TEHRAN – Amir Seid Irabani, the UN’s permanent representative of Iran, stressed that Tehran’s unnegotiable position that uranium enrichment for a peaceful nuclear program must take place in Iranian soil.
In a statement made to Al Monitor in an interview published Thursday, Ambassador Irabani declared that “Iran continues to insist that enrichment must occur in its own soil.”
He made it clear that regional cooperation, which may include a consortium, could complement Iran’s nuclear activities, but would never replace Iran’s sovereign right to maintain domestic production capacity.
These comments came shortly after the halt in the Israeli regime’s 12-day battle that ended the war with Iran, and escalated from June 13th to 24th.
Tel Aviv is run with direct coordination and support from the United States, unleashing hundreds of airstrikes, not just senior IRGC commanders and leading nuclear scientists, but hundreds of citizens marching hundreds.
In a serious escalation on June 22, the US itself took part in an Israeli campaign, sending six B-2 spirit stealth bombers armed with 14 13,600 kg GBU-57 “large weapon intruder” bunkerbusters, along with 24 more Tomahawk cruise missiles being fired from nuclear submarines and attacking Iranian nuclear submarines.
Iran has engaged in five consecutive indirect nuclear negotiations with Washington, with a sixth session scheduled for June 15th in Muscat. Instead, the Islamic Republic faced a war forced on its soil.
Elsewhere in the interview, Ambassador Irabani emphasizes that Iran relies on peaceful solutions and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), seeking only the rights given to all responsible parties.
“We don’t ask for anything more than or more than the rights given to all other NPT members,” he said.
“Under the NPT, all states have the right to conduct research, produce and peacefully utilize nuclear energy. Therefore, they plan to exercise all three pillars of that right, particularly the right to domestic production.”
He repeated Iran’s openness to cooperation with regional countries on reactor safety and fuel supply within the framework of the consortium, emphasizing that this will be supplemented by Iran’s national programme.
Regarding the potential trust property measures in future agreements, Irabani showed flexibility in managing enriched uranium stockpiles under the JCPOA.
“If an agreement is reached, this issue could be resolved,” he said, outlined options such as transferring materials from Iran in exchange for Yellowcake and storing them domestically under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seal, subject to final terms of negotiation.
The ambassador also worked on Iran’s recent parliamentary law, which requires the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA.
He described the legally binding move as a direct response to the IAEA’s failure to fulfill its obligations, particularly to its silence against illegal US-Israel attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“If the IAEA acts in a non-discriminatory way — by condemning the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran’s nuclear sites and facilities, referring to the issue to the Security Council and securing Iran’s rights under the NPT, we are ready to reconsider the reversal of the law.”
Irabani has expressed openness about broader regional integration and potential investments in Iran.
“Yes, if an agreement is reached, we will not impose any restrictions on the presence of the US or other Western countries investing in Iran’s energy sector,” he asserted.
However, he firmly rejected the concept of such investments offered in exchange for abandoning Iran’s enrichment rights.
Finally, Ambassador Irabani firmly ruled out restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, highlighting its important role as a strategic deterrent.
He pointed out Israel’s recent wariness as evidence of its need. “The recent attacks clearly showed that without Iran’s military capabilities, the other side would not have been forced to demand a ceasefire.”
He argued that Iran’s self-defense practices had taken a significant cost and contributed to international pressure on a ceasefire, and concluded that “Iran would therefore never agree to abandon such an effective strategic lever, and would not be able to disarm in the face of potential future attacks.”