We shouldn’t have agreed to signing the Additional Protocol in Lausanne statement: MP

Hossein Nejabat, a member of parliament’s Energy Committee, described the recognition of Tehran’s right to enrichment on its soil as a positive point about the Lausanne statement, and said termination of sanctions when the deal takes effect would be regarded as another advantage of the statement.

“There are some drawbacks with the statement, though, among them the use of ambiguous terms. Given America’s record, the US is capable of turning ambiguous terms in its own favor. That Washington might breach the agreement based on its own interpretation leaves room for worry,” the MP was quoted by Tasnim News Agency as saying on April 5.

He added, “The termination of sanctions after [IAEA-] verified implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments is another problem with the statement.”

Nejabat went on to say, “That Iran’s negotiating team has agreed to the implementation of the Additional Protocol is another negative point about the framework agreement, because in fact such agreement does not come within the purview of the government and requires approval by the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Therefore, the government should not have agreed to the implementation of the Additional Protocol. Instead, it should have said that it would try to convince parliament to approve the protocol.”

The deputy concluded, “The guidelines by the Supreme Leader that all sanctions have to be lifted as the deal takes effect should be taken into account by those who draft the final accord in the upcoming months.”