TEHRAN, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Following more than two years of negotiations, the International Atomic Energy Agency finally put Iran one step away from U.N. Security Council referral when it passed a resolution on the country's controversial nuclear program, setting in motion a sequence that could end in sanctions.
The resolution, which was drafted by Britain with the support of France, Germany, and the United States, was put to a vote after drafters failed to get the consensus of some Non-Aligned Movement states and countries such as China and Russia.
It found Iran in "non-compliance" with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with "many failures and breaches" over its international nuclear safeguards. The resolution also talked of "absence of confidence" about the country's intentions, putting the matter "within the competence of the Security Council" -- a careful phrasing that, under IAEA rules, paves the way for Iran to be automatically taken to the council.
But such a referral would come only after a report on Iran by the IAEA chief, Mohammad ElBaradei in November.
Branding the resolution "political, unacceptable, unfair, illogical and illegal," the Islamic republic reacted angrily, firing off threats such as resuming its uranium enrichment and blocking tough inspections of its nuclear sites.
In what is seen as a retaliatory act, Iran's conservative-controlled parliament voted Wednesday to speed up discussion of a bill that would force the government to scale back its cooperation with the IAEA. If approved, the bill would oblige the government to suspend its voluntary implementation of the additional protocol to the NPT until Tehran's right to possess the complete nuclear fuel cycle is recognized.
The motion was passed with 162 MPs in favor, 42 against, and 15 abstentions.
In a deal with the European Union trio of France, Germany and Britain in October 2003, Iran agreed to enforce the protocol and suspend its uranium enrichment activities in an effort to allay concerns about its nuclear program.
"The Majlis (Parliament) urges the government to suspend the implementation of the additional protocol to the NPT in order to defend the inalienable right of the Iranian nation," wrote the text of the plan, saying it is also intended to "preserve the scientific achievements of Iranian offspring."
The proposed legislation stated Tehran's "temporary and voluntary suspension of fuel cycle work, implementation of the additional protocol, the submission of a 1,030-page report on all of Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA, and the 1200 man-hours of inspections, which formed the basis of IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei's report in November 2004, were all examples of Tehran's efforts to build confidence in the international community and ensure the transparency of its nuclear activities."
The parliament's move also requires the government to supply it with detailed figures on Iran's trade with those countries that voted for the IAEA resolution. However, parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel insisted the passage of legislation "will not mean that Iran is preparing to withdraw from the NPT or even that it won't eventually ratify the Additional Protocol."
The votes of abstention by Russia and China -- two major trade partners of the Islamic republic and opponents of the motion -- surprised and disappointed Tehran. To say the least, Russia is involved in a $1 billion contract to construct Iran's first nuclear power plant while China enjoys vast economic ties with Iran, in particular in the oil sector.
However, it was nowhere near as shocking to the Islamic republic as the vote in favor of the resolution cast by India -- an influential co-member of NAM.
In an editorial Thursday, the English-language Iran News claimed Canada played a major role in convincing India to vote for the resolution in exchange for economic incentives. But, the Indian government has maintained since Saturday it did not come under pressure to back the vote from any country.
India, in return, says the IAEA resolution is consistent with New Delhi's stated position on Iran and is in no way linked to a recent landmark India-U.S. nuclear accord.
"We will send a letter of objection to the countries that voted for the resolution," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi, said of the 22 nations that lined up against Iran, adding these states also faced economic consequences.
"Iran will revise these (economic) relations, and these countries will suffer. Our economic and political relations are coordinated with each other."
Twelve members of the body's 35-nation board of governors, including Pakistan, Brazil and South Africa, abstained from voting on the U.N. nuclear move, which Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called "a planned scenario already determined by the United States" and "implemented by the three European countries (Britain, France and Germany)." Venezuela was the only country to vote against the resolution.
Despite early reports that Tehran was to reconsider its economic ties with New Delhi, a top Iranian official Ali Aghamohammadi -- secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council -- denied a report in India's Hindu newspaper that a gas deal worth $22 billion between the two countries was in doubt.
"We have had good, deep relations with India in many fields and regional affairs and their behavior at the IAEA was strange and we didn't expect them to vote against Iran," he said, but adding, "We don't want to review our current relations with India and their vote against Iran doesn't affect the gas project."
Under the accord, India would import 5m tons of liquefied natural gas a year for 25 years.
Iran's ambassador in New Delhi conveyed Tehran's disappointment over the vote in a meeting with India's foreign minister.
The two countries have also been involved in negotiations on the construction of a multibillion dollar pipeline to transfer Iranian gas to India through Pakistan. However, the project is not only dependent to a large extent on progress in peace negotiations between India and Pakistan, but is also facing opposition by the U.S. officials, who, at times, have warned that the pipeline could trigger sanctions under a law aimed at discouraging foreign companies from doing business with Iran. Washington accuses Tehran of sponsoring terrorism and operating a clandestine nuclear weapons program, allegations Iran denies.
Among threats and uncertainties surrounding the issue, Iran's vice president and head of the country's atomic energy agency, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, warned of regional consequences should Tehran's nuclear dossier be moved to New York.
"There is no doubt that a report to the Security Council initiates a chain of events, of actions and reactions that breed tension and add volatility to an already vulnerable political situation in the region," he told a meeting of the IAEA in Vienna earlier this week.
Some Iranian officials in Tehran, including top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, had even talked this week of the option the country might follow the path of North Korea by quitting the NPT if the crisis escalated further -- a warning immediately corrected by Aghazadeh.
But on Friday, Larijani touched on the issue again, setting conditions for Iran to remain committed to NPT.
"Currently there is no reason to get out of the NPT," he said in a speech to clerics in the holy city of Qom, according to the students news agency ISNA .
"But if they want to force us to do what they want, then we will think otherwise. If the NPT is implemented well, it is good, but if it used to deprive others of nuclear technology we will never accept it," he was further quoted as saying.
Elsewhere, in his prayers sermon to worshipers on Friday, Iran's former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani ruled out any attempt by the United States and Europe to intimidate Iran by using the nuclear issue as leverage.
"Iran is not in a way to surrender whenever you take up leverages and daggers," he said.
"If your intention is intimidation, you should know that Iranians do not fear and if your intention is to meet your objectives through this way, you should know for certain that one can not talk and negotiate through intimidation," said Rafsanjani in an apparent address to the U.S. and Europe.
He also advised Iranian officials to be patient enough in using the leverages without provoking any tension, reminding them "the field is a venue for wisdom and talks and a horizon for materialization of objectives rather than a point for slogans."
Some European diplomats and analysts say the IAEA resolution has given Iran one last chance to build confidence by stopping its uranium enrichment activities and allowing even more access to U.N. inspectors. But, Iran, they say, seems to be threatening to do the exact opposite of what it has been asked.
Despite earlier moves to get into compliance, Iran insisted it wants to exercise its right to develop the whole fuel cycle, which it is allowed to under its current treaty obligations. It also says it wants to diversify its energy sources and has no intention of building a bomb, an argument the West suspects.
Under IAEA rules, a country has the right to make its own fuel, but it has to be under inspection. Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel, but when uranium is enriched to levels of above 90 percent, it can be used in nuclear weapons.
Iranian officials say they cannot be assured of having due access to the required nuclear fuel on the international market when the country, as is planned, will be operating several nuclear power plants to produce some 7,000 megawatts of electricity by the year 2020.
"Internationally there is no guarantee that we can get nuclear fuel. In the past 18 years Iranian scientists have worked on nuclear technology and it is a big achievement," Larijani was quoted as saying on Friday.
Until now, observers say, Iran has managed to outmaneuver the West diplomatically, first by negotiating with the IAEA about putting things right and then by doing the same with the Europeans about whether it would give up its fuel program altogether. However, those talks broke down after Iran resumed its uranium conversion process
-- suspended since Nov. 2004 -- in August, insisting it had an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel.
With talks over, at least for the time being, the period of negotiations, the same observers say, may begin to turn into a period of confrontation. But, ElBaradei was not as pessimistic when he said earlier this week in Vienna that there was still room for diplomacy.
