I would like to make the following points regarding allegations made against the Iranian nuclear program:
The Islamic Republic of Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy and is fully committed to its non-proliferation obligations.
All Iranian nuclear activities are, and have always been, exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Iran continues to fully cooperate with the IAEA and all its nuclear activities are carried out under surveillance cameras of the Agency and its resident inspectors who regularly visit all nuclear sites and measure and seal enriched uranium containers.
Some of Iran’s cooperation with the Agency have been beyond its legal obligations. They are carried out to build more trust and confidence.
As a result, non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran has always been confirmed by all reports of the Agency. The latest IAEA report, dated 28 August 2013, states that “the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement.”
While fully supporting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by all nations, we strongly reject possession of nuclear weapon by any nation.
This is our principled position that: nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none.
We fully support addressing genuine non-proliferation concerns. However, we reject equating the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with developing nuclear weapons.
As it has been stated time and again by the Iranian officials at all levels, in addition to our international obligations, Islamic teachings also oblige us not to pursue nuclear-weapon program.
Likewise, from security point of view, we believe that these inhuman weapons did not and would never bring security. They are the greatest threat to the security of both the nuclear-weapon haves and have-nots.
There is even no single acceptable reason to possess nuclear weapons, but there are many agreeable reasons to abolish them all.
For these reasons, nuclear weapons have no place in the defense doctrine of my country.
Despite all these, some countries still express concerns over the Iranian nuclear program. At the same time, there exists a deep mistrust and concerns by the Iranian nation over the policies and intentions of these countries.
Therefore, there is a need for building mutual trust that is possible only by resorting to the force of logic, not the logic of force.
In our time, the golden rule is to resort to diplomacy alone.
Sustainable solution is achievable only by respectful negotiations.
On its part, Iran has already expressed its full readiness to faithfully engage in a meaningful, time-bound and result-oriented negotiation.
Iran stands ready to ensure that its nuclear program will continue to remain exclusively peaceful.
This can remove the concerns of other parties. In return and as a first step, in addition to acknowledging the inherent right of Iran to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including a full national nuclear fuel cycle, they should remove the Iranian’s concerns which include annulling all sanctions, whether multilateral or unilateral.
It goes without saying that good faith, genuine political will, mutual respect and equal treatment with the interests of parties is essential for a win-win solution. Therefore, other parties also need to adopt the same approach.
Moreover, I should underline the important contribution that other countries can make to this process by supporting diplomacy and helping to sustain the current positive atmosphere which is necessary for the effectiveness of diplomacy.
Seizing this opportunity, I wish to thank sincerely all countries who continue to support our sovereign right to peaceful nuclear science and technology and those who supported in the past several days the ongoing process regarding the Iranian nuclear program.
Despite this fact, Mr. President, we just heard an extremely inflammatory statement by the last speaker of the general debate of the General Assembly, in which he made allegations against peaceful nuclear activities of my country. I do not want to dignify such unfounded accusations with an answer other than categorically rejecting them all.
He tried to mislead this august body about the Iranian nuclear program, but unlike last year, without cartoon drawing.
The most ironic part of his comments was when he tried to be more royal than the king by setting standards about the type and scope of Iran’s nuclear activities, level of uranium enrichment, plutonium production and so on and so forth.
He must know that no one can dictate Iran what to do or not to do.
As an NPT party, Iran is fully aware of his rights and committed to its obligations.
Indeed, the one who is badly in need to be educated about these issues is Israel which is the only non-party to the NPT in the Middle East and to that end has no choice but to accede to the NPT, without any further delay and condition, and place all its nuclear activities under the IAEA comprehensive safeguards.
He talked a lot about WMDs in the Middle East, without mentioning that Israel is the only one in the region that possesses all types of WMDs but is not a party to any of the treaties banning them.
Moreover, he also did not talk about the 2012 conference on the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East which was not convened only due to Israel’s objection.
Like last year, he also continued saber rattling toward Iran by abusing this august Assembly for threatening a founding Member of this Organization which is established for “the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.”
Definitely, he enjoys full freedom to be proud of all atrocities and over 10 wars waged during the past 65 years by the Israeli regime against not only all its neighbors but others as well.
He may wish also to apply for an international award certifying the ability of Israeli forces in never-ending savage attacks against peoples under occupation, in particular defenseless women and innocent children.
However, he should seriously avoid miscalculation about Iran.
Iran’s centuries-old policy of non-aggression must not be interpreted as its inability to defend itself.
Unlike Israel, Iran did not and would not attack any country. It is not because of its inability, but due to its principled policy in rejecting the use of force.
Iranians are proud of being the best at exercising their inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Therefore, the Israeli Prime Minister had better not even think about attacking Iran, let alone planning for that.
Finally, Mr. President, he said that we made a smile attack. H. E. Foreign Minister of my country responded to that when he said “smile attack is better than lie attack.” Indeed, “smile diplomacy” is much better than “lie diplomacy”.
I thank you, Mr. President.