CONFIRMED -- Iran allowed to collect own samples at nuclear military base -- Verification expert on self-inspection deal: "You need the eyes and the brain to look where to sample... video camera opens up additional methods of deceiving"
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren reports that it has now been confirmed that Iran was in fact allowed to '
inspect' its own nuclear military facility at Parchin. I received this by email.
Reuters this morning conveyed Iranian
media reports establishing that the Iranians recently took their own
environmental samples at their Parchin military facility, where they
conducted tests relevant to the detonation of nuclear warheads, in lieu
of having IAEA inspectors take the samples (Reuters story below;
original IRNA story here [a]).
The IAEA has long sought access to Parchin: the agency needs to
clarify the nature and scope of Iran's past nuclear weapons work - the
possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran's atomic program - to
establish what the Iranians did and how far they got, which are the
prerequisites to setting up a verification regime against future
violations. The Obama administration had promised lawmakers that IAEA
inspectors would be able to inspect Parchin and resolve all PMD issues
before any final deal was inked [b][c][d][e][f].
Instead the JCPOA
allowed Iran to sign a secret side deal with the IAEA permitting the
Iranians to self-inspect the facility rather than grant IAEA inspector
robust access.
That side deal was subsequently revealed and published by the AP: the
Iranians would get to collect their own samples, those samples would
have to come from mutually agreed upon areas under overlapping photo and
video surveillance, and the number of the samples would be limited
[g][h]. An Iranian statement this morning confirmed that the Iranians
collected their own samples: "Iranian experts took samples from specific
locations in Parchin facilities this week without IAEA inspectors being
present" [i]. An IAEA statement confirmed the sampling was done from
mutually agreed upon areas under overlapping photo and video
surveillance: "the determination of the spots where the samples are
taken is a separate, important, careful activity…. [that] have to
satisfy our requirements… the actual swiping or other sample taking
[place] under redundant continuous surveillance" [j]. It's not yet clear
whether the AP was also correct about the number of samples being
limited.
The arrangement means that the IAEA will not be able to establish what happened at Parchin.
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, explained at a panel hosted earlier this month
by the Hudson Institute that self-sampling under surveillance is
inadequate. Inspectors need to be on the ground to identify dusty nooks
and corners where violators forgot to dust; the mutually agreed upon
areas are by definition the ones that violators know have been
sanitized [k]:
What you have is, is the situation where there'll be videotaping
of the potential locations where sampling would take place. Then the
IAEA would direct the Iranians to take the samples. And that's not the
normal way to do things.
If I could give the example in Iran of Kalaya Electric, a secret
centrifuge research and development facility that Iran denied was such a
thing. The IAEA got access and it brought in a very top level
centrifuge expert with that access, who looked around. And when they did
the sampling finally they didn't find any trace of enriched uranium in
the areas that had been heavily modified. But in a another, a secondary
building they found in a ventilation duct - which had not been modified -
they found traces of enriched uranium...
You need the eyes and the brain to look where to sample.
I brought an example of sampling in North Korea... they sampled
in the Yongbyon reprocessing plant in the early 90s... you can see in
the sampling they're looking behind this box... Look for where it's
dusty. The idea is that it's not been disturbed. In the case of Parchin,
it would be look for where the paint doesn't look solid. And so, that's
very hard to do with a video camera. So I think the video camera opens
up additional methods of deceiving the IAEA. And it's not the normal way
they've been doing it. And so I think that's a problem...
The sampling would be done, and then the IAEA access would
follow. And so the access is coming at a point where it's not as
useful... You want it to drive the inspection effort and the
environmental sampling effort, not be done at the end of the process [7:29].
The arrangement was also read more broadly as kneecapping the IAEA.
On the experts side, CNN got analysis from Olli Heinonen, former
director of the IAEA's verification shop, as Albright, president of the
Institute for Science and International Security: "It is very unusual...
I find it really hard to understand why you would let someone else take
the samples and only see through the camera" and "It's really not
normal... I don't know why they accepted it. I think the IAEA is
probably getting a little desperate to settle this" [l]. On the
Congressional side, a visit by Amano to the Hill on the side deals left
Senators fuming [m].
The IAEA reacted to this morning's leak by issuing more assurances
about the adequacy of Iranian self-inspections. White House validators
have already picked up the "redundant continuous surveillance" theme and
you're likely to hear more of it [n].
The problem is that the IAEA assurances read a little bit like a
hostage note: lawmakers, experts, and journalists know that the
arrangement is unprecedented and that inspectors need to be on the
ground, so the IAEA statements may be read as evidence that the agency
has bent to political pressure.
What could go wrong?
Labels: IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), uranium enrichment
IAEA: Iran may have built extension to Parchin
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that Iran may have built
an extension to its Parchin nuclear weapons testing facility since May, making it impossible to determine how far along Iran was in nuclear weapons research before entering into its farcical deal with the P 5+1 (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The confidential IAEA report, obtained by Reuters, said:
"Since
(our) previous report (in May), at a particular location at the Parchin
site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery,
the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction
materials. In addition, a small extension to an existing building"
appeared to have been built.
The changes were first observed last month, a senior diplomat familiar with the Iran file said.
The
IAEA says any activities Iran has undertaken at Parchin since U.N.
inspectors last visited in 2005 could jeopardize its ability to verify
Western intelligence suggesting Tehran carried out tests there relevant
to nuclear bomb detonations more than a decade ago. Iran has dismissed
the intelligence as "fabricated".
...
"We cannot know or speculate what's in the
(extended) building ... It's something we will technically clarify over
the course of the year," the senior diplomat said. The report said the
extended building was not the one that some countries suspect has housed
the controversial experiments.
"It’s
funny that the IAEA claims there has been a small extension to a
building ... Iran doesn't need to ask for the IAEA's permission to do
construction work on its sites," Reza Najafi, Iran's envoy to the
agency, was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.
I can't even say what I'd like to say about this. Certainly not in any forum that is likely to be widely dispersed.
Messiah should be arriving soon. It's the only solution.
Labels: IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin
Iran to pay for its own 'nuclear inspections'?
With the IAEA looking for money to pay for inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities, the US State Department suggested on Wednesday another source of payment aside from
the American taxpayer:
Iran itself.
John Kirby, a spokesman for the Department of State, declined to
answer multiple questions about how international inspections of Iran’s
nuclear sites would be paid for by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), which is requesting at least $10 million to carry out the
work.
The United States will likely fund some portion of the cost, and
Kirby left open the possibility that Iran could also foot some of the
bill.
The matter has been the subject of much speculation in recent days
after it came to light that Iran would be permitted to inspect its own
nuclear sites, raising the possibility that Iran could continue to hide
nuclear weapons work.
“I don’t have any specific funding contributions to speak to today in
terms of amount,” Kirby told reporters. “We’re still working our way
through that. I do want to add that we have every intention to continue
to contribute to the IAEA for the purpose of this—doing this very
important work of the verification of Iran’s nuclear-related
commitments.”
“I won’t speak for Iran,” Kirby added. “I don’t know what, if any,
commitments Iran has or will engender under this, but we’ve—as we noted
in the statement, we’re committed to working with all the member states
to ensure that the IAEA has the resources that it needs.”
When pressed to explain whether the United States would pay for Iran
to inspect its own nuclear sites or press the Iranian government to foot
the bill, Kirby demurred.
“Honestly don’t have a specific answer for you in that regard,” Kirby
told reporters. “I mean, again, we’re going to contribute—continue to
contribute to the IAEA and their funding needs specifically as it
relates to this deal. And it’s not just us; we want other member states
to do it as well.”
“I’ll let Iran speak for itself in terms of what, if any,
contributions it plans to make,” he added.
“But I don’t know that I
would characterize the funding resources applied to IAEA and their need
to do this work as sort of then paying for any efforts done by Iranian
officials to meet compliance.”
Matthew Lee, a reporter for the Associated Press, continued to question Kirby on the issue.
“Well, I mean, someone’s got to pay for it,” Lee said. “They’re not
going to work for free, whoever they are, whether they’re Iranians or
they’re from Djibouti.”
“Well, I’m assuming many of them are government—work for the government of Iran,” Kirby responded.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat
Your favorite uncle to preserve Obama's 'legacy'
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that
its budget will be busted by the end of September (of this year) if it has to keep monitoring Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (Hat Tip:
Gershon D).
Yukiya Amano, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), announced on Tuesday that his organization's funds to monitor
Iran's nuclear program will run out next month, indicating a potential
road block for last month's Iran nuclear deal.
Up to this point the IAEA has been receiving funding for its
monitoring of Iran thanks to member state contributions that were
outside the scope of the body's regular budget, reports Reuters.
The IAEA chief asked member states to fork over more funds to
continue the monitoring of the Islamic regime, revealing that the
800,000 euros ($924,000) a month that it has received to this point will
run out by the end of September.
Amano detailed the expenses needed in order to monitor Iran until the
nuclear deal is implemented - presumably early next year - listing
them at 160,000 euros (over $184,000) per month. He added that 9.2
million euros (over $10.5 million) a year will be needed by the IAEA to
monitor Iran under the framework of the deal.
The IAEA's annual budget hit 350 million euros (over $402 million)
last year, and according to Amano he will seek to incorporate the costs
of monitoring Iran as part of the deal into the IAEA's regular annual
budget starting in 2017.
But have no fear. Your favorite Uncle (his name is Sam in case you've forgotten) is going to
step in to pay all the costs of monitoring that no one else will pay.
The United States said on Tuesday it will make sure the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has enough money to report on Iran's past,
present and future nuclear programs.
The UN nuclear watchdog has
asked its member states to step up financial contributions for its
monitoring activities in Iran which are set to widen after Tehran
reached a deal with world powers in July to curb its atomic program.
"The
United States is committed to working with all (IAEA) member states to
ensure the agency has the resources it needs to verify Iran's
nuclear-related commitments under the (July 14 agreement)," the US
mission in Vienna said in a statement.
And if no one else will pay, Uncle Sam will pay it himself. Or the IAEA will just leave and we'll let Iran monitor itself. Because, after all,
Obama's gotta have a legacy.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat
Amano's deficient damage control
I don't know when on Thursday
this press release from IAEA director Yukia Amano was posted - it only has a date, but no time on it. But as I've reported already, the IAEA's agreement with Iran has been
posted by AP despite Amano. Here's what the IAEA director had to say (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
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.
The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA
and Iran in July 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.
However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and
consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise
our safeguards standards in any way.
The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement,
with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present
outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.
If I were sitting in a press conference with Mr. Amano, here's what I would ask:
Mr. Amano, can you name another country aside from Iran in which the IAEA relies solely on photos, videos and soil samples provided by the country under inspection?
Can you name any other country in which an IAEA inspection is merely a 'courtesy visit'?
If Olympic athletes were allowed to provide urine samples without anyone ensuring that they were their own, would you consider that reliable? How could you ensure their authenticity?
How can you ensure the authenticity of a soil sample that you did not watch being taken?
Unbelievable. This whole 'inspection' is a farce. And Amano has been caught with his pants down (I will assume he released that statement before AP released the agreement).
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, United States Congress, uranium enrichment, Yukia Amano
AP gets text of 'secret' Iran-IAEA deal, makes White House look like idiots
Just yesterday, I posted a
Wall Street Journal editorial discussing an
AP report that Iran was going to be allowed to carry out
its own inspections at Parchin, the Tehran facility where Iran was likely
developing nuclear weapons a couple of years ago.
When I went to sleep last night, a Max Fisher piece
attacking that report was trending. Fisher's report was largely based on conversations with Jeffrey Lewis, a guy known on Twitter as @ArmsControlWonk.
"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.
In fact, the text of the article said something much more modest. It
said that in a one-time set of inspections at one military facility
known as Parchin, Iranians, rather than nuclear inspectors, would take
"environmental samples" (such as soil samples). It said that nuclear
inspectors would not be permitted to visit, and that Iran would not
provide photos or videos of the site. But still, it was concerning.
"The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of
IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The
details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how
weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a
country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector
present."
The sourcing in the story, though, seemed to water it down a bit
more. The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on
a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the
document said there was a final version that is similar, but
conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.
"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said.
"And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided
account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using
that to advance a particular policy agenda."
The White House was so pleased that at 6:00 pm Eastern last night, they were still
passing the Fisher piece around to reporters. Just one problem:
AP posted the
actual agreement at 4:35 Eastern.
1. Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including
those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed
between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
2. Iran will provide to the Agency videos of the locations, including
those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed
between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
3. Iran will provide to the Agency 7 environmental samples taken from
points inside one building already identified by the Agency and agreed
by Iran, and 2 points outside of the Parchin complex which would be
agreed between Iran and the Agency.
4. The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the
activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above. Activities will be
carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment, consistent with
technical specifications provided by the Agency, and the Agency's
containers and seals.
5. The above mentioned measures would be followed, as a courtesy by
Iran, by a public visit of the Director General, as a dignitary guest of
the Government of Iran, accompanied by his deputy for safeguards.
6. Iran and the Agency will organize a one-day technical roundtable on issues relevant to Parchin.
For the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tero Varjoranta, Deputy Director General for Safeguards
For the Islamic Republic of Iran: Ali Hoseini Tash, Deputy Secretary of Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs
What I want to know is, why can the AP get this stuff when
Congress couldn't?
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, United States Congress, uranium enrichment, Yukia Amano
Iran's engraved invitation to develop nuclear weapons
It was bad enough when we heard that the United States cannot send nuclear inspectors to Iran. At all. It was worse when we heard that Iran had the right to approve any nuclear inspectors who did show up. Now, we're beyond that. It turns out that the IAEA cannot inspect Iran's Parchin site - where it is known to have worked on
nuclear weapons - either. With reports already circulating that Iran is
sanitizing Parchin in broad daylight, it now turns out that Parchin will have an excessively lenient inspection regime...
to be carried out by Iran itself. This is from a Wall Street Journal editorial.
But that spin started to unravel three weeks ago with the discovery
that the Parchin inspections were part of a secret side agreement
between the IAEA and Iran—not between Iran and the six negotiating
countries. Secretary of State John Kerry has said he hasn’t read the side deal, though his negotiating deputy Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that she “saw the pieces of paper” but couldn’t keep them. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has told Members of the U.S. Congress that he’s bound by secrecy and can’t show them the side deals.
That
secrecy should be unacceptable to Congress—all the more so after the AP
dispatch. The news service says it has seen a document labelled
“separate arrangement II.” The document says Iran will provide the IAEA
with photos and locations that the IAEA says are linked to Iran’s
weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.”
In other
words, the country that lied for years about its nuclear weapons program
will now be trusted to come clean about those lies. And trusted to such
a degree that it can limit its self-inspections so they don’t raise
“military concerns” in Iran.
Keep in mind that the side deal
already excludes a role for the U.S., and that the IAEA lacks any way to
enforce its side deal since it has no way of imposing penalties for
violations. Iran has also already ruled out any role for American or
Canadian nationals on the inspection teams.
Why not cut out the IAEA middle man and simply let Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, sign a personal affadavit?
The
AP report hadn’t been contradicted by our deadline on Wednesday, and a
White House spokesman told AP merely that the U.S. is “confident in the
agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military
dimensions of Iran’s former program.” That sounds like a confirmation.
The
news raises further doubts about a nuclear pact that is already leaking
credibility. Unfettered access to Parchin is crucial to understanding
Iran’s past nuclear work, which is essential to understanding how close
Iran has come to getting the bomb. Without that knowledge it’s
impossible to know if Iran really is a year or more away from having the
bomb, which is the time period that Mr. Kerry says is built into the
accord and makes it so worth doing.
Earlier this year President
Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which says Congress
must receive all documents related to the deal, including any “entered
into or made between Iran and any other parties.” That has to mean the
IAEA.
Republican Presidential Candidate and Senator Ted Cruz went
ballistic over this (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
“Enough,” Cruz told TheBlaze in a statement. “Enough of the concessions,
capitulations and backroom deals that make up President Obama’s
catastrophic nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
He continued: “The most recent revelation that Iran will be selecting
its own inspectors to verify the nature of its nuclear program is made
all the more egregious by the fact that as the single largest
contributor to the IAEA (support that is mandated in the JCPOA) United
States taxpayers will be paying for a farce that is a direct threat to
their own security.”
Cruz, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran nuclear deal since
it was announced, argued the agreement is a matter of national
security, not politics.
“This is not a partisan issue. It is not about President Obama’s
political legacy. It is about the future of our country, and that of our
allies,” he told TheBlaze. “We have to stop this disastrous deal.”
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Parchin, Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), Ted Cruz, uranium enrichment
Iran: Nuclear weapon site won't be inspected, Amano didn't disclose agreement to Congress
An Iranian spokesman said on Monday that IAEA Director General Yukia Amano was warned not to disclose Iran's agreement with his agency to the US Congress when he testified there. The spokesman also said that the agreement abides by Iran's red lines, which include no inspection of military facilities. That would include Parchin where the
Iranians worked on nuclear weapons.
"In a letter to Yukiya Amano, we underlined that
if the secrets of the agreement (roadmap between Iran and the IAEA) are
revealed, we will lose our trust in the Agency; and despite the US
Congress's pressures, he didn’t give any information to them," Spokesman
of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Behrouz Kamalvandi
said in a meeting with the Iranian lawmakers in Tehran on Monday.
"Had he done so, he himself would have been harmed," he added.
In relevant remarks early this month, Iran's Envoy
to the International Atomic Energy Agency Reza Najafi warned the UN
nuclear watchdog to avoid disclosing its secret agreements with Tehran.
"The agreements signed between a member country
and the IAEA are definitely secret and cannot be presented to any other
country at all," Najafi said.
Referring to the discussions at the US Congress
during which the US officials elaborated on the nuclear agreement
between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and
France plus Germany), he said, "The discussions revealed that the secret
texts between Iran and the Agency have not even been provided to the US
administration."
"For the very same reason, they cannot be presented to the Senate members either," Najafi added.
...
Amano and Head of the AEOI Ali Akbar Salehi signed a roadmap of cooperation in Vienna on July 14.
The roadmap contains secret arrangements stated in
one or two documents entailing on the methods to be used by the two
sides in their cooperation.
Senior Iranian nuclear officials have said that
all IAEA member states have such secret agreements and the UN nuclear
watchdog is duty bound to keep them secret to any third party individual
or state.
After the roadmap was signed, Salehi announced
that the new agreement would fully settle all unresolved issues
pertaining to Tehran's nuclear activities in the past.
"All past issues will be resolved completely after
Iran and the Agency adopt some measures," Salehi told reporters after
signing an agreement called the Iran-IAEA Cooperation 'Roadmap'.
He said that all agreements, including the
measures decided for Parchin military site, will be implemented with
full respect to Iran's redlines.
Iran had earlier announced that inspection of the country's military sites are one of its redlines.
#ThanksObama. What could go wrong?
Labels: Ali Akbar Salehi, Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, uranium enrichment, Yukia Amano
Iran denying IAEA inspectors access to PMD materials
The ink on the sellout isn't even dry yet and the IAEA is reporting that Iran is
refusing it access to scientists whom it needs to interview as part of its investigation into PMD's (possible military dimensions) of Iran's nuclear program.
But during an interview in Washington, Mr. Amano said Iran still hasn't agreed to provide access to Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other top Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists to assist the IAEA in completing its probe. Mr. Amano visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday in a bid to assure skeptical U.S. lawmakers the IAEA is capable of implementing a vast inspections regime of Iran's nuclear facilities and clarifying the weaponization issue.
Senate Republicans and skeptical Democrats, however, left the 90-minute closed-door meeting frustrated that Mr. Amano refused to share the agency's classified agreements on access to Iranian military sites, scientists and documents.
"I would say most members left with greater concerns about the inspection regime than we came in with," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) told reporters. "It was not a reassuring meeting."
The IAEA has declined to make public the specifics of its investigation, citing confidentiality agreements it maintains with Iran and other countries participating in safeguards programs. Mr. Amano said Wednesday that it was his "legal obligation" to protect confidential information, stressing that such arrangements ensure the IAEA's independence.
"Imagine if a country provides me with confidential information and I do not honor that commitment," Mr. Amano told reporters after the meeting. "No country will share information with me," he said, noting the agency also protects U.S. information.
Many senators remained dissatisfied with his answers, saying they doubted the strength of the inspection regime. Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) said he was concerned that Iran would be responsible for collecting its own samples, rather than the international agency.
"It's like asking an NFL player to mail in their own urine sample instead of the collection being done so you can verify what you're getting is real," Mr. Barrasso said. "My impression listening to him was that the promises the president made are not verifiable."
...
U.S. lawmakers are specifically concerned that the IAEA won't get access to a sprawling military base south of Tehran, called Parchin, where the testing of explosive devices allegedly occurred in the early 2000s.
The agency repeatedly has been denied access to Parchin, and Mr. Amano has charged Tehran in the past with trying to sanitize the site.
On Wednesday, the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank, published satellite photos taken after the Vienna agreement was signed that appeared to show bulldozers moving more land at Parchin.
"These activities could be related to refurbishment or cleanup prior to any IAEA inspection or the taking of environmental samples," the Institute for Science and International Security said in a report accompanying the pictures.
Mr. Amano said Wednesday he couldn't discuss the details of any future inspections of Parchin.
But the Obama administration's lead nuclear negotiator with Iran, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, told a congressional hearing on Wednesday the IAEA could do its work at the base even if its inspectors weren't physically at the site. She said soil sampling overseen by Iran could provide the necessary assurances about the activities at Parchin.
"You know, you don't have to be physically present on every site in this technological world to get done what is necessary," Ms. Sherman said.
Mr. Fakhrizadeh is under U.N., U.S. and EU sanctions for his alleged role in Iran's nuclear weapons program. Under the terms of the Vienna agreement, the penalties on him would be lifted by 2024.
Ah yes... Wendy Sherman... the dork who gave nukes to the Norks....
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren adds (by email):
Administration spokespeople spent the last several years assuring lawmakers and the public that uncertainties related to Iran's past military-related nuclear work - the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran's nuclear program - would have to be resolved in any deal.
The White House had no choice. It had caved on all the conditions that would have physically precluded the Iranians from cheating: dismantling centrifuges, shuttering facilities, and so on. All they had left was the claim that verification would catch the Iranians as they cheat, and resolving PMDs is a prerequisite to a robust verification regime, and so administration officials were adamant they'd secure the access the IAEA needed: Sherman in Dec 2013: "the comprehensive agreement [will] address... their possible military dimensions" [a]; Sherman in Feb 2014: "we have required that Iran come clean on its past actions as part of any comprehensive agreement" [b]; Kerry Apr 2015: "They have to do it. It will be done. If there's going to be a deal; it will be done." [c]; Kirby Jun 2015: "we have to resolve our questions about it with specificity. Access is very, very critical. It's always been critical from day one; it remains critical" [d].
"Access" in the context of Iran PMDs is divided into access to information/documents, sites, and people [f]. The WSJ revealed on July 26 that the administration had given up on forcing to provide the necessary information/documents detailing their past weaponization work [g]. The AP revealed two days later that instead of the IAEA getting access to sites like Parchin, where they conducted experiments relevant to warhead detonations, the Iranians would be allowed to take their own samples and hand them over [h], which Congressional lawmakers believe will now be established as a precedent [i].
And last night the WSJ confirmed that inspectors aren't getting access to the people they want either. IAEA director-general Amano is now hoping that maybe the Iranians will give the agency access to other people who might be able to clarify their concerns some other way.
Iran so far has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to interview key scientists and military officers to investigate allegations that Tehran maintained a covert nuclear-weapons program, the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog said in an interview Wednesday... Mr. Amano said Tehran still hasn't agreed to let Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists help the IAEA complete its investigation. The Japanese diplomat indicated that he believed his agency could complete its probe even without access to top-level Iranian personnel.
"We don't know yet," Mr. Amano said about the agency's interview requests... Amano said Iran still hasn't agreed to provide access to Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other top Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists to assist the IAEA in completing its probe.
That completes the trifecta: no access to information/documents, no access to sites, and no access to people.
Will Congress wake up in time?
Labels: IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), Yukia Amano
It starts: US intel warns Congress Iran is sanitizing Parchin in broad daylight
US intelligence officials have informed Congress that it has detected that Iran is '
sanitizing' its Parchin facility outside Tehran where Western countries are virtually certain it has carried out nuclear weapons development activity in the past. The 'sanitizing,' which is being carried out in broad daylight, is apparently a last-ditch effort by Tehran to thwart the ability of IAEA inspectors to reconstruct the extent of the PMD's (possibly military dimensions) of Iran's nuclear program at Parchin. This is from Eli Lake and Josh Rogin.
Intelligence officials and lawmakers who have seen the new evidence,
which is still classified, told us that satellite imagery picked up by
U.S. government assets in mid- and late July showed that Iran had moved
bulldozers and other heavy machinery to the Parchin site and that the
U.S. intelligence community concluded with high confidence that the
Iranian government was working to clean up the site ahead of planned
inspections by the IAEA.
The intelligence community shared its
findings with lawmakers and some Congressional staff late last week,
four people who have seen the evidence told us. The Office of the
Director of National Intelligence briefed lawmakers about the evidence
Monday, three U.S. senators said.
“I am familiar with it,” Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told us Tuesday. “I think
it’s up to the administration to draw their conclusions. Hopefully this
is something they will speak on, since it is in many ways verified by
commercial imagery. And their actions seem to be against the grain of
the agreement.”
Burr said Iran’s activities at Parchin complicate
the work of the IAEA inspectors who are set to examine the site in the
coming months. IAEA's director general, Yukiya Amano, was in Washington
on Wednesday to brief lawmakers behind closed doors about the side
agreements.
“They are certainly not going to see the site that
existed. Whether that’s a site that can be determined what it did, only
the technical experts can do that,” Burr said. “I think it’s a huge
concern.”
The Obama administration is already spinning.
A senior intelligence official, when asked about the satellite
imagery, told us the IAEA was also familiar with what he called
"sanitization efforts" since the deal was reached in Vienna, but that
the U.S. government and its allies had confidence that the IAEA had the
technical means to detect past nuclear work anyway.
Another
administration official explained that this was in part because any
trace amounts of enriched uranium could not be fully removed between now
and Oct. 15, the deadline for Iran to grant access and answer remaining
questions from the IAEA about Parchin.
So what? I'm not a nuclear expert, but couldn't removing soil or destroying buildings result in the uranium concentration in the area being lower? Not to mention....
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told us Tuesday
that while Iran’s activity at Parchin last month isn’t technically a
violation of the agreement it signed with the U.S. and other powers, it
does call into question Iran’s intention to be forthright about the
possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.
Did anyone ever expect them to be forthright about this? It's kind of like....
Several senior lawmakers, including Democrats, are concerned that Iran
will be able to collect its own soil samples at Parchin with only
limited supervision, a practice several lawmakers have compared to
giving suspected drug users the benefit of the doubt to submit specimens
unsupervised. Iran’s sanitization of the site further complicates that
verification.
Yeah. If this goes through, I think the Obama administration should advocate for Tom Brady being able to choose which footballs to let the NFL examine after each game.
David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, obtained a commercially available image of the
Parchin site taken by satellites on July 26 that shows renewed activity
at the Parchin site. He told us there are two new large vehicles,
alterations ongoing to roofs of two of the buildings and new structures
near two of the buildings.
“You have to worry that this could be
an attempt by Iran to defeat the sampling, that it’s Iran’s last-ditch
effort to eradicate evidence there,” he said. “The day is coming when
they are going to have to let the IAEA into Parchin, so they may be
desperate to finish sanitizing the site.”
After all, if you can't trust a country whose motto is 'death to America, death to Israel,' who can you trust?
Meanwhile, for the Obama administration, all is going according to plan.
Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the U.S. government has “absolute knowledge”
about what Iran has done in the past. Ahead of the vote on the
agreement next month, many lawmakers don't share Kerry's confidence.
Iran would seem to have its doubts as well, since it's still trying to
cover its tracks.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Parchin, Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), uranium enrichment
The other shoe drops: Egypt sponsoring IAEA resolution to monitor Israel's nuclear capability
The other shoe may be about to drop on Israel. Egypt is introducing a resolution at an IAEA meeting in September, which will call on the international regulator to
monitor Israel's nuclear program. Iran is likely to join the resolution. And while the resolution would not be binding like a Security Council resolution, it would certainly cause diplomatic embarrassment to Israel.
A senior Foreign Ministry official said he feared the recent nuclear deal between Iran and the six powers will make it hard for Israel to defeat the resolution.
The resolution, titled “Israeli nuclear capabilities,” has been repeatedly proposed by Egypt in recent years. It condemns Israel, demands that it open its reported nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection, and calls for an international conference on making the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone.
...
Though Egypt is the IAEA resolution’s chief sponsor, Iran seems likely to join the move. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif indicated as much by publishing an article in The Guardian titled, “Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal – now it’s Israel’s turn.”
Zarif wrote that Israel must be pressured to join the NPT and advance an international conference on a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East. Israel, he wrote, has “an undeclared nuclear arsenal and a declared disdain towards non-proliferation, notwithstanding its absurd and alarmist campaign against the Iranian nuclear deal.”
For the last three years, Israel has succeeding in mustering a majority against Egypt’s IAEA resolution, thanks partly to proposals for a direct regional security dialogue with Arab states under UN auspices. Egypt and various other countries rejected these proposals, but they earned Israel considerable international credit.
The campaign to thwart the latest resolution began two weeks ago, when the Foreign Ministry sent a cable to all Israeli embassies and consulates instructing them to urge their host governments to oppose it.
“The resolution is fundamentally biased and mistaken, aimed at diverting global attention from the real dangers of nuclear proliferation in this region,” the cable’s talking points said. “This move will further politicize the IAEA and undermine the trust necessary for any regional dialogue on this issue.”
Israel has also sent personal envoys to several countries it considers key to winning the vote. For instance, former Foreign Ministry director general Nissim Ben Shitrit went to Argentina about 10 days ago, on the assumption that if Argentina doesn’t back the Arab proposal, other Latin American countries would likely follow suit.
Senior Israeli officials are divided over how the Iranian deal will impact the IAEA debate. Some argue that following the Iran agreement, America and other leading countries won’t want to raise the pressure on Israel even further. But others fear that with the Iran deal done, the international focus will shift to Israel’s nuclear program. They also fear Israel will enjoy less American support than in the past, due to the severe tensions with Washington over the Iran deal.
I hope that the 78% of American Jews who voted for this administration are pleased. Surely they will still have those smirks on their ugly faces when - God Forbid - as Mike Huckabee said last week, Israelis are led to the ovens.
Labels: Dimona nuclear reactor, Egypt, IAEA, Iranian nuclear program, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli nuclear capability
IAEA's Amano to testify at closed Senate session
IAEA Chairman Yukiya Amano will appear at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Wednesday to privately brief members of the committee on the
nuclear sellout to Iran.
The director general’s visit to Washington comes amid questions from
many in Congress over separate agreements between Iran and the
Vienna-based IAEA that are linked to the overall nuclear deal negotiated
between Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers.
Critics of
the talks with the longtime U.S. nemesis have cast the agreements as
“secret side deals” and have demanded that their contents be revealed.
The
State Department has described the documents as “technical arrangements
with the IAEA [that] are as a matter of standard practice not released
publicly or to other states” but added that U.S. officials have been
briefed on them.
Some lawmakers also have questioned whether the
U.S. should have a more direct role in inspecting Iran’s nuclear
facilities, even though the Islamist-led government in Tehran doesn’t
want American inspectors on its soil.
I would love to be a fly on the wall for that session. Maybe I should call the Mossad....
Labels: IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, United States Senate, Yukia Amano
It's come to this: Iran demands Senate not be given access to its agreement with IAEA, 'just like the Obama administration'
Iran is demanding that the United States Senate be denied access to its agreement with the IAEA...
just like the Obama administration.
Iran's Envoy to the International Atomic Energy
Agency Reza Najafi objected to the US Senate's demand for being briefed
about the contents of the recently signed roadmap of cooperation between
Tehran and the IAEA, warning the UN nuclear watchdog to avoid
disclosing its secret agreements with Tehran.
"The
agreements signed between a member country and the IAEA are definitely
secret and cannot be presented to any other country at all," Najafi said
in an interview with the Iranian students news agency on Saturday.
Referring to the discussions at the US Congress
during which the US officials elaborated on the nuclear agreement
between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and
France plus Germany), he said, "The discussions revealed that the secret
texts between Iran and the Agency have not even been provided to the US
administration."
"For the very same reason, they cannot be presented to the Senate members either," Najafi added.
Elsewhere in an interview with another Iranian
news agency, the envoy said Tehran has already warned the IAEA chief
against the repercussions of a disclosure of its agreement with the UN
nuclear watchdog agency.
"Iran has clarified it to Amano that the text of
its understanding with the IAEA cannot be presented to the Senate,"
Najafi reiterated.
He further warned that "the Agency knows what it means to disclose a secret document".
This is worse than Obamacare. The Congress was told it could read about Obamacare once they signed the bill. This time, they cannot even do that.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Ali Akbar Salehi, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate, Yukia Amano
How to read a poll
A Pew Research poll finds that of the 79% of Americans (surprised it's so low) who have heard about President Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran,
most are opposed to the deal, don't trust Iran to abide by it, and have limited confidence in the West's ability to monitor it (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Among the 79% of Americans who have heard about the agreement, just
38% approve, while 48% disapprove (14% do not offer an opinion).
There is widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement,
particularly the Iranian leadership’s commitment to the terms of the
deal: Most of those familiar with the agreement say they have not too
much (35%) or no confidence at all (38%) that Iran’s leaders will uphold
their side of the agreement. And while there is greater confidence in
the U.S. and international agencies’ ability to monitor Iran’s
compliance, 54% are not too (33%) or not at all (21%) confident, while a
smaller share (45%) express at least a fair amount of confidence in
their ability.
I'm sure many of you saw the Obama administration claiming that most Americans support the Iran deal, as shown by
polls like this one. So what's the difference? Why the gap in the results? Pew explains:
The different findings on public views of the Iran nuclear agreement
in the Washington Post/ABC News and Pew Research Center surveys
highlight how question wording – and the information provided in a
question – can impact public opinion, particularly on issues where
public views are still being shaped and information levels are
relatively low. The Pew Research question, which does not describe the
agreement, finds lower levels of support than the Post/ABC News
question, which details the intention to monitor Iran’s facilities and
raises the possibility of re-imposition of sanctions if Iran does not
comply.
In other questions, both the Washington Post/ABC survey and the Pew
Research Center survey find substantial public skepticism about the
agreement. The Pew Research Center survey asks about confidence
in Iran’s leadership to uphold their end of the deal and the ability of
the U.S. and international agencies to monitor compliance, finding that
majorities are not confident about either. And the Washington Post/ABC
News poll asks people how confident they are “that this agreement will
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – very confident, somewhat
confident, not so confident or not confident at all,” finding that 64%
are not confident in this.
Though levels of support for the agreement differ depending on how
the question is asked, both questions find large divides between
Democrats and Republicans in approval of the deal, although that
division is more pronounced in the Pew Research question than in the
Washington Post/ABC News question.
In other words, it's all in how you ask the question (and what results you choose to highlight), which is why large political campaigns all hire their own pollsters.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Pew poll, polls
Future access to Parchin weapons testing site not granted
The International Atomic Energy Agency has signed a
roadmap with Iran under which they will allegedly resolve all inspection issues by year-end. But one facility to which the IAEA will apparently not be granted access is the Parchin military compound where Iran likely
tested nuclear
weapons. This is from the first link.
VIENNA,
July 14 (Reuters) - The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency signed a
roadmap with Iran on Tuesday with the aim of resolving all outstanding
questions it has about the country's nuclear programme by the end of the
year, the IAEA's director general said on Tuesday.
Future
access to Iran's Parchin military site, which the agency had repeatedly
sought, is part of a separate "arrangement", Yukiya Amano said.
"By
15 December 2015, the Director General will provide... the final
assessment on the resolution of all past and present outstanding
issues," he added.
What could go wrong?
Labels: IAEA, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, P 5+1, Parchin
Khameni to reject P 5+1 deal?
I would bet on Khameni rejecting the deal over the inspections... and Obama and Kerry conceding that point too. Here's a hint.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
The New York Times gives Iran equal time
A frelichen (happy) Purim to all of you - here in Jerusalem the holiday does not start until tomorrow night.
Imagine, if you would, that on
December 26 or 27, 1941, the New York Times had given equal time to Adolph Hitler to respond to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's speech before the a joint session of the United States Congress. What do you think would have happened?
Would Hitler have explained how Germany needed
lebensraum because its then-current size was insufficient for its growing population?
Would he have explained how the 'real issue' was the Jewish 'leeches' who were sucking Germany's resources dry?
Would he have justified that month's Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a 'necessary response' to American 'aggression'?
We'll never know, because in those days the Times had not yet heard the words 'politically correct.' But today is different, and the Times has - incredibly - given op-ed space to
Iran's ambassador to the United Nations to respond to Prime Minister Netanyahu. No, this is not a Purim joke.
Despite extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency,
no evidence has ever been presented to contradict the clear commitment
by Iran’s leaders that they would under no circumstances engage in
manufacturing, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons. In 2013, for example, only Japan, which has many more nuclear facilities than Iran, was subject to greater agency scrutiny.
Really?
As one side of the talks that continue in Geneva, Iran can also bear
testimony to the campaign of misinformation by Mr. Netanyahu to mislead
the global public about the details of those nuclear negotiations. When
the parties were finalizing the interim agreement in 2013, Mr. Netanyahu claimed that it would involve Iran’s receiving $50 billion in sanctions relief; the actual amount was about $7 billion.
And as for his prediction that Iran would never abide by the terms of
the accord, Iran has dutifully stood by every commitment — as the
International Atomic Energy Agency has reported.
Stood by every commitment?
Really?
In our view, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently used these false alarms and
outlandish claims both to serve his domestic political maneuvering and
to create a smoke screen that relegates the Palestinian
question to the margins. We have noted how his rhetoric has intensified
in proportion to the international pressure on Israel to stop the
settlement activity and end the occupation of the Palestinian territory.
Oh, of course. And Britain was using its cries of alarm over Nazi Germany in 1941 to cover '
mass Jewish immigration' to Palestine under its auspices.
Have we moved from
1939 to 1941? Are we now seeing what the Times would have looked like had it been sufficiently politically correct back then? Who will protest?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, IAEA, Iranian nuclear threat, joint session of Congress, Winston Churchill
IAEA: Iran may be developing nuclear weapons
As President Hussein Obama prepares to appease Iran, Yukia Amano, the chairman of the body that will be asked to monitor any agreement with the mullahcracy, says that his agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is
unable to verify whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons due to Iran's refusal to cooperate.
The head of the
United Nations' nuclear watchdog said on Monday Iran had still not
handed over key information to his staff, and his body's investigation
into Tehran's atomic program could not continue indefinitely.
"Iran has yet to provide
explanations that enable the agency to clarify two outstanding practical
measures," chief Yukiya Amano told the body's Board of Governors in
Vienna, echoing a report seen by Reuters last month.
The
two measures relating to alleged explosives tests and other measures
that might have been used for bomb research should have been addressed
by Iran by last August.
"The Agency is not in a position to provide
credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and
activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material
in Iran is in peaceful activities," Amano said.
...
The Agency remains ready to accelerate the
resolution of all outstanding issues, he added, but "this process cannot
continue indefinitely".
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iranian nuclear threat, North Korea, Yukia Amano
Iran has five times as many centrifuges as previously believed?
Oh my....
IRAN could have five times more advanced centrifuges capable of producing
weapons-grade uranium than it has previously admitted, according to the
former deputy chief of the UN nuclear watchdog.
Olli Heinonen, who spent 27 years at the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), said Iran could have up to 5,000 IR-2m centrifuges rather than the
1,008 it has claimed. The IR-2m devices are up to five times more effective
in enriching uranium than older IR-1 types.
Heinonen was speaking on the eve of nuclear negotiations between Iran’s
Islamic regime and the P5+1 countries, which are America, Britain, Russia,
China, France and Germany.
Heinonen said Tehran “could have up to 4,000 to 5,000 [IR-2m] centrifuges or
raw materials for them” located outside two of its largest nuclear sites,
Natanz and Fordow.
Your legacy, Mr. Obama?
Labels: centrifuges, IAEA, Iranian nuclear threat
Stonewall Rohani laughing all the way to the bank
Now that the international sanctions regime against Iran is essentially gone (thank you President Hussein Obama), the IAEA reports that
Iran is refusing to answer questions regarding its nuclear weapons program.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director Yukiya Amano
revealed last Friday that Iran is refusing to answer questions about
whether or not its nuclear program has included activities to build a
nuclear bomb.
Amano said at the Brookings Institute
in Washington DC that his agency is waiting for information on
"possible military dimensions," which Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
has promised to deliver - and never gotten around to doing.
"What is needed now is action," said Amano, enumerating a list
of around a dozen issues that Iran has refused to elaborate on for
years, reports the New York Times.
"We cannot provide assurance that all material is for peaceful
purposes," admitted the IAEA head. "The international community still
has its doubts - it still wants clarification. That inquiry process will
depend on Iran's level of cooperation."
...
Amano continued, saying "Iran has a case to answer. I talked to
President Rouhani, Iran is willing to accelerate the process of the
clarification of the...issue. For now the progress is limited."
He added that limited funds and increased demand for their
service has the IAEA stretched thin, monitoring via satellite imagery
from Vienna. The organization considers "state capabilities as a whole rather than focusing on individual facilities," Amano said.
An expert on the issue who asked for anonymity told International Business Times that
the problem is with IAEA's resources, as only three people from the
agency are investigating the military aspects of Iran's nuclear program.
The 'deadline' for reaching a deal with Iran is November 24. What could go wrong?
Labels: Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Hassan Rohani, IAEA, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Yukia Amano
