The ‘Why Disclose Now’/Violation Question, Clarified Again
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Not being in Pittsburgh, I wasn’t aware of a background briefing on the previously undisclosed Qom nuclear facility. But I’ve just gotten the transcript emailed to me, and look what an unnamed senior administration official told reporters:
We believe that [the Qom facility is] not yet operational. We think it’s most likely at least a few months, perhaps more, from having all of the centrifuges installed and being capable of operating if the Iranians made a decision to begin operating it.
That isn’t the same thing as having nuclear material brought into it. As the previous post attempted to clarify, protocols negotiated between Iran and the IAEA in 2003 oblige Iran to report the arrival of nuclear material into any facility at least 180 days before such placement occurs. We’re at least in the same ballpark here, and that helps explain why this announcement came today. Also, the official continued, “We also learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised.”
Moving on, something that speaks specifically to violations:
The safeguards agreement between Iran and the IAEA requires Iran to declare nuclear facilities as soon as they begin construction. Now, in March of 2007, Iran unilaterally said it did not feel bound by that element of its safeguards agreement. And we know construction of the facility began even before the Iranians unilaterally said that they did not feel bound by that obligation. So clearly this is inconsistent, in my view; obviously a violation of their safeguards agreement.
Hmm. Maybe. But that’s not what the Federation of American Scientists told me.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
4 Comments
Pingback posted September 25, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: The ‘Why Disclose Now’/Violation Question, Clarified Again: No.. http://bit.ly/qrKvd [...]
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Let me clear it up for you: Iran agreed to provide earlier information as a good faith gesture during the course of the Paris Agreement negotiations with the EU-3. They made is crystal clear that this was a temporary, good faith gesture. Once the negotiations fell apart (because the EU3, pushed by the US, demanded that Iran abandon enrichment permanently, contrary to their previous position) then Iran withdrew from such good faith gestures and said it would stick only to the earlier version of the safeguards agreement which requires disclosure 180 days prior to introduction of nuclear material in the facility. The IAEA and Iran disagree on whether Iran can do this or not. But whatever the quibble about when Iran should have disclosed it, the fact remains that it was disclosed and is not yet operational and will be inspected by the IAEA. Hardly the “threat” it is being made out to be in the media.
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Here is a clarifying link:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/i…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss