UNSG Ban Ki-moon provided further evidence that people shouldn’t be sweating the Iran-IAEA cooperation “agreement”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1511/text-of-iaea-iran-agreement quite so much. [Previous post “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1516/more-on-iran-and-the-iaea ]

According to “Reuters,”:http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1021946820070910 Ban said that Iran has to sack up and comply with all of the UNSC’s requirements:

“I know that there was an agreement between the IAEA and Iran on the future work plans on this,” Ban said in his first reaction to the agreement. “I know that there are some different understandings or expectations.”

“What is important at this time is that, *in addition to what IAEA has been negotiating and discussing with the Iranian government, the Iranian government should fully comply with the Security Council resolutions* — that is the core,” Ban said.

OK, maybe I paraphrased a little.

Andreas Persbo “posted”:http://verificationthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/09/tale-of-3k-centrifuges-third.html on a subject I was thinking of blogging about: Ahmadinejad’s “recently-reported”:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0479215320070904 claim that Iran has 3,000 centrifuges.

Andreas seems to conclude what I was thinking: the assertion could be technically sorta true if you massage the numbers a bit.

He says:

bq. According to an article by Mark Heinrich, Agency inspectors visited the Natanz facility on 3 September 2007 and found two more modules “being hooked up”, which would *bring the total number of centrifuges operating with hexafluoride gas, under vacuum, or being in various stages of construction to 2,952.*

Following up on “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1513/yet-another-iaea-report-on-iran from the other day, it looks as if the IAEA is making efforts to defend the recent work program between the agency and Tehran.

For example, “the AP,”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_iran_2;_ylt=AthoT36TNB7zstPpTRYZR6FSw60A “Reuters,”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070907/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_elbaradei_dc_2;_ylt=Ahvyt6_9QsLUz74Xd3hyRXRSw60A and “AFP”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070907/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_070907193630;_ylt=AtkMVCvBLhwMDbMD1dTQxpRSw60A are reporting about a briefing that IAEA DG ElBaradei gave to reporters about the arrangement.

I found this section of the Reuters story especially noteworthy:

*He [ElBaradei] said critics had misread the pact in suggesting it ruled out future IAEA inquiries if new suspicions about Iranian activity arose, and lifted pressure on Iran to grant wider inspections or heed U.N. resolutions demanding it stop uranium enrichment,* a process that can be used to make atom bombs.

“There have been back-seat drivers putting in their five cents saying this is not a good working arrangement,” he told reporters invited into his Vienna office for a briefing.

*”Iran can never get a pass (on their nuclear behavior) until we decide to give them a pass. They may say (in public statements) that their file is now closed, but that is up to us.*

Similarly, he said, according to AFP, that

bq. the IAEA has made clear “privately and publicly that *we will continue and have the right to give any questions in the future*.”

These strike me as reasonable answers to the criticisms about the arrangement, but we’ll see what happens.

In any case, I’ve never really understood what the “the IAEA should be tougher” crowd really wants ElBaradei to do. At this point, the action RE: consequences for Iran’s noncompliance with its IAEA obligations is at the UNSC.

Now that I have no reliable internet access at home, I am an even worse blogger.

Anyhow, I’m late to the party, but both “Andreas Persbo”:http://verificationthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/iaea-report-on-iran.html and “ISIS”:http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIAEAreportAugust30.pdf (not “this”:http://www.isistheband.com/ISIS.aspx ISIS) have copies of the latest IAEA report about Iran. [ISIS also has an “issue brief”:http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIssueBrief30August2007.pdf about the report.]

In addition to the latest news about Tehran’s enrichment escapades, the report also describes the “recent deal”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1511/text-of-iaea-iran-agreement between the agency and Iran. I was suspicious that the document relased a few days before might have contained a bit of Iranian spin on the arrangement. But apparently not.

Speaking of that deal, I have a ton of respect for David Albright and Jackie Shire who, along with various others, have “described”:http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/flawedagreement.pdf the arrangement as “flawed.” But I don’t see what the fuss is about.

It’s true that the arrangement has its problems, but I don’t see anything in it that precludes the IAEA from fully pursuing its investigation of Iran’s nuclear programs. For one thing, the relevant UNSC resolutions, which require Tehran to resolve the outstanding nuclear issues, ratify its additional protocol, and suspend enrichment, remain in force. For another, the sanctions that have already been imposed won’t be lifted without Iran’s compliance.

Additionally, the language in ElBaradei’s report suggests that the IAEA intends to be pretty serious about its investigation:

bq. Naturally, the *key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran’s full and active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the Agency to resolve all outstanding issues.* To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol.

I’m inclined to give the agency a chance.