Skip to main content

Suspension until

Search for the term “suspension” in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and you won’t find it. You will find “withdrawal” in Article X. That’s what North Korea did. 

Once again Iran has played its “suspension” card and that is raising such a fuss that Donald Trump might be applauding Iran getting so much attention, almost stealing the show from him for a bit. 

Iran has twice suspended the implementation of the Additional Protocol to its CSA, the only government to do that. And, remarkably, it has gotten away with it. 

This time it is a “suspend until” card. A national law has been passed and signed by President Pezeshkian which states that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran will suspend its cooperation with the IAEA until the security of the nuclear facilities is guaranteed. Any future inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would need approval by the Supreme National Security Council. The installation of surveillance cameras and filing of reports to the IAEA are suspended. 

“Damned clever” those Iranians! There has been considerable worry that Iran would withdraw from NPT and might dash for a bomb. But Iran understands the likely consequences of that - no security for any nuclear facility or personnel or military installations or … Instead, Iran puts its security up front. Guarantee our security and we will drop the suspension. 

The U.S. response? Newsweek reported on July 2 that the State Department said: “Iran must fully comply with its safeguards agreement required under the NPT, including by providing the IAEA with information required to clarify and resolve long-standing questions regarding undeclared nuclear material in Iran, as well as provide unrestricted access to its newly announced enrichment facility. We look forward to further detailed reporting from the IAEA about this.” And ‘Trump said the U.S. would intervene militarily again if Iran continues to enrich uranium and tries to rebuild its nuclear facilities.’ 

Can we look for the Iranians to take that as a guarantee of their security by the Trump administration? 

On June 30 Newsweek reported that a senior cleric in Iran issued a fatwa declaring that anyone who threatens Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is "an enemy of God." Donald Trump issued threats to kill the Supreme Leader; the fatwas applies to him.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more