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.

Following up on “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1511/text-of-iaea-iran-agreement, it looks like the IAEA and Iran have agreed to resolve each of the various outstanding issues in phases. Although there is a timetable of sorts, it appears as though Tehran is insisting that the agency resolve each question completely before Iran fully cooperates with the IAEA on other outstanding matters.

The questions concerning Tehran’s past plutonium experiments are a good example.

First, a brief aside: the document seems to make some news, asserting that the IAEA has resolved its outstanding concerns:

bq. In order to conclude and close the file of the issue of plutonium (Pu), the Agency provided Iran with the remaining questions on 23 July 2007. During a meeting in Iran between representatives of the Agency and Iran, Iran provided clarifications to the Agency that helped to explain the remaining questions. In addition, on 7 August 2007, Iran sent a letter to the Agency providing additional clarifications to some of the questions. On *20 August 2007 the Agency stated that earlier statements made by Iran are consistent with the Agency’s findings, and thus this matter is resolved.*

The document goes on to say that this resolution “will be communicated officially by the Agency to Iran through a letter.”

Second, the next portion of the agreement has a timetable for Tehran and the IAEA to resolve the outstanding issues concerning its P-1 and P-2 centrifuges. But Iran’s adherence to that timeline

bq. assumes that the Agency *announces the closure of the Pu-experiments outstanding issue by 31 August 2007, and its subsequent reporting in the Director General’s report to the September 2007 Board of Governors.*

This whole deal sounds really complicated, but maybe it’s a way for the world to find out WTF Iran has been up to.

I would point out, though, that Tehran’s adherence to its additional protocol would make the world feel a lot better because it would deal with _current_ enrichment-related R&D.

*Update:*

_AFP_ reports that the IAEA and Iran are on the same page RE: the plutonium issue:

bq. A UN official told AFP the *document reflected both the IAEA’s and Iran’s views* and that the question of whether Iran had experimented with plutonium more recently than it had stated and that there was plutonium unaccounted for had been resolved.

The IAEA has “released the text”:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2007/infcirc711.pdf of the “work plan agreed between Iran and the IAEA.”

I love the title:

bq. Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues.

Details later.

[ Thanks to _AL_ for the tip. ]

*Update:*

I should point out that the “agreement” is actually a document that Iran sent to the IAEA for circulation. The agency’s interpretation of the agreement may differ.