The man who has the actual final say over any nuclear deal the Obama administration claims to have with Iran, says there is no deal.During a speech on Thursday, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that his country has no nuclear deal with the United States, despite what the Obama administration is claiming. Khamenei went on to say that nothing was agreed in Lausanne concerning Iran's nuclear program, especially when it comes to sanctions and IAEA inspections.
"Instant annulment of all sanction is one of the demands of our officials. This issue is very important, and the sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement.
"Should the removal of the sanctions be related to a process, the foundation of the negotiations would be senseless, since the goal of the negotiations was to remove the sanctions.
"One must absolutely not allow infiltration of the security and defense realm of the state on the pretext of inspection, and the military authorities of the state are not - under any circumstance - allowed to let in foreigners to this realm under the pretext of inspection, or stop the country's defense development.
Any unconventional inspection or monitoring which would make Iran into a special case, would not be acceptable, and the monitoring must only be as monitoring regimes taking place all over the world and nothing more," Khamenei said.
Here is the complete translation of Khamenei's remarks courtesy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:
There are those who ask, why has the Leader not made his positions known concerning the latest nuclear negotiations? The reason for the Leader not taking position is that there is nothing to take a position about. The officials of the state and those responsible in the nuclear field say no job is done and there is no necessity. Such conditions do not necessitate declaring a position.
If the question is posed to me: ‘Are you for or against the latest nuclear negotiations,’ I would answer that I'm neither in favor nor opposed to it, since nothing has happened yet.
All the trouble arises when the details will be discussed, since the other side is stubborn, does not live up to its promises and is prone to stab [us] in the back. It is possible that when discussing the details, they will pressure the country, the nation and the negotiators.
What has happened until now, does not guarantee the very principle of agreeing, nor negotiations ending in a an agreement and not the substance of such an agreement. It does not even guarantee that these negotiations will end in an agreement. Therefore, it does not make any sense to congratulate.
I have never been optimistic concerning negotiations with the United States. This is not because of suspicions but based on experience in this regard.
Should the details of the problems and events and the journals of the current nuclear negotiations be published, everyone would understand our experience.
In spite of not being optimistic concerning negotiations with the United States, I wholeheartedly supported them and I still do. I support an agreement which guarantees the dignity of the Iranian nation 100%.
Should anyone say that the Leader is against reaching an agreement, it would be contrary to the truth. But of course, I also said ‘no agreement is better than a bad agreement,’ since not accepting an agreement which is contrary to the interests of the Iranian nation and does away with the dignity of the nation, is better than an agreement which humiliates the Iranian nation.
Sometimes it is said that the details of the negotiations are supervised by the Leader, but this is not an accurate statement. I'm not indifferent to the negotiations, but I have until now not intervened in the details of the negotiations and shall not do so in the future. I have told the grand issues, the main line, the framework and the red lines - mostly to the President, and in few occasions to the minister of foreign affairs, - but the details are within their competence... I trust the executives of the nuclear negotiations and I have not distrusted them. God willing, it shall also be so in the future, but in the nuclear negotiations, I have serious concerns.
An example of such behavior of the opposing part took place in the recent negotiations and the White House, only two hours after the end of the negotiations, published a few pages, which in most regards was contrary to the realities, explaining the negotiations. Writing such statement is not possible in two hours. Therefore, while they were engaged in negotiations with us, they were producing a statement which was faulty, incorrect and contrary to the substance of the negotiations.
Another example is that after each round of negotiations, they make public statements, followed by secret communications. Such statements serve the purpose of preserving their prestige domestically, and countering the [domestic] opposition, but these things have nothing to do with us. They embody the proverb ‘the infidel thinks everyone follows his faith,’ [The thief thinks everyone steals] and say, if Iran's Leader opposes the negotiations, it would not be their real message, they just say so for the sake of the domestic audience, but they don't understand the realities within Iran.
Statements of the Leader to the people is based on mutual trust. Just as the people trust this slight servant, I too completely trust the people and believe the hand of God is constantly protecting this people... I am concerned about the behavior of the other part in continuation of the negotiations. One must not exaggerate or act hastily in this regard. Rather, one must wait and see what happens.
The authorities must inform the people, and in particular the elites concerning the details [of the negotiations] and inform them of the realities since there is nothing which is secret. The officials may say, because of the three months [short] deadline for reaching the agreement, there is not much time to discuss with and hear the voices of the critics.
In response, one must say, that the three month deadline is nothing which cannot be changed. Should the deadline be extended, there is no problem in this, just like the opposing part which at times has postponed negotiations for seven months [The Leader emphasized only the nuclear issue is being negotiated with the United States, and continued] of course, negotiations, we have certain experiences. If the counterpart stops its bad behavior, one could expand this experience to other issues [in other words, he says Iran could expand negotiations on the nuclear issue with other issues] but if the counterpart continues its bad behavior, it would only reinforce our experiences of the past and distrust in the United States.
The counterpart, which is not living up to its promises, is the United States and three European countries and not the international community. The international community is composed of those 150 countries the heads of state and high representatives of which visited Tehran a few years ago at the Non Aligned Movement Summit in Tehran.
When it is said that our counterpart is the international community, which must trust us, it does not make sense. I insist that the authorities consider the nuclear achievements as most important and do not consider them unworthy and unimportant.
The nuclear industry is a necessity for the country. When some intellectuals say: 'What do we want a nuclear industry for?' is deception.
The most important characteristic of the country's nuclear industry is that achieving it, was the result of the explosion of the natural talent of the Iranian youth. Therefore, progress must be made in the nuclear industry.
Some criminal countries, such as the United States, which used the nuclear bomb, or France, which has engaged in dangerous nuclear tests, accuse us of trying to build the nuclear bomb, but the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on a theological fatwa, and based on reason, has never pursued a nuclear weapon and will not do so, and considers that a hassle.
Recently, one of the officials bluntly said 'we don't trust the counter part.' This is a good position [to express]. One must not be deceived by the smile of the counter part and one must not trust the counter part's promises. An example of that is the position and statements of the President of the United States after the latest statement.
Instant annulment of all sanction is one of the demands of our officials. This issue is very important, and the sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement.
Should the removal of the sanctions be related to a process, the foundation of the negotiations would be senseless, since the goal of the negotiations was to remove the sanctions.
One must absolutely not allow infiltration of the security and defense realm of the state on the pretext of inspection[s], and the military authorities of the state are not - under any circumstance - allowed to let in foreigners to this realm under the pretext of inspection, or stop the country's defense development.
The defense capabilities of the state, and the hard fist of the nation in the military realm, must remain hard and get harder by the day. Supporting our brethren in the defense must not be flawed in the course of negotiations.
Any unconventional inspection or monitoring which would make Iran into a special case, would not be acceptable, and the monitoring must only be as monitoring regimes taking place all over the world and nothing more.
Scientific and technical development in different fields [reference to R&D] must continue.
Of course, the negotiation team may consider it necessary to accept some restrictions, and we have no protest in this regard, but technical development certainly must continue forcefully.
Securing these demands is in the hands of the negotiators which they must achieve by using the viewpoints of informed and trusted individuals, as well as the viewpoints of the critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment