Brazil vents frustration with West over Iran deal

“We got our fingers burned by doing things that everybody said were helpful, and in the end we found that some people could not take ‘yes' for an answer,” Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said, in a clear reference to Washington, in an interview with the Financial Times published on Monday. “If we are required [to negotiate again], maybe we can still be useful. … But we are not going out in a proactive way again unless we are required to.”

Western powers have voiced deep misgivings about the plan brokered by Brazil and Turkey for Iran to send abroad 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium in return for reactor fuel, and supported a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran this month. Turkey and Brazil voted against the resolution at the UN Security Council, the first time a sanctions vote on Iran has failed to pass unanimously.

“We were directly involved in seeking a solution, and we were encouraged to do that,” Amorim told the daily. “And then when we produced a result, it had no consequence. On the same day that the agreement was produced, before it had even been analyzed, the immediate response was the request for a [UN] resolution [on sanctions].”

Turkish and Brazilian officials say their deal with Iran is in line with demands outlined in talks with the US. Brazil has disclosed a letter US President Barack Obama sent to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in April specifying chief US concerns over a possible fuel exchange agreement following US statements that the deal failed to address its primary concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.

Speaking in Vienna on Monday, Amorim said he was still hoping for a negotiated solution despite the sanctions. “In my opinion I think sanctions make it more difficult, not easier. But I don’t think they make it impossible,” Amorim told reporters at a panel discussion. “So if there is goodwill and flexibility, it will be still possible to find an agreement.” “We are still hopeful that the Tehran declaration can be used as a basis for… a peaceful negotiated solution.”

Amorim voiced dismay at the Security Council sanctions vote and said the tepid response from major powers on the fuel plan was one of the reasons why Brazil voted “no” on the measures.

“We could not have voted in any different way except against,” he said, adding that although Western officials had “nice words” about Brazil’s mediation efforts, their actions did not follow. Brazil was wary of getting involved in mediation efforts again because of this experience, he said. The US had been positive about Brazil’s involvement at first and had then voiced unexpected objections at the last minute. “We cannot proceed on the basis of ambiguity. We need some unambiguous request to get involved,” he said.

Speaking to the Financial Times, a US official welcomed the Brazilian reluctance to get involved in negotiations because it would be preferable for the established powers that have permanent seats on the UN Security Council to conduct any future talks with Tehran. “I don’t see Brazil or Turkey really being in a position to act as a mediator,” he said, arguing that both countries are “really not neutral” since they voted against the sanctions.

Iran bars nuclear inspectors

In a further sign of growing tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran has barred two UN nuclear inspectors from entering the country, accusing the two unnamed inspectors of providing false information in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and declaring them persona non grata.

Iranian officials made clear Iran would still allow the Vienna-based UN agency to monitor its nuclear facilities, saying other experts could carry out the work. “Inspections are continuing without any interruption,” Iran’s IAEA envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters in Vienna. But, “we have to show more vigilance about the performance of the inspectors to protect the confidentiality,” he said, criticizing alleged leaks by inspectors to Western media.

Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said Tehran had asked the IAEA to replace the two inspectors. Salehi, in comments reported by the ISNA news agency, did not name them nor give details over what elements of the report issued in May he believed were wrong.

There was no immediate comment from the IAEA, but a diplomat confirmed that Iran had notified the agency of the ban.

The IAEA’s report in May showed Iran pushing ahead with higher-level uranium enrichment and failing to answer questions about possible military dimensions to its nuclear work. Enriched uranium can provide fuel for nuclear power plants, or material for bombs if refined much further. Washington, which was leading the push to impose new UN sanctions, at the time said the IAEA report underscored Iran’s refusal to comply with international requirements.

Salehi said Iran last week announced the two IAEA inspectors were banned for an “utterly untruthful” report. “We asked that they would not ever send these two inspectors to Iran and instead assign two others,” he added.