Interview: Iranian nuclear official

Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remain at loggerheads over the country's uranium enrichment activities.

The IAEA - the United Nation's atomic energy regulatory body - has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment programme amid fears that it could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Hossein Mousavian: Iran is prepared for referral to the Security Council

European nations have been putting diplomatic pressure on Iran and have offered the country civil nuclear technology if it agrees to abandon uranium enrichment.

Washington has been lobbying for issue to be referred to the UN security council.

BBC Correspondent in Tehran Frances Harrison spoke to key National Security delegate Hossein Mousavian about the negotiations.

---

In what areas was there progress in the talks in Vienna with the Europeans?

The key question I believe at the moment is cessation or suspension [of uranium enrichment]. The Iranian side already has rejected cessation.

The European side has reached a point to request for indefinite suspension but we have to define what does indefinite suspension mean. If they mean a suspension for a decade definitely it is not going to work.

In terms of suspension are we talking about an interim suspension until there's a final agreement and when you reach a final agreement are you willing to continue that suspension?

What we have in our mind to agree is for example for two, three or four months something like this as a period to finalise the package. We would be flexible to keep suspension in this period.

After this both sides would understand whether it is possible to finalise a package or not. If not everyone can leave the table and go to his own decision. If yes we have the package which is finalised.

And in such a package do you think it's possible Iran would agree to a long term suspension that's almost like a cessation but dressed up in different words.

The Iranian side would, I believe, be flexible but not in the very long term. But we would be flexible in such a dialogue for any initiative which can guarantee and assure the Europeans, IAEA and the international community that the Iranian enrichment programme would forever remain peaceful and never be diverted.

If we can not reach any objective guarantees that Iranian enrichment facilities can never be diverted then the duration of suspension is baseless then the time doesn't mean anything. In two years three years again we would have the same question.

Isn't that why the outside world wants you to have a cessation of enrichment?

The outside world should not really ask anything beyond the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). First of all we should make sure every member of NPT is committed to NPT. We are not going to discuss something that is beyond international conventions about mass destruction weapons.

Definitely such a process would damage the credibility of international conventions. But we are prepared for any mechanism, any objective guarantees that Iranian enrichment activities forever and ever will be peaceful and never be diverted.

At the heart of the European proposals isn't there a desire to see a cessation isn't that what they are really aiming at?

We would ask them if they mean it tell us today and we would prefer to go to the UN Security Council today rather than tomorrow.

And when you say Iran has the capability to enrich do you mean Iran has the capability today to produce nuclear fuel?

Iran has the capability today to produce fuel definitely. But at full capacity, if we were to start enrichment from today with full capacity because now we are at an experimental level, it will take a minimum of 5 years to provide fuel for one power plant.

Are you worried if this is referred to the UN Security Council about what sort of punitive action they might take against Iran?

First of all we are not worried about the Security Council. Second, high level officials of the country have already given instructions for full readiness of the country for the Security Council situation.

What does that mean?

If we are referred to the Security Council there will be possible consequences for the economy, military, security, regional issues, international issues and legal issues.

The country is close to being completely organised and mobilised for any Security Council decision because after the June meeting the understanding of the Iranian side was that the Europeans cannot deliver on their commitments because of American pressure.

Do you think the Security Council can in practice do very much that can harm Iran's interests or impose sanctions on oil sales?

I believe the Security Council would not be able to do anything very serious as far as Iran's commitment to NPT is concerned.

The authority of the UN is not more than international rules and regulations. NPT safeguards are the main issue.

If Iran is prepared to co-operate, and be open and transparent, then can they have a resolution for cessation which is completely against IAEA statues and the NPT safeguards?

If they go to such a resolution then it might lead the Iranian side to withdraw from such treaties - the protocol. When they see they are not going to respect even the NPT, definitely Tehran would not respect it.

So its an empty threat?

Yes.