Clarification of 'Red Lines' Ahead of Nuclear Agreement Deadline

The U.S. Secretary of State commented on the statements made by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, stating that the nuclear negotiations between world powers and Tehran are not influenced by these remarks and will continue. According to the Associated Press, John Kerry added that the Supreme Leader's statements and the supportive reactions that followed within the country are for 'political uses domestically.' Ayatollah Khamenei stated on Tuesday, June 23, in a meeting with senior officials of the Islamic Republic: 'The lifting of sanctions should not be conditional on Iran fulfilling its commitments; they should not say you fulfill your commitments, and then the agency certifies so that sanctions are lifted; we absolutely do not accept this.' According to Reuters, Laurent Fabius, the French Foreign Minister, also reacted to Khamenei's remarks on Wednesday, saying that the statements of Iranian leaders do not help in reaching a final nuclear agreement. Fabius stated during a press conference alongside his Saudi counterpart regarding the nuclear negotiations with Iran: 'France wants to reach an agreement, but it wants this agreement to be a strong one and in line with its positions.' Meanwhile, Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated in a statement that 'given the way negotiations are being conducted, it is hard to imagine that Congress would accept a final agreement that should essentially be meaningful and sustainable.' But what is the reason for such positions with the short time remaining until July 1, the deadline for the nuclear agreement? Habib Hosseini Fard, a political analyst residing in Germany, told Radio Farda: 'It can be said that in these remaining days until the end of the deadline, everything is still facing a big question mark. Since they are now moving towards a comprehensive agreement, it is natural that the volume of propaganda, pressures, and demands would be much greater. It seems that politically, given the needs both sides have for each other, they want to reach an agreement. All these factors have come together to make the propaganda regarding the red lines and limitations of both sides more pronounced.' On the other hand, a group of U.S. security advisors, including five former advisors to Barack Obama, expressed concern in a letter that the final agreement on Iran's nuclear program is at risk of falling short of what the U.S. government considers a 'good agreement.' According to a July 3 report from the New York Times, former security advisors say that the final agreement does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It does not require Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. However, this agreement reduces the time for Iran to acquire that infrastructure for 10 to 15 years. Meanwhile, according to the IRNA news agency, the Guardian Council on Wednesday, July 3, approved the Islamic Consultative Assembly's plan known as the 'Obligation of the Government to Preserve Nuclear Achievements and Rights.' This plan sets demands as prerequisites for Iran to accept the final nuclear agreement. Article two of this plan states, 'The International Atomic Energy Agency is authorized to carry out conventional inspections at nuclear sites within the framework of the safeguards agreement, and access to military, security, and sensitive non-nuclear sites, documents, and scientists is prohibited.' Behrouz Bayat, a former advisor to the International Atomic Energy Agency residing in Vienna, says this article has no clear legal meaning, and Iran and the agency are already implementing the safeguards agreement. Iran and the six world powers are working to finalize the nuclear agreement document, which, according to the timeline they defined, should be completed by July 1. Nevertheless, various statements have been made in recent days regarding the possibility of continuing negotiations after this date.