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.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
RSS