Head of Group Opposing Iran Accord Quits Post, Saying He Backs Deal
Gary Samore was president of United Against Nuclear Iran. Credit Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Associated Press
By MICHAEL R. GORDON AUG. 11, 2015
WASHINGTON — When the bipartisan advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran decided last week to mobilize opposition against the nuclear deal with Tehran, Gary Samore knew he could no longer serve as its president.
“I think President Obama’s strategy succeeded,” said Mr. Samore, who left his post on Monday. “He has created economic leverage and traded it away for Iranian nuclear concessions.”
As soon as Mr. Samore left, the group announced a new standard-bearer with a decidedly different message: Joseph I. Lieberman, the former senator from Connecticut and the new chairman of the group.
“It’s a bad deal,” said Mr. Lieberman, who believes that lawmakers have a chance to block the accord even if that means overcoming a presidential veto. “If the Iranians are pressured more, I think we can get a better agreement.”
To get that message across, the group has announced a multimillion-dollar television and digital media campaign.
Yet it is Mr. Samore’s quiet departure as president of the organization that is resonating among the small community of experts who have pored over the agreement.
Mr. Samore, who traveled to Iran in 2005, is well known to the Iranians. At a dinner that Mr. Samore attended during a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in 2013, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, repeated assurances that Iran’s nuclear efforts were entirely peaceful.
“We are all united against a nuclear Iran,” he quipped, as he cast a glance at Mr. Samore.
Mr. Samore, who now runs the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, initially said that the chances of a successful negotiation were dim. But after the framework of an accord was announced [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html ] in Lausanne, Switzerland, in April, he praised it as a good first step.
Mark D. Wallace, the chief executive of the group and a diplomat in the George W. Bush administration, said that the organization’s members had sought to keep an open mind. But after the final terms became clear, “The opposition was nearly unanimous,” he said.
With that move, it was clear that Mr. Samore needed to move on.
“We had an honest discussion that I wouldn’t be able to continue to serve as president if UANI was going to come out against the agreement, since I support it,” Mr. Samore said.
“Nonetheless, I support the work that UANI has done in the past to strengthen sanctions, and I think they will have a role to play in the future to maintain nonnuclear sanctions if the deal goes forward,” he said. (He will continue to serve on the group’s advisory board.)
Though he backs the accord as the most that can be achieved diplomatically, Mr. Samore is skeptical that the agreement will open a new chapter in American-Iranian relations.
“The best you can achieve with diplomacy is delay in the hope that at some point a new Iranian government emerges that is not committed to developing nuclear weapons,” he said.
And if that leadership does not materialize, Mr. Samore acknowledges that Iran might vastly expand its nuclear enrichment program after core elements of the agreement expire in 15 years.
He is also not convinced that Iran will continue to adhere to the accord once economic sanctions are lifted. Even so, he argues, the accord will put the United States in a stronger position to respond than a congressional rejection would.
“We will have bought a couple of years, and if Iran cheats or reneges we will be in an even better position to double down on sanctions or, if necessary, use military force,” Mr. Samore said. “If I knew for certain that in five years they would cheat or renege, I’d still take the deal.”
340 rabbis urge Congress to approve Iran nuclear deal
Rabbi Rachel Mikva of Chicago. Photo courtesy of Rabbi Rachel Mikva
Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Orthodox Union.
Lauren Markoe August 17, 2015
(RNS) Rebuffing a campaign among Jewish organizations to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal, 340 rabbis sent a letter [ http://www.ameinu.net/blog/current-issues/rabbis4thedeal/ ] to Congress Monday (Aug. 17) supporting the agreement and rejecting the notion that most American Jews oppose it.
“Most especially, we are deeply concerned with the impression that the leadership of the American Jewish community is united in opposition to the agreement,” the letter states. “We, along with many other Jewish leaders, fully support this historic nuclear accord.”
The Jewish community around the world, concentrated in the U.S. and Israel, has paid close attention to the nuclear deal, which was negotiated by the U.S., Iran, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia China and the European Union. It aims to hamper Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon and would lift sanctions on the theocratic regime.
Many American Jews, citing Iran’s leaders’ repeated denunciations of the U.S. and threats to destroy Israel, have concluded that no deal with Iran is a good deal. Several national Jewish organizations, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — as well as many evangelical Christians — are lobbying Congress to vote it down.
The rabbis who sent the letter Monday argue that, while they have reason to distrust Iran’s leaders, the deal is the best available strategy to confront the specter of a nuclear Iran. And they want to challenge assumptions that Jews who oppose the deal represent American Jews as a whole.
“A wide array of views about the nuclear deal exist among American Jews,” said Rabbi Rachel Mikva of Chicago, who signed the letter.
She and others point to a recent poll [ http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/new_poll_u.s._jews_support_iran_deal_despite_misgivings ] from the L.A. Jewish Journal, which showed that Jewish Americans support the Iran deal by a larger margin than Americans in general, with 49 percent of American Jews approving of it, and 31 percent disapproving. The poll, of 501 American Jews, had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.
The signatories to the letter include many rabbis in the more liberal Reform movement — the largest stream of Judaism — but also at least 50 rabbis from the more traditional Conservative movement, and at least one Orthodox rabbi, according to organizers of the effort.
“There is no denying that there are differences of opinion within the mainstream Jewish community,” said Nathan Diament, executive director for public policy of the Orthodox Union, which represents most of the 10 percent of American Jews who call themselves Orthodox.
While the Orthodox Union does not claim to speak for all of American Jews, and while the deal should not be judged on a poll, there is no question that the Orthodox are overwhelmingly opposed to the agreement, he said. “We are planning to bring hundreds of rabbis to Washington in early September to lobby Congress and make this point.”
The Reform Jewish movement plans to release a statement on the deal this week.
Congress is expected to vote on the deal in mid-September.
EXCLUSIVE: 340 US rabbis: ‘We support this historic nuclear accord’ (COMMENTARY)
Left to right, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry talk while waiting for Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (not pictured) for a group picture at the Vienna International Center in Vienna on July 14, 2015. Iran and six major world powers reached a nuclear deal on July 14, 2015, capping more than a decade of on-off negotiations with an agreement that could potentially transform the Middle East, and that Israel called an “historic surrender.” Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Left to right, Rabbi Steven Bob serves as a senior rabbi in Lombard, Ill. Rabbi Sam Gordon is a lead rabbi in Wilmette, Ill. Rabbi Rachel Mikva was a congregational rabbi for 13 years and now works as a professor of Jewish Studies. She also directs the Center for Jewish, Christian and Islamic Studies in Chicago, Ill. Rabbi Burt Visotzky, Ph.D., works and lives in New York City where he has served as a rabbi for 38 years. Photos courtesy of each rabbi
Rabbi Steven Bob, Rabbi Sam Gordon, Rabbi Rachel Mikva and Rabbi Burt Visotzky August 17, 2015
(RNS) For the Jewish people, the pursuit of peace is a fundamental religious duty. Our tradition implores us to “seek peace, and pursue it” (Psalms 34:14); unlike other commandments that obligate us when they come our way, we must pursue peace at every opportunity.
The deal with Iran seeks to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb while also reaffirming the United States’ commitment to the pursuit of peaceful foreign policy solutions. We are not naive about the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions; we embrace the agreement precisely because it is our best available option to ensure the security of the United States, Israel, and the entire world.
In light of this agreement, we are deeply concerned with the mistaken impression that the current leadership of the American Jewish community is united in opposition to the agreement. Despite what has been portrayed, these leaders do not represent the majority of Jewish Americans who support Congress’ approval of this deal. We, along with many other Jewish leaders, support this historic nuclear accord by the world’s most powerful nations and believe it is our best hope of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
Some people claim that to fully support the State of Israel and its security needs, American Jews must oppose the deal. This is simply untrue. In fact, we’ve seen many of the leaders of Israel’s military and intelligence community declare that this deal is the best path for Israel moving forward.
The pursuit of peaceful solutions is rife with uncertainties. While there is a real and severe sanctions snapback provision were Iran to cheat, there are no absolute guarantees. We hope that the United States, Israel and our other allies will work together to challenge Iran’s support of terrorist groups and other destabilizing actions in the region. We hope the United States and Israel will work to reaffirm our close friendship and work together in the defense of our shared values.
What is certain is that rejection of the deal would end the international sanctions regime and enable Iran to develop a nuclear bomb within two to three months. What is certain is that Iran will be much further from obtaining a nuclear weapon with this deal than it will be without.
While we represent over 300 leading rabbis in support of the agreement, we also understand the divisiveness of this serious issue. Intellectual dispute is fundamental to Jewish learning and we welcome the wide range of perspectives and careful analysis. We hope that the disparate opinions among many mainstream members of the American Jewish community are welcomed with the respect and thoughtfulness they deserve.
As Jews, we are deeply committed to the welfare of the State of Israel. We understand the concerns of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many Jews around the world about the character of Iran’s leaders. We acknowledge these valid reservations, but we believe a nuclear-armed Iran is an even greater danger to Israel’s security. We believe that this deal is our best available option at halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
We commend the United States negotiating team, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, along with the six major powers negotiating with Iran — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — for their courage and dedication in reaching an agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. As Jews committed to the highest values of our tradition, as Americans who support nonproliferation, and as staunch supporters of the security of the State of Israel, we urge our elected officials to support this accord.
(Rabbi Steven Bob serves as a senior rabbi in Lombard, Ill. Rabbi Sam Gordon is a lead rabbi in Wilmette, Ill. Rabbi Rachel Mikva was a congregational rabbi for 13 years and now works as a professor of Jewish studies. She also directs the Center for Jewish, Christian and Islamic Studies in Chicago, Ill. Rabbi Burt Visotzky, Ph.D., works and lives in New York City where he has served as a rabbi for 38 years.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering signed the statement supporting the Iran nuclear deal. Getty
The deal with Iran exceeds historical standards for arms control agreements, 75 experts say.
By Michael Crowley 8/18/15 5:12 AM EDT Updated 8/18/15 8:33 AM EDT
Dozens of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts have signed a statement endorsing the Iran nuclear deal, the latest salvo in a lobbying campaign battle ahead of a congressional vote next month on President Barack Obama’s landmark agreement with Tehran.
Among the 75 signatories are the former CIA agent Valerie Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, prominent opponents of the Iraq War. Others include Hans Blix, a former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Morton Halperin, a foreign policy veteran of three administrations; and Thomas Pickering, a retired diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Israel.
Several former United Nations disarmament officials, along with leaders of think tanks and foundations dedicated to preventing the spread of nuclear arms, also added their names. Some of the signatories are already known supporters of the deal, which was struck in July.
Their message amplifies a core argument of the Obama administration: that the nuclear deal is well built and durable, and exceeds historical standards for arms control agreements.
If fulfilled by all parties, the statement says, the agreement “will reduce the risk of a destabilizing nuclear competition in a troubled region… and head off a catastrophic military conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.”
Amid a political uproar in Washington, the deal has mostly been celebrated by technical experts. Earlier this month, 29 prominent scientists wrote to Obama saying the deal has “more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.”
But many critics of the deal, led by Republicans in Congress and Israeli officials, argue that it is filled with dangerous loopholes and concessions. They have focused, for instance, on a provision that could theoretically allow Iran to stall for up to 24 days before IAEA inspectors can examine a suspicious undeclared site.
The Arms Control Association statement argues that the deal’s monitoring and verification provisions “make it very likely that any future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly, providing the opportunity to intervene decisively to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
The statement does not directly address a larger concern of opponents — that once the deal’s core provisions sunset after 15 years, Tehran will be poised to install advanced centrifuges and build a weapon in a matter of weeks.
It notes that “all of us could find ways to improve the text” of the deal, while adding that “[we] see no realistic prospect for a better nuclear agreement.”
Backers of the nuclear deal are countering a fierce and well-funded lobbying campaign against the accord by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which will reportedly spend $40 million on the fight.
Congress is expected to vote on the nuclear deal by Sept. 17 and will almost certainly disapprove it, thereby barring President Obama from suspending sanctions on Iran. But it’s not clear that opponents can muster the two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate necessary to override a guaranteed Obama veto.
Obama insists that a defeat in Congress will bring down the deal and put America on a path toward war with Iran. Also lobbying Congress for support are America’s five negotiating partners: Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
Although the White House has suffered setbacks in the Senate — Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, a possible swing vote, have both announced their opposition in recent days — it appears for now that Obama can retain enough House Democratic votes to protect the deal.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director Yukiya Amano. Credit: Associated Press/Ronald Zak
Congress could withhold funding that a critical agency needs to enforce the nuclear deal.
By Ali Watkins Posted: 08/18/2015 03:30 PM EDT | Edited: 08/19/2015 02:10 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- A critical, cash-strapped U.N. agency has found itself in the middle of a game of diplomatic tug of war as lawmakers in Washington wrestle with the Iran nuclear deal.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, hasn’t captured as many headlines as other players in the negotiations. But if Congress approves the pact between Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers, the agency will be the one to check on whether Iran is fulfilling its obligations under the agreement, taking on a whole new set of verification and inspection requirements.
As skeptical legislators search for leverage in their fight against the nuclear deal, the IAEA has become a serious negotiating chip. A decent chunk of its funding comes from Washington and is beholden to fickle lawmakers -- some of whom have threatened to use that money to unspool the Iran agreement.
Earlier this month, Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed [ http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/lindsey-graham-iaea-funding-iran-deal/ ] to hold up the agency's funding until lawmakers received access to additional documents from the Iran accord. Congress is set to vote on the deal framework next month.
IAEA's on-the-ground inspection teams will be the primary check on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. It's likely that only by its say-so would the world start tentatively lifting sanctions.
Money for those inspections comes from United Nations members' voluntary contributions. And a lot of that dough comes from the U.S. -- giving Congress, which has to sign off on most of America's U.N. contributions, a lot of leverage.
"The United States is committed to working with other IAEA member states to provide the agency the resources it needs to continue carrying out this [Joint Plan of Action]-related work," a State Department official told HuffPost, requesting anonymity in order to discuss the sensitive negotiations.
But regardless of the State Department’s intentions, Congress is the one that holds the pursestrings for U.S. contributions to the IAEA. While it’s unclear how much control legislators can exert over the IAEA’s spending, a big enough consort could keep U.S. funds from the pot.
A spokesman for the agency told HuffPost on Wednesday that "a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors has been convened and is expected to take place on 25 August."
"It is expected that the Board will consider a report by the Director General on the requests in Security Council resolution 2231 and on the financial implications for the Agency," the spokesman continued, referring to the U.N. Security Council resolution that officially endorsed [ http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11974.doc.htm ] the Iran agreement.
Established in 1957, the IAEA is responsible for watching and maintaining nuclear security throughout the world. It's made up primarily of member states to the United Nations, and though technically separate from that international body, it reports to the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council.
The agency gets the funds to operate from member states' annual obligations. Programs get funded, but with hardly any wiggle room between the dollar signs when new or unexpected responsibilities arise. Budget trade-offs [ http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654714.pdf ] are a standard method of operation.
In previous years, tracking Iran's nuclear program ate up roughly 12 percent of the IAEA's 164 million euro inspection budget, which is part of the agency's relatively modest 500 million euro annual allocation. (That sum includes both regular contributions and additional, voluntary contributions from member states.) In addition to Iran [ https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran ], the IAEA is also tasked with monitoring the nuclear ambitions and safeguards of some 180 other countries [ https://www.iaea.org/about/by-the-numbers ], according to its latest annual report.
As recently as November, the IAEA told member states [ https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2015-15.pdf ] it required an additional 4.6 million euros to adequately keep tabs on Iran's facilities in accordance with the still-valid Joint Plan of Action. That plan, implemented at the beginning of last year, was an interim agreement [ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/07/229658.htm ] to curb Iran's nuclear program while all sides continued to negotiate a final deal, and involved increased inspections of Iran's facilities by the IAEA.
Plenty of countries -- including those outside [ https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/norway.pdf ] the P5+1 team, the group of world powers that is negotiating with Iran -- have pledged more money than the agency said it needed to continue running its inspections. As of February 2015, the IAEA had collected an additional 1.1 million euros.
"The December pledge by the United States was for 750,000 euros, in addition to the 850,000 euros that we had previously pledged for IAEA verification activities under the previous duration of the [Joint Plan of Action]," the State Department official added. "We strongly welcome the contributions already announced by some member states, and we hope others will join us in giving positive consideration to providing additional extra-budgetary contributions toward the IAEA's [Joint Plan of Action]-related efforts.”
If a deal is eventually finalized, the IAEA is very likely to require a bigger check than what the U.S. has already offered.
As a critical player in any successful deal with Iran, the IAEA's position at the negotiating table has its own potential complications. No one -- least of all the P5+1 negotiating partners -- want to let a lack of funding hinder its crucial inspections and verifications, so the agency's additional needs will likely be met. But the agency also could find itself in the crosshairs of those that want the deal to fail, since the success of any deal hinges on its performance.
"It's going to be a definite increase over what we're committing now," said Blaise Misztal, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Foreign Policy Project, where he has published several pieces [ http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/iaea-and-interim-deal-funding-challenges/ ] on IAEA funding and the Iran deal.
The money isn't necessarily tough to get, he added. "Additional funding under the [Joint Plan of Action] was pretty easy to get for the IAEA. The P5+1 kicked in pretty quickly."
One potential hurdle is that the IAEA's budgetary needs seldom align with the budgetary deadlines of legislative bodies. The problem may not be whether the money is earmarked, Misztal said, but when it can be free of bureaucratic red tape.
"It can always be a concern," he said. "It wasn't part of [the IAEA's] regular budget." Instead, he added, budgetary needs could happen at six-month or four-month intervals.
IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation'
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano attends a news conference during a board of governors meeting at the United Nations headquarters in Vienna September 10, 2012. Reuters/Herwig Prammer
By Shadia Nasralla Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:59pm EDT
VIENNA - 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.
Without International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmation that Iran is keeping promises enshrined in the landmark July 14 nuclear accord, Tehran will not be granted much-needed relief from international economic sanctions.
Any indications that Iran's part of the accord - strict limits on its atomic energy program and explaining its past nuclear activity - cannot be directly verified by the IAEA could make it harder for President Barack Obama to secure crucial ratification by the U.S. Congress by a Sept. 17 deadline.
According to data given to the IAEA by some member countries, Iran may have conducted hydrodynamic tests at Parchin in the past to assess how specific materials react under high pressure, such as in a nuclear explosion.
An unconfirmed Associated Press report had cited a draft document suggesting the IAEA would not send its own inspectors into Parchin but would instead get data from Iran on the site.
"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.
Under a roadmap accord Iran reached with the IAEA alongside the July 14 political agreement, the Islamic Republic is required to give the IAEA enough information about its past nuclear program to allow the Vienna-based watchdog to write a report on the issue by year-end.
Iran has long stonewalled an IAEA investigation into the possible military aspects of its past nuclear activities, relating mostly to the period before 2003, saying intelligence spurring the agency's investigation was fabricated.
Iran says its nuclear program has no military dimensions.
The IAEA, which says it takes no information at face value, has repeatedly asked for fresh, direct access to Parchin.
"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," Amano said.
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.
"The U.S. government’s nuclear experts are confident in the Agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s former program," he said.
A Vienna-based diplomat said he was confident the IAEA would carry out its work on Iran effectively. "Although, we understand the discussions on how to best implement the roadmap are still ongoing," he told Reuters.
"JUST SPECULATION," IRAN SAYS
Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran's atomic energy agency, told Tasnim news agency: "Reports in media about the agreement between Iran and IAEA are just speculation."
Under the Vienna accord, Iran must put verifiable limits on its uranium enrichment program to create confidence it will not be put to developing nuclear bomb material in exchange for a removal of sanctions crippling its oil-based economy.
Obama has said the deal is the "strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated" and that if it were scuttled, Iran's pathway toward a nuclear bomb would accelerate and war would likely break out.
Obama is striving to gather 34 votes in the Senate to ensure Congress cannot kill the nuclear deal. Twenty-five senators, all Democrats, have said they will support it. Hawkish opposition Republicans are strongly opposed.
"Why haven't these secret side agreements been provided to Congress and the American people for review? Why should Iran be trusted to carry out its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world?" John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said after the report of the IAEA "outsourcing" inspections emerged.
"The separate arrangements under the roadmap 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," Amano said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously campaigned against the deal, saying it endangers Israel because its terms are too weak to prevent Iran eventually developing a nuclear weapon, and he has lobbied Congress hard to reject it.
"One must welcome this global innovation and outside-the-box thinking," Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, tasked by Netanyahu to speak out on the Iranian nuclear issue, said in a sarcastic reference to the AP report.
"One can only wonder if the Iranian inspectors will also have to wait 24 days before being able to visit the site and look for incriminating evidence?" he said, referring to a clause in the deal on the notice period for intrusive IAEA inspections.
(Additonal reporting by Michael Shields in Vienna, Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem and Emily Stephenson in Washington; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
U.S. acknowledges likely Iranian role in nuclear site inspections August 20, 2015 Washington (CNN)—The Obama administration is acknowledging that Iranians would be involved in inspections of the sensitive Parchin military site under a draft arrangement with the U.N., but officials are stressing that they are not the only ones who would be investigating the Iranian location long believed to have hosted covert militarized nuclear activity. A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have "total oversight" of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site. "Iran is not self-inspecting," the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will "play a role." The official stressed that the arrangement for Parchin is an entirely separate arrangement from investigations of other Iranian nuclear sites with possible military dimensions: They're a "totally different ballgame." The other sites that are part of the inspections regime under a deal between Iran and world powers reached in July -- with the IAEA as the instrument for determining the protocol and carrying out those inspections -- are open to inspectors 24/7, the official noted. The examination of Parchin is part of the agency's inquiry into past nuclear activity, as opposed to inspections of other nuclear sites under the deal, which are more focused on ongoing work. The specifics of the deal between the IAEA and Iran over the Parchin inspections are not included in the nuclear agreement, but Iran is required to satisfy the IAEA's concerns about its program under that deal. [...] http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-parchin/ [with embedded video reports]
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
