What the secret agreement between Iran and the UN says

[webfact]

What the secret agreement between Iran and the UN says
By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — An AP report has revealed that the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency has agreed with Iran that Iranian experts and equipment will be used to inspect Iran's Parchin military site, located in not far from Tehran, where Iran is suspected of conducting covert nuclear weapons activity more than a decade ago.

Here are some questions and answers about the document, and what it means for the larger deal between Iran, the United States and five other world powers to limit Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for easing sanctions against Iran.

WHAT HAVE IRAN AND THE IAEA AGREED?

According to a draft document viewed by AP, Iran has agreed to cooperate with the U.N. in answering longstanding allegations about possible past work to develop nuclear weapons at its Parchin plant — but only with the Iranians conducting the inspections themselves. Iran would collect its own environmental samples on the site and carry out other work usually done by IAEA experts. The IAEA will be able to review the Iranians' work after the fact. The deal on Parchin was between the IAEA and Iran. The Obama Administration was not a direct party to the agreement, but apparently was aware of it.
___

WHAT DO OPPONENTS OF THE DEAL SAY?

Opponents of the broader deal are seizing an opportunity to say the entire exercise of negotiating with Iran is flawed, that it relies too much on trust of the Iranian government.
___

WHAT DOES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAY?

The Obama administration and other supporters say the wider agreement say it is focused on the future, with ample inspections, and that the side accord between Iran and the IAEA is focused on Iran's activities in the past and therefore is not central to the overall deal.
___

HOW UNUSUAL IS THE AGREEMENT ON PARCHIN?

Any IAEA inspection of a country suspected of nuclear irregularities is usually carried out by agency experts. They may take swipes of residue on equipment, sample the air or take soil samples in attempts to look for signs of clandestine work on atomic arms or other potentially dangerous unreported activity.

The document on Parchin, however, will let the Iranians themselves look for signs of the very activity they deny — past work on nuclear weapons. It says "Iran will provide" the agency with environmental samples. It restricts the number of samples at the suspect site to seven and to an unspecified number "outside of the Parchin complex" at a site that still needs to be decided.

The U.N. agency will take possession of the samples for testing, as usual. Iran will also provide photos and video of locations to be inspected. But the document suggests that areas of sensitive military activity remain out of bounds. The draft says the IAEA will "ensure the technical authenticity of the activities" carried out by the Iranians — but it does not say how.

In contrast, the main nuclear deal with Iran gives IAEA experts greatly expanded authority compared to what it has now to monitor Iranian nuclear activities as it works to ensure that Tehran is hewing to its commitments; reducing the scope and output of programs that Iran says it needs to generate energy but which can also be turned to making the fissile core of atomic weapons.
___

WHY IS THE PARCHIN AGREEMENT IMPORTANT?

Any indication that the IAEA is diverging from established inspection rules could weaken the agency, the world's nuclear watchdog with 164 members, and feed suspicions that it is ready to overly compromise in hopes of winding up a probe that has essentially been stalemated for more than a decade.

Politically, the arrangement has been grist for American opponents of the broader separate agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Critics have complained that the wider deal is built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

The separate agreement on past nuclear activities does not affect the broader deal signed in July. And it doesn't appear yet that the revelation will change any votes in Congress for or against a resolution of disapproval, which President Barack Obama is expected to veto if it passes.
___

HOW DID THIS AGREEMENT HAPPEN?

It could be a matter of priorities.

The Obama administration's main focus in the broader Iran deal — signed by the U.S., Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — is crimping Iran's present nuclear activities so they cannot be used in the future toward making a bomb. Faced with more than a decade of Iranian resistance to IAEA attempts to probe the allegations of past weapons work at Parchin, there may be a willingness to settle for an agency report that is less than definitive — and methods that deviate from usual practices.

The IAEA also appears to have recognized that Iran will continue to insist the allegations are lies, based on false U.S., Israeli and other intelligence. After a decade of stalemate it wants to close the books on the issue and allow the U.N. Security Council to do so as well.

The alternative might well have been no inspection at Parchin any kind.
___

WHAT DOES THE IAEA SAY?

Director General Yukiya Amano says, "The arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our ... standards in any way." He says agreements with Iran on clearing up the nuclear arms allegations "are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public - the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA member states."
___

WHAT DO OTHERS SAY?

Ned Price, spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House: "We are confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program, issues that in some cases date back more than a decade. Just as importantly, the IAEA is comfortable with the arrangements, which are unique to the agency's investigation of Iran's historical activities."

Olli Heinonen, in charge of the Iran investigation as IAEA deputy director general from 2005 through 2010, says he can think of no similar arrangement — a country essentially allowed to carry out much of the probe of suspicions against it.
___

HOW CRUCIAL IS PARCHIN TO THE OVERALL DEAL?

U.S. intelligence officials do not consider the Parchin inspections a critical part of the broader deal, according to one official, commenting only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted. The U.S. believes most weapons work occurred there in 2003, the official says, and the site has been thoroughly cleaned up since then.
___

AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-21

[Srikcir]

The independently negotiated Parchin Deal between the UN IAEA and Iran has really nothing to do with the G-7 agreement other than it seems they have included it in the appendix as reference.

The UN as an entity was not part of the G-7 negotiating team. Since the 5 nations on the UN Permanent Security Council were part of the G-7, UN representation was unnecessary and irrelevent.

[ABCer]

Once the money is released and restrictive sanctions lifted - NOTHING matters any more.

In any negotiations Persians will win. Americans are out of their League there.

[Steely Dan]

The Iranians threatened the head of the IAEA with "consequences" if they divulged any part of it to the U.S.

[notmyself]

Same news outlet as the last. What rubbish.

[Usernames]

Once the money is released and restrictive sanctions lifted - NOTHING matters any more.

In any negotiations Persians will win. Americans are out of their League there.

The US loses every international negotiation it enters. The leaders are fools or traitors. Trump is right again.

[Thakkar]

The IAEA says AP story is wrong:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/uk-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUKKCN0QP0IB20150820

The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief on Thursday rejected as "a misrepresentation" suggestions Iran would inspect its own Parchin military site on the agency's behalf, an issue that could help make or break Tehran's nuclear deal with big powers. [...]

"I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work," IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said in an unusually strongly worded statement on Thursday

A further explanation at Vox: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin

The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy. ...

The headline made it sound like Iran would get to self-inspect, which would indeed be appalling. Readers were given the impression that President Obama had made a catastrophically foolish concession to the Iranians; that our much-touted inspections regime was a big joke. And indeed, a number of prominent political journalists tweeted out the story with exactly this alarmed interpretation.

"If true" turns out to be a major issue here, as upon closer examination the inflammatory headline, as it has been widely interpreted, appears to largely not be true.

Is this just sloppy reporting or s it propaganda. Perhaps the latter because this isn't the first time AP has raised fake red flags.

In fact AP has already revised the article and in the revised article, there isn't the slightest mention that changes were made to the article. Such practice is not just sloppy journalism, it is deceit. Below is a screenshot of the original and revised article:

[billd766]

The Iranians threatened the head of the IAEA with "consequences" if they divulged any part of it to the U.S.

Really? I am sure that you may well be correct and have the links and references to prove it, or not.

If not then it is just your unsubstantiated word.

After all Thakkar at post #7 found some links.

Edited August 23, 2015 by billd766

[Thakkar]

Former Nuclear Safeguards Official Says AP's Iran Deal Document Looks Fake

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e?kvcommref=mostpopular

The link provides details of 13 inconsistencies in the document cited by AP alongside screenshots of the actual document AP cites as its source. The official goes on to compare this apparent forgery to the forged "Niger yellowcake" document used by the neocons to bolster their case for the Iraq invasion.

T

Edited August 23, 2015 by Thakkar

[Thakkar]

Until today, I was still scanning opposition outlets in a genuine attempt to try and understand the reasons for the opposition. I now see no point in continuing with this time-wasting. The sloppy AP piece tells me that if opponents truly had an honest to goodness reason for opposing the deal, there would be no need for this kind of subterfuge, half-truths and obfuscation. It seems to me that their interest is in perpetuating the conflict. Why? I can only guess:

- More arms sales in the region.

- Higher oil prices.

- Heightened tensions give regional regimes more reasons to perpetuate their police States.

- Fear of Shia resurgence by Sunni States.

- To deny Obama a lasting legacy (this is petty, but I wouldn't put it past the racist Teabaggers).

- Both Israel's radical Right and Islamic radicals need perpetual conflict to feed their base, recruit and avoid genuine peace negotiations because negotiations involve give-and-take and both sides insist one having it all.

Anyway, as an aside, for anyone truly interested in understanding arms control and non-proliferation, I'd like to recommend the excellent blog, Arms Control Wonk, and specific to the Iran deal, the following articles I've already done a search for at the blog: http://armscontrolwonk.com/search?cx=015037758712677673651%3Azpfej6h6dq4&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Iran

There's no spin there. The only bias is towards verifiable and workable arms control. The posters are qualified people in the field who know what they're talking about. Getting the facts straight and trying to understand the issues is ultimately more satisfying than the instant gratification gained from reading only the stuff that feeds your existing biases and prejudices and offers easy but unrealistic answers to complex issues.

T

Edited August 23, 2015 by Thakkar

[up-country_sinclair]

Former Nuclear Safeguards Official Says AP's Iran Deal Document Looks Fake

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e?kvcommref=mostpopular

The link provides details of 13 inconsistencies in the document cited by AP alongside screenshots of the actual document AP cites as its source.

T

Well, well, well.

Gee, I wonder who is responsible for this fake document?

[Asiantravel]

To some the debate over whether the Iran deal endangers Israel or makes it safer will be incomplete and misleading as long as it skirts the Middle East’s only nuclear arms stockpile.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31470917.html

Edited August 23, 2015 by Asiantravel

[lifeincnx]

The Iranians threatened the head of the IAEA with "consequences" if they divulged any part of it to the U.S.

Is this your opinion or do you have any reputable source to back it up?

Tick, tock, tick, tock....

[lifeincnx]

The AP is already back peddling on this lame, poorly researched and unsourced story. This is almost as bad as Judith Miller's unsourced "Curveball" stories in the NYTimes to help sell that bogus war. Remember, her source was inside the White House. One wonders which right wing war hawk is feeding this stuff.

Here is one from Reuters:
"The U.S. State Department said on Thursday the IAEA would "in no way" hand over responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. "That is not how the IAEA does business," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUSKCN0QP0ID20150820?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews