In a situation where the main foundations of the NPT treaty, namely the commitment of major powers to disarmament and the right to peaceful use, have been ignored and limited by political interpretations, it is natural for some countries to have doubts about their membership.
According to Ashura News, citing Mehr News Agency, the military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June of this year once again raised the alarm that pressures are crossing diplomatic boundaries; an action that not only targeted Iran’s nuclear security, but also demonstrated the inability of international institutions to play a deterrent role and maintain peace and stability.
European countries are trying to bring Iran’s case to the Security Council once again by resorting to a mechanism known as the “trigger mechanism.” This action has faced widespread legal criticism, because after the United States withdrew from the JCPOA, none of the remaining parties have the necessary legitimacy to activate this mechanism.
From the perspective of analysts, Europe’s effort to restore sanctions under the name of the trigger mechanism is seen as an example of political exploitation of international structures to pressure Iran. This is while Iran has continued to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency within the framework of the safeguards regime, the NPT Treaty, and even beyond its obligations.
In response to these circumstances, a bill is being considered in the Islamic Consultative Assembly that considers withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a strategic option.
With the approaching meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors, discussions about Iran’s engagement with the nuclear non-proliferation regime (NPT) and the Agency’s role in this framework have once again returned to the center of attention. While Iran has always emphasized the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and has demonstrated a significant level of transparency and cooperation with the Agency, recent developments have raised fundamental questions about the effectiveness, impartiality, and even legitimacy of international institutions related to this regime.
"Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf," the speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, said in this regard that it is clear that the three European countries do not have the right to activate the mechanism of paragraph 37 of the JCPOA due to their failure to fulfill their obligations in the JCPOA, and therefore have illegally initiated the process of returning the resolutions. Accordingly, it is necessary for Iran to take a deterrent measure to make this illegal action of the European parties costly, so as to lead to a change in the enemy's decision to activate the trigger mechanism; the unified decision of the Islamic Republic system in this regard will be announced and implemented soon.
Unbalanced tripod; NPT under the shadow of the powers' inaction
The NPT treaty is based on three principles, namely the prohibition of nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy; but a review of the performance of this treaty in recent decades shows that the balance in the implementation of these three principles has been severely damaged.
Not only have nuclear-weapon states not fulfilled their disarmament commitments, but they have continued to strengthen their arsenals. Also, cooperation in the transfer of peaceful nuclear knowledge and technology to non-nuclear-weapon states, which is one of the inalienable rights of members under Article 4 of the Treaty, has in many cases been limited or practically ignored by Western powers for political reasons.
The Agency: A Neutral Observer or a Political Actor?
From the perspective of international law, the International Atomic Energy Agency is obliged to act solely on the basis of technical and legal criteria in examining and monitoring countries’ nuclear programs. However, numerous reports and dual approaches towards some countries have accused this institution of politicizing and departing from the professional framework. In the case of Iran, even when Tehran has voluntarily cooperated with the Agency beyond its obligations, we have repeatedly witnessed the matter being referred to the Board of Governors and the adoption of biased positions against Tehran.
The Agency's silence on sabotage and military attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities has also been questionable and has reinforced the perception that the monitoring body has at times become a tool of political pressure.
The Right to Withdraw; A Legal Instrument, Not a Threat
According to Article 10 of the NPT, any member can withdraw from the treaty by submitting a formal notification if its vital interests are threatened. This article is not only a right of states, but also a recognition of geopolitical complexities and the possibility of critical situations in international relations. From this perspective, a country’s possible withdrawal from the treaty cannot necessarily be considered a violation of international rules, but rather a legal action in response to the unfair functioning of existing structures.
Naturally, if Iran were to exercise this legal right, such a decision would not be a confrontation with the international order, but a reaction to its inaction.
Beyond nuclear, the scope of Western demands
It is important to note that the differences between Iran and some Western governments are not limited to the nuclear issue. In addition to the enrichment issue, Tehran has been asked to halt its missile program, sever ties with regional resistance groups, and in some cases, may even request a review of its governance structures in the future!
From the perspective of observers, this level of demands is neither justifiable within the framework of the NPT nor within the logic of equal interaction between governments; rather, it is considered a clear attempt to impose fundamental changes in the power structure and policymaking of an independent country.
The need to redefine engagement with the NPT
In a situation where one of the main pillars of the treaty, namely the commitment of major powers to disarm, has been completely ignored, and the other pillar, namely the right to peaceful use, has been limited by political interpretations, it is natural for some countries to hesitate about continuing their membership in this framework.
Over the past years, Iran has tried the path of engagement, transparency, and cooperation, but the result has been increased pressure, intensified sanctions, and even military action by some actors.
In such circumstances, a thoughtful and legal plan of options such as reviewing the level of interaction with the Agency or even withdrawing from the NPT is not considered a threat, but rather part of a behavioral balance against the inaction of the international system.
Post a comment