Reading this New York Times piece on the IAEA and Iran one is supposed to get the impression that: a. the IAEA board of governors and the 5+1 group is united against Iran and that b. its "demand" for access to the ammunition factory in Parchim is a somewhat extraordinary development:
The six world powers that have agreed to resume negotiations with Iran over its disputed nuclear program issued a blunt request on Thursday that the Iranians allow international inspectors unfettered access, most notably to Parchin, a large restricted military complex that the inspectors suspect may house a testing chamber for explosives used in atomic weapons triggers.
…
The tone of the statement also suggested that the historic sympathies Iran has received from Russia and China over its nuclear activities have diminished, as Iran has flaunted its increased ability to enrich uranium despite repeated calls for a suspension.
Both impression suggested by the NYT piece are false.
As the Associated Press reported:
Three days of protracted negotiations held under the specter of war highlighted the diplomatic difficulties ahead for nations trying to ensure that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
In a statement Thursday that was less than dramatic, six world powers avoided any bitter criticism of Iran and said diplomacy, not war, was the best way forward.
…
Indeed, the language was substantially milder than the tough approach sought by Washington and allies Britain, France, and Germany at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board meeting. Agreement came only after tough negotiations with Russia and China.
That is exactly the opposite of what the NYT suggest. Instead of a "blunt request" the AP speaks of a "less than dramatic" statement and of "substantial milder" language. Instead of "diminished sympathies" by Russia and China towards Iran there are "tough negotiations" with China and Russia which suggests the opposite.
On Parchim the "blunt request" the NYT reports also seems a bit less blunt when one recognizes that Iran agreed to this "blunt request" three days before it was made:
Iran says it will allow UN inspectors access to a secret military complex where the UN nuclear agency suspects secret atomic work has been carried out.
A statement issued by the country's permanent envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran says it will allow UN officials to visit the Parchin complex, southeast of Tehran in a gesture of good will.
Parchin is not a site of nuclear activities but Iran's biggest ammunition factory. As a non-nuclear site it is not covered by Iran's Safeguard Agreement with the IAEA and the IAEA has no right at all to demand access to it. Despite that fact Iran had allowed the IAEA to inspect Parchin back in January 2005 and in November 2005. Both times the IAEA took environment samples and inspected some buildings but did not find anything relevant to a nuclear program. Like this time the requests to visit Parchin back in 2005 were based on secret intelligence the U.S. had provided and which turned out to be worthless.
There is no reason to expect that the outcome of this IAEA visit will be any different. But we can expect that the NYT will, like today, again be reporting the opposite of the facts as soon as the new visit happens.
PS: For another sorry NYT-like attempt by U.S. journalists to spew nonfactual propaganda on Iran see this recent CNN interview with Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA.
