Federico Pieraccini, an Italian independent geopolitical analyst at the Strategic Culture Foundation, tells the Tehran Times that the resolution adopted by the IAEA and drafted by the UK, France, and Germany is "a new excuse" to put much pressure on Iran, while "Iran has actually been too cooperative with the IAEA."

Pieraccini, a frequent contributor to Global Research, says "international bodies like the IAEA are supposed to be impartial but are in actual fact part of the U.S. world order constructed after WW2."

The text of the interview with Pieraccini is as follows:

Q: The International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors adopts a resolution drafted by the UK, France, and Germany, calling on Iran to grant the IAEA access to two locations amid allegations of undeclared nuclear activities. In response, Iran has warned against attempts to engage Iran in what could become an endless process with the Agency. Iran has asked member states to avoid creating what it called "an unnecessary crisis." What is your take on it?

A: I believe that Iran has actually been too cooperative with the IAEA. No other country has granted access to its facilities in the same way Tehran has consistently done over the last ten years. The resolution adopted by the IAEA and drafted by the UK, France, and Germany seems to be a new excuse to push the envelope with the IAEA vis-a-vis Iran even further, setting the stage for Tehran to deny access to the two facilities and thereby give France, Germany and the UK the justification to accuse Iran of not cooperating with the IAEA.
I would not give too much consideration to this draft and its consequences: the U.S. - the main ally of the UK, France, and Germany - has sabotaged and withdrawn from the JCPOA deal, destroying a decade's worth of negotiations. This latest draft is a way for London, Paris, and Berlin to show goodwill to the Trump administration and is nothing that should worry the Iranian government too much. History shows that Iran has, in the past, comply with all aspects of the IAEA inspections.

Q: The resolution, submitted by these three countries comes at a time the United States is working to extend an arms embargo against Iran. How do you see the role of the U.S. in this scenario?

A: The U.S. role is always destabilizing, double-faced, and based on the logic of U.S. imperialism, the dominance of the U.S. dollar, and global hegemony. With the Trump administration relations between Iran and the U.S. have sunk to an all-time low. It is not surprising that Washington is pushing its European vassals to assume a more aggressive posture against Iran.

Q: European countries have never seriously stood up to the U.S. They have already failed to take steps to ensure that Tehran benefit from the deal following Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the accord in May 2018. What is your view that "Iran has no reason to trust Europe"?

A: The recent resolution may be the beginning of a quick deterioration in trust between Tehran and European capitals. Relations are already very tense due to European countries' failure to apply the principles agreed to in the JCPOA on economic sanctions and trade out of fear of U.S. counter-sanctions.

Q: The three European sponsors of the resolution and JCPOA signatories say they are still committed to preserving the deal. Tehran says by sponsoring the resolution, they have put the future of the JCPOA in jeopardy and have worked to undermine the current level of Iran's cooperation with the Agency. In your view, what will be the consequences of the resolution?

A:  The consequences of these actions are entirely in the hands of the three European countries. Iran is not going to grant access to those facilities, so we will have to see how much Berlin, Paris, and London are willing to use this as an excuse to further sabotage any sort of agreement with Tehran to appease the U.S. administration. It looks as if the intended purpose of this resolution is to create a justification for European countries to pull back from the JCPOA by citing Iran's lack of compliance with the IAEA.

Q: China submitted a statement to the IAEA, saying, "The root causes of this situation lie in the unilateral and bullying practices of the U.S." How can you assess China's (and Russia) approach?

A: China and Russia continue to face the same problem over and over again. International bodies like the IAEA are supposed to be impartial, still they are, in actual fact, part of the U.S. world order constructed after WW2. The transition from a unipolar world order to a multipolar world order will mean creating a trusted and shared environment of multilateral institutions that can truly work without bias and pre-planned agendas favoring one country over another. Until we fully transition into a new world order, international relations between superpowers will continue to be strained, and Russia and China will have to do their best in the meantime to keep the U.S. in check militarily and economically.  

Q: Experts argue that even if Iran allowed inspections of the sites named by the Israeli sources, it would be setting a wrong precedent that would be against the interests of all countries. What do you think?

A: I agree. As I stated previously, these inspections are only a pretext and a dangerous one with regard to sovereignty. Iran and any other country that cares about its territorial jurisdiction being violated under false pretexts should protest vehemently.

Q: What is the main purpose of the United States and Europe in taking such actions?

A: The main purpose is to oppose Iran and its people by any means. The U.S. and Europe are intent on blocking a transition from the current US-centric world order into a full-fledged multipolar world order. China and Russia, as well as their major allies like Iran, are poised to be the main actors in this global transition. The interconnectivity is developing on all levels between Europe, Asia, and Africa, including Iran, as one of the most important players.

Instead of contributing to the formulation of the new rules that will govern international relations in a spirit of cooperation with peer countries, Washington and certain European capitals prefer to pursue unilateral goals, not fully comprehending that this attitude is only accelerating the demise of the unipolar world order and its fifty years of failures.