Financial Times interview With Iran's Foreign Minister

Full text of his excellency, Dr amirabdollahian, foreign minister’s Interview with the Financial Times

In The name of God

 

Q;Today you said Iran is in a rush to do a deal. How close are you to a deal? And what is preventing a deal being done today?

A: We, as the new government of Iran, have begun the talks since the past several weeks. What is important to us at the Vienna talks is the removal of the US unilateral sanctions and the return of all sides to their commitments under the JCPOA. I think there is a fundamental distinction between the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the western parties, as the former participated seriously in the negotiations with the initiative and a concrete plan right from the beginning of the recent talks in Vienna.

We are facing problems during this period because the other party lacks a serious initiative. We sometimes wonder whether the western governments really seek an agreement and if they are willing to lift sanctions on the basis of the JCPOA and UN Resolution 2231? We wonder whether the Western parties only have one concern and that is Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and they only want to remove their own “concern”?!

We have even told them repeatedly during the negotiations that if you want your concerns about our peaceful nuclear program to be addressed, you also need to allay our concerns about sanctions which were supposed to have been lifted under the JCPOA.

In this framework something else also happened and Rob Malley, the US representative, joined the negotiations. The American side told us repeatedly that the US president has good faith and that they are seeking to reach an agreement for which they do not have much time. In return, we told them and I repeat here that we also seek a good agreement. We also welcome a good deal in the shortest time however this deal must uphold the rights of the Iranian people.

 

A good agreement, as far as we are concerned, is the one which leads to removal of all sanctions based on the 2015 nuclear agreement known as the JCPOA. Today as we are speaking, there has been some progress in the talks but not all have been realized as stipulated under the JCPOA. Iran’s commitments are as clear as a mathematical formula is. It is absolutely clear what we are supposed to do and how these measures will be verified through the IAEA. Therefore, the other side can have no concern; But we remain concerned primarily about the guarantees. The American side is yet to give us a firm and solid guarantee. Even, against the principles of international law, Rob Malley says they cannot m commit that the next US administration would remain obligated to implementing the agreement. You know this is against international law; this contradicts the absolute principles known in international law. Under international law, even if a country is run by rebels or taken over in a coup d’état, its government is obliged to abide by its predecessor's international commitments.

Hence, it is not acceptable to us at all if the American side says we will reach an agreement with you that will be valid only as long as this administration is in office. They are saying that even for the agreement to be valid for the duration of this administration, there are a series of conditions, margins and restrictions.

Despite all these, we have made some progress on the table and are hopeful that this progress will lead to a good agreement. To achieve this good agreement, it is imperative that the Western party acts realistically.

 

Q: Can we clarify please when you say all sanctions related to the JCPOA, previously we understood Iran said it wanted all American sanctions on the Islamic republic to be removed.

Could you be specific? Do you mean all sanctions that Trump imposed or do you mean all the sanctions that Iran believes impeded the implementation of JCPOA from the very beginning including financial sanctions that meant the international banking sector did not engage Iran and have you compromised on that?

A; We definitely want the negotiations to lead to the total lifting of sanctions. But realistically, the sanctions that the 4+1 and the EU representative are targeting to be lifted in this round of Vienna talks, are those mentioned in the JCPOA and should have been removed in 2015. Moreover, all sanctions that were unilaterally imposed under the Trump administration on persons and entities of the Islamic Republic of Iran should be lifted.

 

In the talks in Vienna as with the sanctions imposed under Trump, the other party only accepts to remove sanctions that impede our enjoyment of the JCPOA economic benefits. But this is not all we are looking for. That Trump unilaterally and unjustly imposed sanctions on real and legal entities in Iran under some allegations as Iran’s missile program, regional issues or human rights is not acceptable. When we accept, in our nuclear commitments, to deal with whatever related to the excess production of enriched uranium and centrifuges, we expect that US excessive attempts during Trump be cleared up. This is also one of the challenges which remains on the negotiating table in Vienna.

 

Q;What has the US offered you on the guarantee? And in terms of the sanctions, do you want all the Trump-era sanctions lifted including things like the Islamic revolutionary guards designation or all the sanctions imposed as well as the financial sanctions?

 A;The issue of guarantees is one of our serious challenges at the negotiating table. We believe that the other sides should give us several guarantees. These guarantees should be offered in a strong manner to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the US and three European states. At the first level lies a political guarantee. We are being told that the remark by Mr. Joe Biden and commitments he made in the G-7 summit constitute a strong political guarantee. As a matter of principle, the public opinion in Iran cannot accept as a guarantee the words of a head of state, let alone the United States, due to the withdrawal of Americans from the JCPOA and ill-promises of the Western parties.

 I was in the parliament last week and answered the questions raised by the MPs for about two and a half hours. There, they insisted that a commitment by Mr. Joe Biden, who follows the same inappropriate methods of Trump in imposing sanctions on Iran, cannot be considered as a strong guarantee. Notwithstanding, political guarantee is a level of assurance which should be provided by the Americans; the details have been discussed in Vienna.

 

 

 

Legal and legislative guarantees are also important to us. In its non-papers and messages through the European Union, the American side emphasizes that in no manner will they be able to endorse such guarantee in the Congress. For us, legal and legislative guarantees by the American and Western parties are important. I have even told my colleague Mr. Bagheri that he can propose to Western parties in the negotiations that if they cannot pass the JCPOA as a law in their parliaments, at least their parliaments or parliament speakers, including the US Congress, can declare in the form of a political statement their commitment to the agreement and return to the JCPOA implementation. Anyway, the other parties and the United States and three European states do not have a particular initiative for legal and legislative guarantees.

 On economic guarantees, the US says it cannot provide guarantees on behalf of the next administration. We hope they treat this issue realistically as we need a serious level of guarantees. I saw in my last week’s session in parliament that some MPs are seeking an idea that Majlis should pass a law under which Iran would be able, on the basis of a snapback model, to immediately return the enrichment to a level to be obligated by the parliament in case any JCPOA party fails to fulfil its commitments under the agreement.

 This can create complications. Therefore, it would be beneficial to the other parties to act realistically in the issue of guarantees and be forthcoming in tabling initiative and moves based on international law.

 

Q;Will you hold direct talks with the US because it looks like the process is becoming deadlocked today?

A;Americans are sending many messages to have direct talks with us. Our last response to Americans and intermediaries was: any direct dialogue, contact and negotiation with the US would have very huge costs for my government. We are not ready to enter into the process of direct talks with the US if we do not have a clear and promising outlook to reach a good agreement with sustainable guarantees in front of us.

 

We have told Americans, through intermediaries, that if your intentions are genuine, you should take some practical and tangible steps on the ground before any direct talks and contacts can take place.

 For instance, some of our money frozen with foreign banks can be released or the US president can lift part of the sanctions against Iran simply by an executive order to show their good will so that we can then believe what the Americans would say [in direct talks] can be implemented and that they have serious determination to comply. Additionally, this is the negotiation table that would show in which directions our next decisions will go.

  In general, we are optimistic. The other sides try to exert pressure on us through shocks and diplomacy of playing with time and tell us we are running out of time and should therefore reach an agreement soon; however, we believe that talks should continue until we reach a good point to ensure we can reach a good agreement.

When a good agreement can be reached will depend on the other side. It is the US that is responsible for the sanctions environment against the Islamic Republic of Iran. And the US should show in practice whether or not it is really seeking a good and mutually-agreed deal in which the interests and JCPOA benefits of the Islamic Republic of Iran are protected.