war, Europe has lost global influence. Here was a chance for Europeans to play a more proportionate role in tackling international problems. It should have been a win-win situation whereby Iran and Europe could solve the issue but also forge an unprecedented understanding, creating an alliance for the benefit of the region as well as for international security.
Given the unjust sanctions imposed upon it by the West, Iran had to diversify its sources of energy -- a need that was in fact recognized by the West long before the 1979 revolution. But it appeared that the West was intent on preventing Iran's development in this direction. Moreover, the West placed a big question mark over Iran's legitimate right to access technology that would enable it to have a civilian program aimed at building a nuclear power plant.
According to a recent BP estimate, Iran will be an oil importer in 2024 if it continues to consume oil at present rates. This highlights the legitimate wish of the country to develop alternative sources of energy, including nuclear.
It was on this basis that Iran and the so-called EU3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- agreed to work together to address the controversy fuelled by US prejudice. The basis of the Paris agreement was two-fold. On the one hand Iran would assure the Europeans that its program would be exclusively aimed at civilian purposes, and on the other hand the EU3 would further its cooperation with Iran, including in the political, economic and nuclear fields, as well as providing firm guarantees for Iran's security. In order to build confidence between the two sides, Iran volunteered to temporarily suspend its nuclear programs and place them under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The two sides focused on working out the guarantees acceptable to each other, even though they could turn to the IAEA for some technical expertise to define and finalize it. As the talks were making progress, the US grew nervous that it was being left behind and stepped in. The visit of the new US secretary of state to several European capitals at the beginning of the year and her rejection of Iran's right of access to civil nuclear energy under the terms of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) seemed to influence the EU3.
The Europeans changed their tone and repeated US demands for the abandonment of all Iranian nuclear activities -- even though they knew this was neither legal under the NPT, nor acceptable to Iran.
As a result, Iran found itself in a dilemma and was suspicious of a deal between the EU3 and the US. It had wasted two years with a voluntary suspension of its activities and yet instead of gaining anything, it was being cheated of its legal rights.
But it did not give up and drafted a proposal for the gradual development of the program demanded by the Europeans and further talks. The EU3, apparently now committed to the US, did not accept. It was at this stage, when the EU3 ceased to respect the spirit of the Paris agreement, that Iran decided to restart a small part of its activities.
The Europeans countered with a proposal, in contravention of the Paris accord, that Iran should relinquish all of its rights for uranium enrichment in return for vague promises of expanded relations.
When it became clear that the EU3 was playing into the hands of the US, Iran had no choice but to reactivate its conversion facility in Isfahan. The Europeans reacted emotionally by putting pressure on the IAEA and its members to convene a meeting and demand that Iran reverse its decision. Iran, of course, could not accept this because all it wants is legal and falls within its rights under the NPT.
The contradiction could not be clearer when we are talking about Iran voluntarily suspending its activities. If it is voluntary action, it cannot be subject to orders from others.
Now under the influence of the US, the case has again become controversial. The EU3 is under pressure to suspend its two years of negotiations with Iran in which they have invested much international prestige. Europe's golden opportunity to play an international role is not only fading away, but is turning into an irresolvable dispute, which could ignite an unwanted and unnecessary conflict. We are all aware that this opportunity is on the verge of becoming the victim of the US-Iranian estrangement and grievances.
It could otherwise be used to benefit all.
The question which now needs to be asked is whether, at a later stage, when Europe is completely out of the picture, the US will replace the Europeans? And will the Europeans be judged as losers? In this case, would it not be better to seize the opportunity rather than suspending it?
Mohammad Hossein Adeli is the Iranian ambassador to Britain
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US