AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site

[webfact]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site
By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.

The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.

That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-20

[Pimay1]

Ever wonder why the deal was a secret?

[ezzra]

Just let me say that this is farcical, ludicrous and most idiotic statement I have heard for a long,

long time, the UN will allow Iran to " inspect " it's own facilities, can anyone else see what wrong

with this? well the people at the UN can't see it....

Edited August 20, 2015 by ezzra

[Boon Mee]

This isn't just capitulation on the part of Obama, it's outright fellation...

[NeverSure]

I can't say what I'm thinking. The US will be well rid of Obama.

[Seastallion]

There's not a country in the world, especially one under threat, that would allow outsiders to inspect it's military secrets. Most especially those rogue nations with nukes that refuse to sign any nuke-related treaties....one of which is the main threatening nation against Iran!

Talk about double standards.

Besides, the "alleged" nuke-related work "...stopped more than a decade ago." by IAEA and US intelligence own admission.

The Reps are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, a storm in a teacup.

[Ulysses G.]

Like those in the know have said all along, a STUPID deal!

[oneday]

"...Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms..."

So the fox is being allowed to inspect its own chicken coop. Brilliant!

[DaddyWarbucks]

There's not a country in the world, especially one under threat, that would allow outsiders to inspect it's military secrets. Most especially those rogue nations with nukes that refuse to sign any nuke-related treaties....one of which is the main threatening nation against Iran!

Talk about double standards.

Besides, the "alleged" nuke-related work "...stopped more than a decade ago." by IAEA and US intelligence own admission.

The Reps are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, a storm in a teacup.

Of course, anything to kill the deal and promote the Zionist agenda for a war with Iran.

[Pakboong]

Those who are dishonest themselves, always assume everyone else cheats.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Pakboong

[Srikcir]

"The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran."

It appears that the IAEA agreement was conducted separately from the G-7 agreement with Iran. It addresses what seems now to be a defunct nuclear research site while the G-7 agreement addresses the known active research sites. The concessions IAEA makes to Iran for inspections has no impact on the protocols for inspections agreed to by the G-7.

[notmyself]

There's not a country in the world, especially one under threat, that would allow outsiders to inspect it's military secrets. Most especially those rogue nations with nukes that refuse to sign any nuke-related treaties....one of which is the main threatening nation against Iran!

Talk about double standards.

Besides, the "alleged" nuke-related work "...stopped more than a decade ago." by IAEA and US intelligence own admission.

The Reps are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, a storm in a teacup.

Noting there except evidence of long past nuclear activities which everyone knows of and Iran have admitted of. Even Israel wouldn't waste a bomb on it if they chose to take out Iran's nuclear sites.

This supposed 'side issue' is part of the inspection regime which not only looks at present nuclear activity but also past nuclear activity. Visiting this site is a complete waste of time and everyone other than Fox News viewers know it. Site (ground) has been bulldozed many times, the last time a few weeks back, but evidence will show past nuclear activity. We know that, everyone including Iran know that. You could send a thousand personal who would return with the same 'additional' information as would be had if nobody went. However, if money is going to be wasted visiting the site then it should be international inspectors.

[DaddyWarbucks]

"The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran."

It appears that the IAEA agreement was conducted separately from the G-7 agreement with Iran. It addresses what seems now to be a defunct nuclear research site while the G-7 agreement addresses the known active research sites. The concessions IAEA makes to Iran for inspections has no impact on the protocols for inspections agreed to by the G-7.

...but don't let those facts get in the way of a good talking point.

"By way of deception..... "

[micmichd]

Nothing wrong with this.

Iran would not dare to use nuclear weapons even if they had the material, because they would immediately have two nuclear powers (USA and Israel) against them.

Edited August 20, 2015 by micmichd

[Pimay1]

Nothing wrong with this.

Iran would not dare to use nuclear weapons even if they had the material, because they would immediately have two nuclear powers (USA and Israel) against them.

Just like they would not take 66 Americans hostage for 444 days because the USA would be against them.

[micmichd]

Can't see the big structural difference between threats with mass destruction and taking hostages really. What exactly did US military in the Middle East?

[ggold]

"The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran."

It appears that the IAEA agreement was conducted separately from the G-7 agreement with Iran. It addresses what seems now to be a defunct nuclear research site while the G-7 agreement addresses the known active research sites. The concessions IAEA makes to Iran for inspections has no impact on the protocols for inspections agreed to by the G-7.

I am not really sure what the G-7 have to do with this, or do you mean the P5+1? The IAEA are autonomous, but they do work with the UN security council. So Obama knew the details and still went and gave everything away for nothing in return.

Obama is a fool.

[micmichd]

USA did get something in return: one enemy less. One less that used to cost money which can now be spent for something else.

[arjunadawn]

There's not a country in the world, especially one under threat, that would allow outsiders to inspect it's military secrets. Most especially those rogue nations with nukes that refuse to sign any nuke-related treaties....one of which is the main threatening nation against Iran!

Talk about double standards.

Besides, the "alleged" nuke-related work "...stopped more than a decade ago." by IAEA and US intelligence own admission.

The Reps are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, a storm in a teacup.

You have a fair point. Why would anyone allow potential (or real) enemies on to military sites? So, what then could be a solution? We already know (besides overwhelming other facts) that the inspectors have been in fact threatened by Iran, so what is a valid mechanism for reaching a meaningful arrangement? Seems this is the key ingredient in all acts leading up to sanctions and the primary thing conceded. Is it insurmountable? I agree I would not want others on my sites but it is also the fulcrum of the entire position of Iran's opponents.

[arjunadawn]

It would be a serious category error to presume Iran and the individuals that comprise significant shia leadership see world relations in the way the west does. There is a significant thread within Iran that views confrontation as the means to bring about the fruition of their faith. To overlook this is madness. To presume Iran would behave with nukes the way other countries do is simply not supported by one single thing in contemporary history- nothing- not actions or words. Nothing.

[Jingthing]

News like this surely increases the chances of an override vote in the U.S. congress. Maybe not enough ... but it isn't good news for Obama.

In case anyone is wondering why Israel doesn't trust this deal (which frees up billions of dollars which Iran can use to fund active combatants against Israel), check out this video from a media group run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps:

“Preparation of the complete destruction of Israel by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Islamic Revolution in Iran.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWfmvUxzW_I&feature=youtu.be

Edited August 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[Pimay1]

USA did get something in return: one enemy less. One less that used to cost money which can now be spent for something else.

Yeah I suppose you're right.

On Friday, President Barack Obama called on Iran to take the “historic opportunity” for the nuclear deal presented by the U.S. and other partner nations.

In response, Iran’s Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, called for the “death to America” when speaking to a crowd on Saturday.

[arjunadawn]

News like this surely increases the chances of an override vote in the U.S. congress. Maybe not enough ... but it isn't good news for Obama.

In case anyone is wondering why Israel doesn't trust this deal (which frees up billions of dollars which Iran can use to fund active combatants against Israel), check out this video from a media group run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps:

“Preparation of the complete destruction of Israel by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Islamic Revolution in Iran.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWfmvUxzW_I&feature=youtu.be

Great post. It would also not be lost about the Sunnis that the angle of this film requires Jordan to be overrun by Shia ground forces in order to achieve this goal of Iran's. This is the high ground to the west, I believe.

[Jingthing]

Yep. The Israelis aren't paranoid. They're just not asleep. If they're really out to get you, it's REAL.

[Seastallion]

There's not a country in the world, especially one under threat, that would allow outsiders to inspect it's military secrets. Most especially those rogue nations with nukes that refuse to sign any nuke-related treaties....one of which is the main threatening nation against Iran!

Talk about double standards.

Besides, the "alleged" nuke-related work "...stopped more than a decade ago." by IAEA and US intelligence own admission.

The Reps are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, a storm in a teacup.

You have a fair point. Why would anyone allow potential (or real) enemies on to military sites? So, what then could be a solution? We already know (besides overwhelming other facts) that the inspectors have been in fact threatened by Iran, so what is a valid mechanism for reaching a meaningful arrangement? Seems this is the key ingredient in all acts leading up to sanctions and the primary thing conceded. Is it insurmountable? I agree I would not want others on my sites but it is also the fulcrum of the entire position of Iran's opponents.

What is a valid mechanism, you ask.

Has anyone considered that Iran may have sought that the US or the UN put restrictions on Israel's nuclear capabilities, and that the US simply said it's not an option?

I think if the US had put it on the table, Iran would have made less demands. After all, Israel has attacked Iran before, and continues to suggest threats.

I really can not blame Iran for wanting to have a deterrent, but I would expect that if the threats against it were under similar control and treaty, then it's need for nukes would not exist.

[arjunadawn]

There's not a country in the world, especially one under threat, that would allow outsiders to inspect it's military secrets. Most especially those rogue nations with nukes that refuse to sign any nuke-related treaties....one of which is the main threatening nation against Iran!

Talk about double standards.

Besides, the "alleged" nuke-related work "...stopped more than a decade ago." by IAEA and US intelligence own admission.

The Reps are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, a storm in a teacup.

You have a fair point. Why would anyone allow potential (or real) enemies on to military sites? So, what then could be a solution? We already know (besides overwhelming other facts) that the inspectors have been in fact threatened by Iran, so what is a valid mechanism for reaching a meaningful arrangement? Seems this is the key ingredient in all acts leading up to sanctions and the primary thing conceded. Is it insurmountable? I agree I would not want others on my sites but it is also the fulcrum of the entire position of Iran's opponents.

What is a valid mechanism, you ask.

Has anyone considered that Iran may have sought that the US or the UN put restrictions on Israel's nuclear capabilities, and that the US simply said it's not an option?

I think if the US had put it on the table, Iran would have made less demands. After all, Israel has attacked Iran before, and continues to suggest threats.

I really can not blame Iran for wanting to have a deterrent, but I would expect that if the threats against it were under similar control and treaty, then it's need for nukes would not exist.

Ah, the fallacy of the call to hypocrisy. It may be valid, but it has nothing to do with Iran's immediate issue. It could be argued that Israel is an enemy because Iran declares it so- but this is absurd. It doesn't matter who declares it, they think it. I get it. Israel has struck Iranian assets, in response to having a proxy war waged upon Israel.

But on another note: A comprehensive plan that addressed Israel's capacity to wage nuclear war or perhaps lessen the likelihood it could, would seem like a smart regional plan. But IMO, and Israel's it misses the point. Those surrounding Israel use endless pretext. Their entire legitimacy is based on Jewish destruction, not simply parity.

[ggt]

Let's just all agree...that the so-called Iran Deal...is just an acknowledgement that the world approves of a nuclear Iran and will go back to trading and financing Iran's terrorist activities...

There is no apparent logic to the decisions of todays world leaders...

[Jingthing]

In the reasonable world there is the HOPE that over time Iran's regime will moderate as their younger people enjoy living in a less isolated country, which lifting sanctions facilitates. I hope that too ... but I rationally see no reason why to expect that to happen.

[Chicog]

This is hardly news.

It was public weeks ago.

I'm just amazed it's taken AP that long to notice it.

So only the Iranians are allowed to take soil samples that the world already knows are probably contaminated after the stuxnet explosions, and they will be able to hide it from everybody by switching them.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed. Replies also removed.