United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

Reuters described the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1803, passed Monday against Iran.[1] -- The resolution includes "travel bans and asset freezes against named individuals and calls for vigilance over banks in Iran." -- Iran continued to call the sanctions "unlawful action" and protested that Iran's nuclear program is "peaceful"; Iran's U.N. ambassador said the Security Council was being "downgraded to a mere tool of the national foreign policy of just a few countries," AP reported.[2] -- Edith Lederer wrote that "Most of the new individuals subject to sanctions are technical figures. But one, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, is a prominent figure in the elite Revolutionary Guard military corps and is close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is identified as a former deputy chief of the Armed Forces General Staff for Logistics and Industrial Research and as head of the State Anti-Smuggling Headquarters who has tried to get around previous U.N. sanctions." -- Iran responded to the resolution with a 3,850-word speech, delivered by its U.N. ambassador to the Security Council and reproduced in its entirety by the Tehran Times, laying out its case that it is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.[3] -- Iran said the Security Council had discredited itself as an insitution by yielding to pressure from "countries whose number hardly amounts to four among 192 member states of the United Nations.'"[3] -- Mohammad Khazaee added: "The people of Iran will never forget the inaction of the Security Council with regard to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran [in 1980] . . . Nor did the Security Council, for several years, bother to deal with the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi dictator against Iranian civilians and military personnel . . . No amount of explanation would be able to describe the disastrous consequences of these unacceptable behaviors of the Security Council. Indeed, these are not the only examples that the Council, due to its inherent deficiencies and due to its structural problems and voting mechanism, has been unable to discharge its responsibilities. That is why the overwhelming majority of the U.N. member states believe that this Council should be overhauled." -- Khazaee concluded: "In reality, peoples across the globe have now lost their trust in the Security Council and consider the actions of the Council as the results of political pressure exerted by a few powers to advance their own agendas." ...

The U.N. Security Council voted Monday to impose more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, including travel bans and asset freezes against named individuals and calls for vigilance over banks in Iran.

Following are provisions of the third sanctions resolution on Iran, which passed by a vote of 14-0 with one abstention:

All states shall seek to prevent the entry into or transit through their territory of specific named individuals "engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran's proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems."

Some of the travel restrictions have been made mandatory. Previously they were a recommendation made to states.

An assets freeze detailed in a previous resolution last year is extended to further specified persons and companies.

States are called on to "exercise vigilance" in taking on new commitments for financial support for trade with Iran, including export credits, guarantees, or insurance.

States are urged to exercise vigilance over activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, especially Bank Melli and Bank Saderat.

States should inspect cargoes to and from Iran of aircraft and vessels owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line if they believe they are transporting goods prohibited by U.N. resolutions.

The list of items that cannot be sold to Iran is expanded beyond the previous partial list to include all so-called dual-use items, which have both civilian and military uses.

The Security Council asks International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to report within 90 days on whether Iran has complied with the resolution's demand that it suspend uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. The resolution says if Iran fails to comply with the council's demands it will "adopt further appropriate measures to persuade Iran to comply with these resolutions and the requirements of the IAEA."

The new resolution adds the names of 13 individuals and 12 companies to the list of people and firms suspected of aiding Iran's nuclear and missile programs. One of the individuals is Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who it says had tried to skirt U.N. sanctions.

** Iran Remains Defiant After UN Security Council Approves Third Round of Nuclear Sanctions **

The U.N. Security Council imposed another round of sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, but Iran defiantly vowed Monday to continue its nuclear program despite the nearly unanimous censuring vote.

The resolution authorized a third set of sanctions targeting individuals, companies, and equipment that could be used in Iran's nuclear program. It was adopted on a vote of 14-0, with Indonesia abstaining.

Two previous sanctions resolution were adopted unanimously, but diplomats said this vote still sent a strong message to the Tehran government that there is global concern that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran insists the program is aimed only at generating power.

The council imposed limited sanctions in December 2006 and has been ratcheting them up in hopes of pressuring Iran to suspend enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program. Iran has repeatedly defied the demand and has stepped up enrichment activities.

Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Khazee said just before Monday's vote that his government would not comply with what he called "unlawful action" against Iran's "peaceful nuclear program." He said the Security Council was being "downgraded to a mere tool of the national foreign policy of just a few countries."

"Iran cannot and will not accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically coercive," Khazee said. "History tells us that no amount of pressure, intimidation, and threat will be able to coerce our nation to give up its basic and legal rights."

The six nations at the forefront of efforts to ensure Iran does not develop an atomic weapon program -- the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany -- said the resolution sends "a strong message of international resolve" about "the proliferation risks of its nuclear program."

Foreign ministers of the six countries issued a joint statement reaffirming their dual-track approach: Political, security, and economic incentives offered in June 2006 if Iran suspends enrichment remains on the table and can be further developed -- but continued defiance will lead to further measures.

The ministers asked the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to meet with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, "to address the interests and concerns of both sides in a manner which can gradually create the conditions for the opening of negotiations."

For the first time, the council has banned trade with Iran in goods that have both civilian and military uses. The resolution authorizes inspection of cargo suspected of containing banned items on planes and ships owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line.

The resolution introduces financial monitoring of two banks with purported links to suspect Iranian nuclear activities, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat.

The council calls on all countries "to exercise vigilance" in entering into new trade commitments with Iran, including granting export credits, guarantees, or insurance.

It orders countries to freeze the assets of 12 additional companies and 13 individuals with links to Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile programs -- and report the travel of those Iranians. It imposes a travel ban on five individuals linked to Iran's nuclear effort.

Most of the new individuals subject to sanctions are technical figures. But one, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, is a prominent figure in the elite Revolutionary Guard military corps and is close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is identified as a former deputy chief of the Armed Forces General Staff for Logistics and Industrial Research and as head of the State Anti-Smuggling Headquarters who has tried to get around previous U.N. sanctions.

Britain and France, which co-sponsored the resolution, put off the vote from Saturday until Monday to address concerns raised by four non-permanent council members -- Libya, Indonesia, South Africa, and Vietnam. In the final vote, Libya, South Africa, and Vietnam voted "yes," while Indonesia abstained.

Diplomats credited French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who visited South Africa last week, for helping to sway the Libyans and South Africans.

Indonesian Ambassador Marty Natalegawa spoke against additional sanctions, telling the council that Iran is cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We must avoid more of the same," he said. "At this juncture, more sanctions are not the best cause."

The resolution was adopted 10 days after the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency, reported that suspicions about most past Iranian nuclear activities had eased or been laid to rest.

But the report also said Iran dismissed as false and irrelevant new documents that link Tehran to missile and explosives experiments and other work connected to a possible nuclear weapons program. The IAEA also confirmed Iran continues to enrich uranium.

The first U.N. sanctions against Iran ordered all countries to stop supplying Tehran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also ordered nations to freeze the assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

When Iran responded by expanding its enrichment program, the council imposed new sanctions last March, this time banning Iranian arms exports. It also ordered countries to freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs -- about a third linked to the Revolutionary Guard.

NEW YORK -- The credibility of the Security Council is downgraded to a mere tool of the national foreign policy of just a few countries, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mohammad Khazaee said in a speech to the United Nations Security Council on Monday in New York.

The U.N. Security Council on Monday passed a third set of sanctions against the Islamic Republic for its refusal to stop its legal uranium enrichment.

Statement by H.E. Mr. Mohammad Khazaee, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, before the U.N. Security Council, on the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The international community is once again witnessing that the credibility of the Security Council, whose primary responsibility is to maintain international peace and security, is readily downgraded to a mere tool of the national foreign policy of just a few countries. The Council has been once more pushed to take unlawful action against a proud and resolute nation merely because that nation is defending its legal and inalienable rights enshrined in international instruments.

Today’s action of some members of the Security Council against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, along with the measures taken in this regard in the past, do not meet the minimum standards of legitimacy and legality for the following reasons:

1. Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was brought to the Security Council in violation of the Agency’s Statute. Iran had not violated, and therefore had not been in non-compliance with its NPT comprehensive safeguards agreement. Iran had signed the Additional Protocol in 2003 and began its voluntary implementation then, which continued for two and a half years, and thus had not been supposed to implement its provisions prior to 2003. Our country accepted the modified code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement in 2003 and had no obligation to it (to inform about nuclear installations) prior to that date. Therefore Iran was only obliged, according to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/153), to inform the IAEA 180 days prior to feeding nuclear material into facilities. We informed the IAEA about the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) by inviting the Agency’s Director General in the year 2000, that is, four years prior to its operation in 2004, and also four years before Iran was obliged to do so.

2. Iran’s nuclear program has been, is, and will remain absolutely peaceful and in no way poses any threat to international peace and security, and thus does not fall within the purview of the Security Council. There is solid evidence and there are concrete arguments attesting to the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. In this regard:

A. The peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program has been confirmed by each and every IAEA report in the past several years, including the most recent one that clearly stresses that “the Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports.”[1] As the latest example, the IAEA report of 22 February 2008 clearly attests to the exclusively peaceful nature of the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran, both in the past and at present, and serves to strongly and unambiguously support our country’s long-standing position that the allegations raised by few states against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been entirely groundless. In the Work Plan, concluded between Iran and the IAEA in August 2007, it has also been emphasized that “the IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”[2]

B. On the basis of ideological and strategic grounds, Iran categorically rejects the development, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons as well as all other weapons of mass destruction. This fundamental position has been reiterated by every senior Iranian official on numerous occasions. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has unequivocally stressed this position before, through a religious verdict, a fatwa, and once again reiterated the same principled position during Mr. ElBaradei’s recent visit to Tehran.[3] Also, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran has emphasized repeatedly that Iran’s nuclear program has been and will remain absolutely peaceful and that Iran is a leading country in international efforts to oppose nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.

C. The IAEA Director General has stressed in his various statements that “the Agency does not have any data or evidence indicating that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.”[4] He has also said “there is no evidence Iran's enrichment of uranium is intended for a military nuclear program.”[5] In the wake of the U.S. NIE report -- which reversed many of its previous baseless allegations against Iran’s nuclear program -- the IAEA Director General stressed that Iran has been “vindicated in saying it has not been working on a weapons program.”[6]

3. In addition, the Security Council’s actions are unjustifiable because the main pretext on the basis of which the consideration of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was imposed on the Security Council, namely the outstanding issues, are now resolved and closed. The co-sponsors of today’s resolution have argued in the past that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program should be dealt with by the Security Council due to unresolved outstanding questions. In order not to leave any stone unturned in its cooperation with the agency and to remove this much ballyhooed, yet baseless pretext, Iran agreed to work with the Agency on a Work Plan to address and resolve the outstanding issues. In this regard, the text of the “Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues" was negotiated and finally concluded in August 2007.[7]

The conclusion of the Work Plan, which was described as “a significant step forward” by the IAEA Director General, was an essential turning point in our cooperation with the Agency. The same co-sponsors of today’s resolution first cynically tried to overshadow the importance of the initiative and when they failed to do so, spared no efforts to create all kinds of problems to hamper its successful implementation and, not least, strived to politicize the trend to the extent possible. The statements of the IAEA officials, who had rightly complained that “the U.S. is mounting a deliberate campaign to derail Iranian-IAEA rapprochement”[8] was noteworthy in this regard. Those few countries have pursued their politically motivated agenda regardless of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA and the latter’s report on such cooperation. Indeed, their unwarranted efforts to put the Agency and its officials under pressure and to influence its reports are well known and need no elaboration.

Despite all these negative policies and practices on the part of the said countries, we resolutely implemented the work plan in a sincere and serious manner. Even certain outstanding issues were addressed and resolved by Iran while negotiations were still ongoing on the contents of the Work Plan. For instance, on 20 August 2007, well before the conclusion of the Work Plan, the Agency, with regard to plutonium issue, stated that “earlier statements made by Iran are consistent with the Agency’s findings, and thus this matter is resolved.”[9] Moreover, the Agency’s report on 15 November 2007 stressed on the resolution of most of the outstanding issues, and finally the latest report of the Agency circulated on 22 February 2008 clearly declared the resolution and closure of all outstanding issues and emphasized, in its paragraph 53, that “the Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the Work Plan, are consistent with its findings”[10] and “considers those questions no longer outstanding.”[11] Additionally, the IAEA Director General declared the resolution of all outstanding issues in his remarks after the release of the report and said: “we have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran’s enrichment program.”[12] While it was estimated that at least 18 months would be needed for the Work Plan to be implemented, Iran’s unwavering and full cooperation with the Agency made it possible for the Work Plan to be implemented in less than 6 months.

It is worth mentioning that while based on the initial agreement with the Agency we were only supposed to address the past remaining issues, nevertheless, as a sign of good will and in line with its robust cooperation with the IAEA, the Islamic Republic of Iran considered the present issues as well. As a result, two important legal documents, i.e. “Safeguards Approach Document” and “Facility Attachment” for Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz were negotiated, concluded, and finally put into force on 30 September 2007. Accordingly, the implementation of these documents has provided necessary assurances for the verification of enrichment activities in Iran for the present time and in the future.

By resolving the outstanding issues with regard to its past activities, on the one hand; and conducting all its present activities, including the enrichment, under the full and continuous monitoring of the Agency based on the IAEA Statute, the NPT and the comprehensive safeguards agreement, on the other, the Islamic Republic of Iran has removed any so-called “concerns” or “ambiguities” with regard to its peaceful nuclear activities in the past and at present.

Now that the work plan has been fully implemented and the outstanding issues have been resolved, there exists no justification for the continuation of the politically motivated and misleading call of “lack of confidence” by a few countries, countries whose number hardly amounts to four among 192 member states of the United Nations but always mischievously self-proclaim themselves to be speaking on behalf of the international community, or “the whole world.”

Indeed, those who did not want to allow the Agency to discharge its technical duties spared no efforts to undermine the momentum generated by the conclusion and implementation of the Work Plan, and in this regard resorted to a systematic and relentless campaign of false claims, propaganda, intimidation, and pressure aimed at the Agency, its Director-General, some members of the Security Council and the Work Plan. This unhealthy and ill-intended campaign had prompted a senior official of the IAEA to stress that "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us [from the U.S.] has proved to be wrong".[13] The so-called “alleged studies” issue is an example of such a fabrication and misinformation campaign.

While the said baseless allegation, namely the “alleged studies,” had not been an outstanding issue between Iran and the IAEA, a well-organized and pre-planned propaganda campaign began even before the release of the latest IAEA report in order to eclipse the landmark accomplishment that Iran has made in its cooperation with the Agency in resolving the outstanding issues. As it is stressed in the work plan “Iran reiterated that it considers the alleged studies as politically motivated and baseless allegations . . . [but] as a sign of good-will and cooperation with the Agency, [stated that] upon receiving all related documents will review and inform the Agency of its assessment.”[14]

The IAEA reports, particularly the most recent one, together with the statements of the Agency officials, clearly indicate that the Iranian nation is committed to its international obligations and at the same time persistent in pursuing and exercising its legal and inalienable rights. The recent IAEA report clearly stresses that Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA has been far beyond its treaty obligations and has been proactive. It points out in paragraph 55 that “the Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current declared nuclear program has become clearer.”[15]

The IAEA Director General yet again stressed Iran’s robust cooperation with the Agency in his remarks after the release of the report by saying that “Iran in the last few months has provided us with visits to many places that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran’s current program.”[16] In its latest report, the Agency has also stressed in several instances, including in paragraphs 11, 18, 24, 34 and 53, the conclusion that “Iran’s statements are consistent with other information available to the Agency” or “are not inconsistent with its findings.”[17]

Undoubtedly, the full implementation of the work plan and, thus, resolution and closure of the outstanding issues have eliminated the most basic pretexts and allegations on the basis of which Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was referred to the Security Council. The Security Council’s involvement and the actions it has taken so far in this regard have been unwarranted and unconstructive and have only damaged the credibility of the IAEA. Iran’s peaceful nuclear program should be dealt with solely by the Agency. I wish to draw your attention to this very important point that based on the very last paragraph of the Work Plan, “the Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the work plan and the agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner.”[18] Therefore, the consideration of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program in no way falls within the purview of the Security Council. In fact, based on the IAEA reports and as a result of Iran’s cooperation and the closure of the outstanding issues, not only there remains no single reason or shred of legality for any new action by the Council, but also the illegality of the previous actions of the Council have become more abundantly clear.

Much has been said about “suspension.” Iran cannot and will not accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically coercive. History tells us that no amount of pressure, intimidation, and threat will be able to coerce our nation to give up its basic and legal rights. We have never attempted to impose our will on others; equally, we will never allow others to impose their unjust demands on us. We do not consider this call for suspension legitimate for, among others, the following reasons:

1. As we have stressed over and over again, no government is prepared to compromise the exercising of the inalienable rights of its nation. Any demand from a nation to do so would be politically incorrect and legally flawed.

2. Neither in the IAEA's Statute nor in the NPT safeguards, nor even in the Additional Protocol, “enrichment” and “reprocessing” are prohibited or restricted. There is even no limit for the level of enrichment in the said documents.

3. In all resolutions of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, “suspension” was considered as a “non-legally binding, voluntary, and confidence building measure”.

4. Suspension was in place for more than two years and the IAEA, in each and every report from November 2003 to February 2006, repeatedly verified that Iran fully suspended what it had agreed to suspend. During this period, it became clear that those insisting on suspension were indeed aiming to prolong and ultimately perpetuate it, and consequently deprive the Iranian nation from exercising its inalienable rights.

5. The attempt to make the suspension mandatory through the Security Council has been, from the outset, against the fundamental principles of international law, the Non- Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board resolutions. The Security Council resolutions, which made the suspension mandatory, also flout the stated position of the overwhelming majority of the international community.[19]

6. Unquestionably, with resolving the outstanding issues, with the IAEA’s repeated conclusions of “non-diversion” in Iran’s nuclear activities, and with Iran’s nuclear activities under the full and continuous monitoring of the Agency, there remains no pretext for the illegal request for suspension.

7. The Security Council's decision to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear program is also a gross violation of Article 25 of the Charter. While Member States have agreed, in accordance with the said Article, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter, the Security Council could not coerce countries into submitting either to its decisions taken in bad faith or to its demands negating the fundamental purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter.

8. We need to enrich uranium to provide fuel for the nuclear reactors that we are either building or planning to build in order to meet the growing needs of our country for energy. There has never been, nor will there ever be, guarantees that our needs for fuel will be completely provided by foreign sources. No country, particularly our nation which has a bitter memory of unilateral termination of valid agreements on the part of foreign countries in this regard, can solely rely on others to provide it with the technology and materials that are becoming so vital for its development and for the welfare of its people. It is worth mentioning that there is no single document as “Legally Binding International Instrument for Assurance of Nuclear Supply" to guarantee the fuel for nuclear power plants. It may be recalled that in 1987, the Committee on Assurances of Supply (CAS) of the IAEA failed, after seven years of negotiations.

The Security Council today made an unjust and irrational decision on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. History will ultimately render its judgment over the behavior of the Council. Even regardless of the Council’s unfair actions towards Iran, as the representative of a founding member of this Organization, I wish to express our grave concern and dismay regarding the path that the Security Council has chosen and pursued. We all know that the United Nations has been established as a universal organization to address international problems, and to defend the rights of its member states in this shrinking world. The Security Council should be inherently and meaningfully “a Council for security” -- a body that is entrusted with the important task of maintaining international peace and security. It should be a secure and safe place where the rights of nations not only are not violated, but are fully respected. Can one claim that the Council has performed its immense duty in good faith and as requested by the Charter? The answer is not definitely affirmative. Surely, the overwhelming majority of the members of the Organization are seriously concerned about the behavior of the Council that has extensively undermined its integrity and credibility.

A question to ponder is how will the nations’ memory recall the behavior of this important organ? A question arises as to why, after all the crimes of the Zionist regime in the Palestinian territories that have shocked the whole world and have been described inter alia as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes by the international community, the Council has failed to take any effective measures to put an end to these crimes? Why the Council has failed to issue a simple press statement nor has it been able to pay even a lip-service to the issue of Palestinian sufferings in view of the daily Israeli atrocities in the Palestinian territories, particularly in Gaza, that have led to the killing and wounding of hundreds of innocent Palestinian people in the past several weeks? Undoubtedly, the Security Council’s previous inactions and silence towards the abhorrent crimes of the Zionist regime have resulted in the current holocaust that is going on in the Gaza Strip by the said regime.

The people of Iran will never forget the inaction of the Security Council with regard to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 22 September 1980 -- the invasion that resulted in an eight-year-long imposed war against Iran with unspeakable sufferings and losses for our nation. This act of aggression did not trouble the same permanent members of the Council, who have sought the adoption of the resolution against Iran today, to consider it a threat against international peace and security, or even to make the routine call for a cease-fire and withdrawal of the invading forces. Nor did the Security Council, for several years, bother to deal with the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi dictator against Iranian civilians and military personnel as well as Iraqi Kurds particularly in Halabcheh -- chemical weapons that were provided to Saddam Hussein by some of the supporters and sponsors of today’s resolution. No amount of explanation would be able to describe the disastrous consequences of these unacceptable behaviors of the Security Council. Indeed, these are not the only examples that the Council, due to its inherent deficiencies and due to its structural problems and voting mechanism, has been unable to discharge its responsibilities. That is why the overwhelming majority of the U.N. member states believe that this Council should be overhauled.

Today, the Council’s credibility has been further damaged because of the political motives of a few countries, political motives that have prevented the Council from heeding the judgment of a technical body of the United Nations, namely, the IAEA. While the IAEA clearly acknowledges that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and all the outstanding issues have been resolved, some countries deliberately undermine the work of the agency that is part of the United Nations. It therefore appears that the Security Council attaches no value even to other U.N. institutions and bodies. It is, therefore, no wonder that the Security Council, which has repeatedly encroached on the mandates and authorities of other U.N. bodies, can not be trusted to respect the views and judgments of other United Nations agencies.

The Council’s behavior in undermining the credibility and integrity of the Agency will only serve the interests of those who prefer to ignore the IAEA, such as the Israeli regime that, with hundreds of nuclear warheads in its possession, poses the most serious threat to international and regional peace and security. It will also serve the interests of those who have never wished for an Agency that is strong and that is independent and impartial. This is truly a serious question.

Is it not time for the Council to respect the judgment of an institution that is part of the U.N. system? Or to respect the legitimate rights of a great nation with a long history of civilization and peaceful coexistence with other nations? A right that has been recognized by international law and its exercising poses no threat to international peace and security.

What the Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing is the exercising of its rights in accordance with the NPT and under the supervision of the IAEA, and nothing more. Is this an illegitimate demand? Is this justice to punish a nation that behaves according to the rules and regulations?

The future security of the world depends on how the United Nations, and especially the Security Council, will function in a just and impartial manner.

In reality, peoples across the globe have now lost their trust in the Security Council and consider the actions of the Council as the results of political pressure exerted by a few powers to advance their own agendas. This is a compelling issue that the Council must address in order to restore its credibility.

In view of all these facts and realities, this legitimate question arises that: Can the Security Council still be known as a “Council for security”? And, can it be regarded as an impartial and credible organ of the United Nations?

I leave that judgment to the esteemed members of the United Nations and all fair-minded people around the world.