# AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site. This can't be correct, can it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 20, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305 "2015-08-20T01:19:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/1 "2015-08-20T01:19:10Z")
AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site. [http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN\_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05) > [@](#): > > Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press. > … > The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal. > … > The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. > > On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was “confident in the agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s former program. … The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated.” This has to be a leaving something out or distorting the facts, right? Surely this can’t mean that the UN can’t also send their own inspectors, can it? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/2 "2015-08-20T01:27:26Z")
Of course it’s true. The liberal response is (from the other thread), basically: “IAEA will use SCIENCE!!! to make sure that Iranians send in the right samples.”. And of course “any deal is better than no deal”. You know the drill. ROTFLMAO. It’s funny and pathetic at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/3 "2015-08-20T01:42:12Z")
There’s another thread? Link? ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/4 "2015-08-20T01:50:57Z")
I’m guessing that a bunch of people at the IAEA got a whole lot richer in the recent past… ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/5 "2015-08-20T01:55:36Z")
So as I said in that other thread, the argument here is that there are absolutely no safeguards for “cheating,” and that there are ways to do so where it’s impossible to tell that said cheating is going on? What is the evidence for this? Specific as possible would be nice. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/6 "2015-08-20T16:52:22Z")
Well, the Iranians would obviously best know the territory and areas that they are inspecting, so they are the logical choice to be the inspectors. Makes sense to me. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/7 "2015-08-20T19:47:17Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > There’s another thread? Link? > **[Nuclear deal with Iran](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=762253)** > > Announced today – discuss it here. I’m pleased that it happened, based on the details that have been released so far. From what I understand military sites can be inspected but not with no warning – this is certainly far from ideal, but far better... This looks like it will kill the deal in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/8 "2015-08-20T20:10:54Z")
ABC managed to get the draft text that their source says does not differ from the final text of the agreement: [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/text-draft-agreement-iaea-iran-33211884](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/text-draft-agreement-iaea-iran-33211884) There is the agreement. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. So the answer to the OP - yes, it is correct. IAEA protestations are bunk. And no, **PastTense** , it will not “kill the deal in the Senate” - because Democrats don’t really care about the deal, so the sordid details don’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![jsquire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@jsquire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsquire)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/9 "2015-08-21T00:57:17Z")
_“The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna…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.”_ Nuclear physics is complex, but so is reporting on it. > **[The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin)** > > The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/10 "2015-08-21T14:04:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And no, **PastTense** , it will not “kill the deal in the Senate” - because Democrats don’t really care about the deal, so the sordid details don’t matter. We can always hope. Especially since these “inspections” now resemble something out of a Mel Brooks comedy, with the IAEA effectively trusting that Iran will rat itself out. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/11 "2015-08-21T14:09:59Z")
> [@jsquire](#): > > _“The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna…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.”_ > > Nuclear physics is complex, but so is reporting on it. > [The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained | Vox](http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin) Forget it, **jsquire** , they’re rolling. Just let 'em have their fauxrage, it’ll all quiet down when they find out that they bought yet another CEC lie formulated to undermine the President. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/12 "2015-08-21T16:41:37Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Of course it’s true. The liberal response is (from the other thread), basically: “IAEA will use SCIENCE!!! to make sure that Iranians send in the right samples.”. > > And of course “any deal is better than no deal”. You know the drill. > > ROTFLMAO. It’s funny and pathetic at the same time. > [@Diceman](#): > > I’m guessing that a bunch of people at the IAEA got a whole lot richer in the recent past… > [@Diceman](#): > > We can always hope.  Especially since these “inspections” now resemble something out of a Mel Brooks comedy, with the IAEA effectively trusting that Iran will rat itself out. After you guys finish reading jsquire’s article, we’ll be here waiting for your retractions and apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/13 "2015-08-21T16:42:26Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > After you guys finish reading jsquire’s article, we’ll be here waiting for your retractions and apologies. That article came out before the actual agreement text came out. Which showed that the article is complete crap. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/14 "2015-08-21T17:05:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That article came out before the actual agreement text came out. Which showed that the article is complete crap. You must not have read the article because the text does no such thing. The article is still correct. This is for an abandoned site that has been inactive for 13 years, that no one cares about, and that, as your own link notes, is completely unrelated to the nuke deal in which the IAEA will be doing the inspections. You accused liberals of making excuses about the nuke deal and called them pathetic. You are wrong. But will you admit it or will you keep repeating it as fact? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/15 "2015-08-21T17:20:14Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > You must not have read the article because the text does no such thing. I read the article. They are speculating that the agreement allows “some kind of IAEA monitoring” of Iranian “inspectors”, that “IAEA would indeed be “on the ground” at Parchin” - which, as it turns out, is complete bullshit. As for the rest - yes, they handwave away the importance of inspections at Parchin. Yeah, 'cuz who cares about the enormous military research center - Iranians would never conduct their nuclear research and development there, would they? Let’s inspect things over there, under the streetlight, cuz it’s light over there and easier. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/16 "2015-08-22T03:03:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That article came out before the actual agreement text came out. Which showed that the article is complete crap. > [@Fubaya](#): > > You must not have read the article because the text does no such thing. > [@Terr](#): > > I read the article. They are speculating that the agreement allows “some kind of IAEA monitoring” of Iranian “inspectors”, that “IAEA would indeed be “on the ground” at Parchin” - which, as it turns out, is complete bullshit. Did you really read it? I mean really? Maybe you just skimmed it real fast like? Because **that’s not what it says at all.** The article is discussing the AP’s claims of on the ground monitoring and being skeptical about it. If anything, the text of the agreement validates the article’s skepticism. **The AP then published another story that reiterated much of the information but also added a strange new detail that seemed to water down its original claims even further: “IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site.” It’s not clear what they mean by “monitor.”** **“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.”** To be fair, they’re not really going into depth about it. They mention the monitoring then say ‘who knows what that means’ then move on, so a person skimming it might not really process what they’re saying. > [@Terr](#): > > As for the rest - yes, they handwave away the importance of inspections at Parchin. Yeah, 'cuz who cares about the enormous military research center - Iranians would never conduct their nuclear research and development there, would they? Let’s inspect things over there, under the streetlight, cuz it’s light over there and easier. You’re welcome to your opinion about inspections and about Parchin being included in them, I might agree, but as your link pointed out, this Parchin story is not related to the inspections, this is an unrelated one time request for samples from an abandoned building to satisfy historical curiosity. So, I suspect everyone who has insinuated that this Parchin story is indicative of the IAEA nuclear inspections then tried to deride the IAEA or liberals or the nuclear deal or whatever can put that to rest now, right? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/17 "2015-08-22T03:48:05Z")
For whatever it’s worth, here’s an article stating that a nuclear expert says that the document appears to be fake. This would appear to be at odds with the article posted by **jsquire** which assumes that the document is real but is being misrepresented. Personally, I would find it very odd if the final agreement allowed only a worthless faux “inspection” of a potential nuclear site. Why would the US and Europe agree to such a thing? So I’m inclined to believe that it’s either fake or being misrepresented. > **[Former Nuclear Safeguards Official Says AP's Iran Deal Document Looks Fake](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_n_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e)** > > It appears aimed at undermining the nuclear deal, the official says. > [@](#): > > Former Nuclear Safeguards Official Says AP’s Iran Deal Document Looks Fake > It appears aimed at undermining the nuclear deal, the official says. > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON – A veteran international nuclear official questioned the authenticity of a document The Associated Press relied upon for its controversial report that Iran would be allowed to inspect Parchin, a site suspected of hosting illicit nuclear activity over a decade ago. He said the document contains wrong terminology and other signs it may be fake. > > Tariq Rauf, the former head of verification and security policy coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The Huffington Post that a document the AP described as a transcript of a draft agreement between Iran and the IAEA, published on Thursday, appears bogus, designed to undermine the real agreement and the broader nuclear pact negotiated between Iran, the U.S., and five world powers. > … > But Rauf said he immediately spotted signs that made him question the authenticity of the leaked document. Rauf, who worked for the IAEA from 2002 to 2011, now directs the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s arms control program. > > In an annotated version of the document, provided to HuffPost, Rauf describes 13 instances of incorrect terminology and practices that are inconsistent with IAEA safeguards methods. > > [IAEA Parchin Agreement](http://www.scribd.com/doc/275416209/IAEA-Parchin-Agreement) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/18 "2015-08-22T03:56:42Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > Did you really read it? I mean really? Maybe you just skimmed it real fast like? Because **that’s not what it says at all.** > > The article is discussing the AP’s claims of on the ground monitoring and being skeptical about it. If anything, the text of the agreement validates the article’s skepticism. > > **The AP then published another story that reiterated much of the information but also added a strange new detail that seemed to water down its original claims even further: “IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site.” It’s not clear what they mean by “monitor.”** > > **“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.”** > > To be fair, they’re not really going into depth about it. They mention the monitoring then say ‘who knows what that means’ then move on, so a person skimming it might not really process what they’re saying. Once again, that article came out BEFORE ABC News actually published the agreement. The agreement says NOTHING about “monitoring” or presence of an IAEA inspectors. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ap-exclusive-un-to-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-this-cant-be-correct-can-it/728305/19 "2015-08-24T02:36:29Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > We can always hope. Especially since these “inspections” now resemble something out of a Mel Brooks comedy, with the IAEA effectively trusting that Iran will rat itself out. I can’t wait to see the Iranian’s faces when they bust themselves! Won’t they be embarrassed!