The Board of Governors […] [w]elcomes the commitments undertaken by Iran under the JCPOA, to provisionally apply the Additional Protocol to its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement in accordance with Article 17 (b) of the Additional Protocol, seek its ratification within the time frame as detailed in Annex V of the JCPOA and fully implement modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement, communicated by Iran to the Director General of the IAEA on 18 October 2015;[…]
2015-12-15Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action implementation and verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of Un
… A nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was first proposed in the UN General Assembly in 1974 by Iran and Egypt. In 1990, the proposal was broadened by Egypt to include a ban on chemical and biological weapons—that is, to create a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.
Ever since the Vienna nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany - was announced on 14 July, the opponents of the agreement have been waging a war against it. The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is spending up to $40 million to advocate rejection of the agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued his habitual interference in US domestic politics, calling on Congress and American Jews to reject the deal. Other anti-Iran groups are backed by a budget of $145mn to oppose the nuclear deal.
In light of the fact that Israel is in possession of at least 200 (surreptitiously-built) nuclear warheads, and considering the reality that, according to both US and Israeli intelligence sources, Iran neither possesses nor pursues nuclear weapons, the relentless hysterical campaign by Israel and its lobby against the Iran nuclear deal can safely be characterized as the mother of all ironies—a clear case of chutzpah.
Diplomatic efforts to reach a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concluded on 14 July 2015 by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the High Representative of the European Union (the E3/EU+3) and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That media lens misses the real significance of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is that Iran succeeded in negotiating an agreement with the United States that upheld its national right to a nuclear programme despite the obvious vast disparity in power between the two states. That power disparity between the global hegemon and a militarily weak but politically influential regional “middle power” has shaped not just the negotiating strategies of the two sides during the negotiations but, more importantly, how they came about in the first place.
[...] The JCPOA will produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance, and energy. [...]
As the negotiations between Iran and P5+1 - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – make progress toward a comprehensive agreement over Iran’s nuclear programme, an issue that has not been touched on by the Western press is: how do the Iranian people living in Iran view the nuclear programme? Tens of millions of ordinary Iranians have been suffering as a result of the economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and its allies, sanctions that are often proudly referred to as the “most crippling sanctions in history” by US officials, and have been mostly responsible for Iran’s deep recession, high unemployment and soaring inflation.
On 2 April, 12 years after negotiations began between Iran and major world powers, the two sides finally announced an agreement in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the political framework that will address all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, and lifting the crippling economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by the United States and its allies. It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world let out a huge sigh of relief on the announcement - as failure of the negotiations would have most likely led to another destructive and bloody war in the Middle East, this time against Iran.
When the George W. Bush administration was preparing the public in 2001-2003 for the invasion of Iraq by selling it lies and exaggerations, it was greatly aided by the New York Times. The Times columnist Thomas Friedman was a forceful advocate of the invasion, promising that if Saddam Hussein’s regime is overthrown, Iraq will blossom into a democracy. Friedman also claimed that the Iraqi democracy will become a model for the Islamic nations of the Middle East. Twelve years later and hundreds of thousands of people killed, we know how accurate Friedman’s "predictions" were.