Q: What do you think of this latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program?

A: Good evening, this report is the same as previous reports. In fact we have had some sort of frustrating report… also detailing information which is somehow confusing the public. But overall this report has one clear message: no evidence of diversion of nuclear material or activities for prohibited purposes.

This has been repeated almost 20 times by the director-general and this is the last report of director general [Mohamed] ElBaradei before leaving the office and he has reiterated that there in no evidence of diversion. However, in this report there is one new element regarding the visit to [the country's] new enrichment site called Fordo and the inspection of this site which have been made on the 26th and 27th [of October] and of course two additional days of meeting in Tehran.

They have clearly indicated that the findings of the inspectors are consistent with the information given by Iran in the special questionnaire DIQ [Design Information Questionnaire]. This is very important and proves that all the political hype including what happened in Pittsburg were hasty unjustified, politically-motivated statements and now this report proves Iran's assertions that its activities, including this new site is for the purpose of peaceful uses of the nuclear energy.

It has also been indicated in this report that there is no machine or nuclear material there and therefore Iran has informed [the agency] much sooner that it was obliged to and there are no nuclear activities there. Iran has also informed the agency about the reason for the construction of this site. Because of continuous threats of military attacks against Iran, Iran had no other choice than to have a contingency plan. Therefore this site was given by the Passive Defense Organization to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and it was in fact already built for this purpose.

And there is a single political message, of course, in this whole process which [says] Iran at any price will not suspend its enrichment. So even if there are threats of an attack, we will try to make sure that there are contingency plans so that the enrichment is sustained.

At the same time this enrichment and all other activities are under the IAEA safeguards. The rest of the report is a repetition of what has been said before except for the update on the amount of the material which has been enriched in Natanz which is now a total amount of 1763 kg of low enriched uranium.

This is also clear that the enrichment has successfully continued under the auspices of the IAEA. One thing I can say about this report as well as other reports of the past that it is unfortunate that we are continuing this frustrating, boring reporting and also discussions of the Board of Governors for 6 years, and this is the time to stop this whole political game in the IAEA which is jeopardizing the technical environment.

There is also one other thing that I have to add; in this kind of report which has a lot of technical details; [They] have always been confusing the public because it is not clear who are the readers of such reports; either they are diplomats and representatives in the Board of Governors or member states or the public. Therefore depending on its reader, the report should be adapted and defined for that purpose. This report has a lot of technical details which in many cases has created confusions and that process has to stopped.

Q: Mr. Soltaniyeh, what about the part of the report that says more clarification is needed about the Fordo enrichment plant?

A: Well I have to clarify exactly what we're talking about. There is a comprehensive safeguard agreement which is the document 153. This is the basis of our obligation under the NPT safeguard and according to this we are obliged to give the Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) and nothing more, nothing less. Nobody has the right to ask our intention or what our measured intention is. The important thing is that the country will declare its nuclear sites and the agency inspectors will verify the design information given by the member state and that is why in this report we have done it. It is not justified to ask any other clarifications more than that. They can see the site and check what the purpose of the site is and from now on it is under the full supervision of the IAEA.

We have clearly explained when we have started working on the site for the purpose of enrichment and we have already explained that the site was given by the Passive Defense Organization to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. This means that the site [Fordo] is among many other locations that Iran has prepared for different sensitive activities as a contingency plan in order to protect against any military attack against the country. Therefore no matter what they say that it [the construction of the site] has been started or excavation was being done before has absolutely no justification.

We have declared exactly when this site was given to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. This stance of Iran is reflected in the report that everything has been transparent and the inspectors were in Iran for four days; they have had ample time to discuss with authorities and they have verified the DIQ which was given to them.

So in a nutshell, this report is clear enough and is once again confirming the peaceful nature of atomic activities in Iran and that this site also proved that all the political clamor [was] not justified and they just wanted to jeopardize our cooperation with the IAEA. I also have to conclude by saying that we voluntarily informed about this site, we let the inspectors to have full access [to the site]. And now this report proves the cooperative spirit of Iran with inspectors and proved that everything is exclusively for peaceful purposes.