About that IAEA report
Okay, today the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has released its latest report on Iran’s nuclear program. And yes, Iran is testing its uranium enrichment cascades and still hasn’t responded to longstanding IAEA requests for information on various subjects. No doubt we’ll hear all about those points in the morning papers.
But how many of them will mention this point (p. 2) from the IAEA report:
In the light of the increasing number of installed centrifuges at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP),3 on 22 March 2007, Iran agreed to a modified safeguards approach for that facility which includes, in addition to a monthly interim inspection and design information verification visit, a combination of, inter alia, unannounced inspections and containment and surveillance measures (GOV/INF/2007/10). The first unannounced inspection was carried out on 13 May 2007.
And now back to your regularly scheduled mainstream media version of reality.
No related posts.
Dave, come on. What the Agency is describing there is the modalities the organization insisted upon since Iran refused to allow for remote monitoring from the cascade hall. Now we have Agency inspectors wasting a sizable chunk of money flying back and forth to make sure that there is nothing fishy going on at the FEP. Could have been avoided if the Iranians would play ball.
Comment on May 23, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
On first glance, any actual or apparent Iranian agreement to unannounced inspections suggests a limit on the country’s capacity or desire to buck the international rules. At the same time, Iran has profited heftily from mixed messages before–insisting on the NPT Article IV right to complete the fuel cycle while refusing to give the rest of the world the confidence in its peaceful intentions that might permit us to accept an Iranian fuel cycle. Even if David is correct to suggest that there is a friendlier face to the Iranian enrichment program not seen in the western press, the threatening, uncooperative, anti-western side is also clearly there. So at best it’s more mixed messages, for the same old purpose.
Comment on May 24, 2007 @ 5:59 am