Larijani Warns US Again On Nuke 'Cooperation'
Iran's top nuclear negotiator warned on Tuesday that any new U.N. Security Council sanctions on his country would doom Iran's cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog and render its talks with it "fruitless."He may not have explained, but the 'warning' is centered on reports the White House is looking to place the IRGC and its Quds Force on a Terrorist Group list, either by Executive Order or via State.
According to state television, Ali Larijani also accused the United States of trying to undermine the progress made so far between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, so as to increase tensions and pave way for new sanctions over Iran's controversial nuclear program.
Larijani did not explain how Washington is allegedly trying to undermining the talks."If they (U.S.) take any illogical move, the trend of Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as the talks will become fruitless," Larijani said.
At some point, ElBaredei and the IAEA's productivity (or lack thereof) with Iran has to be called into check. This is not to suggest what such a time-line should be by any means at this point, but the IAEA seems to operate with an open-ended time frame.
Considering ElBaredei's own statement earlier this year in which he described his primary job as IAEA chief as averting conflict with Iran rather than uncovering and understanding the Iranian nuclear program and those of others, there is little cause for confidence in the man whose term atop the IAEA was extended beyond protocol.
The job of the IAEA and its head is decidedly not to avoid conflict. That is a role left to others who must, in part, use the data provided them by ElBaredei's team. The IAEA's role is to provide data. It does not even have an enforcement arm to ensure adherence to various agreements.
The terms of peace or conflict are not determined by an inspector. The state of systems are determined by an inspector.
You can't tell me that ElBaredei's self-perceived primary role does not or cannot skew analysis (and language used to convey such) that must be used by others regarding matters of international security.
And, if we essentially don't 'walk right,' Iran just might have to stop 'cooperating' with ElBaredei.
Forgive this observer for wondering openly whether ElBaredei's IAEA presence has any effect at all on Iran's ultimately predetermined nuclear course. In case we've forgotten, it's "not negotiable."