He added: This is while what we are doing is normal and mostly in the form of safeguards and its implementation arrangements. But in any case, this is both an excuse for Mr. Grossi to increase the agency's resources and, by paying this small amount, the United States has actually tried to reduce one of the issues on the table.
In response to the question whether this issue raises any suspicion of the agency's lack of impartiality, Karimi said: "This type of assistance to international organizations can always carry the connotation that the institution may in practice take into account the satisfaction of the financial provider more than the other party. But in the case of the agency, there is basically no need for this type of semiology. After all, the agency's behavior has shown that it always tries to behave technically at a level and in a way that can be justified. But in more real and deeper layers, it is clear that the approach of the agency, and especially the current director general and some of his deputies, regarding Iran is extremely biased." This must be seen alongside Mr. Grossi's personal ambitions, who may be thinking of the UN Secretary-General or others, and therefore sees the consent of Europe, the United States, and primarily the Israeli regime as essential.
In response to the question of whether the Agency can nevertheless carry out its monitoring task without pressure or favoritism, he said: "The Agency is not going to satisfy anyone at all. The Director-General's reports have no specific monitor other than the Board of Governors, in which case there is less of a problem with taking a position with the United States. The only point is that the Director-General and his deputies adhere to the general guidelines in a way that does not violate the Board of Governors' interpretation."
In response to the question of why the United States is not making this effort to convince Israel to accept the Agency's monitoring, even though Israel has repeatedly threatened its opponents with the use of nuclear weapons, this international affairs analyst said: "Israel is a member of the Agency but not a member of the NPT." Therefore, there is no monitoring of its nuclear facilities and weapons, and it is not in the Agency's program. The fact is that Israel receives its safe margin from the United States and Europe, and even the weapons themselves have almost certainly received them from the United States, but it has not yet confirmed that it has them. Israel's recent nuclear threats are of course subject to legal action, but again, in the current international system, pressuring Israel's position in the nuclear field must be done with a political and media approach, otherwise it is not an easy task to guarantee the implementation of international law, especially in the case of Israel, which has the support of the United States.
In response to the question that some opposition groups support occasional attacks on Iran, what is your analysis of this type of behavior, Karimi said: This stance is the most treacherous type of behavior. Anyone who says such a thing is saying it with knowledge, meaning that they know that every military move is not without an answer and is the starting point of a comprehensive war that, on the one hand, they hope will throw Iran into a war with America and, on the other hand, be a lifeline for Israel. Once, at the beginning of the revolution, some groups committed this treacherous behavior that to this day is not only hated by the supporters of the Islamic Republic, but also hated by the entire nation. Therefore, this kind of stance and siding with the most hostile enemies is the most undesirable type of action against a nation and is a situation that has provided the opportunity to clarify the mindset of these groups.
ILNA Link
File
