Home | About | Donate

US Spin on Access to Iranian Sites has Distorted the Issue


US Spin on Access to Iranian Sites has Distorted the Issue

Gareth Porter

Vienna -- A public diplomacy campaign by the Obama administration to convince world opinion that Iran was reneging on the Lausanne framework agreement in April has seriously misrepresented the actual diplomacy of the Iran nuclear talks, as my interviews with Iranian officials here make clear.

President Barack Obama’s threat on Tuesday to walk out of the nuclear talks if Iranian negotiators didn’t return to the Lausanne framework – especially on the issue of IAEA access to Iranian sites -- was the climax of that campaign.


This is what happens when, to meet a self-imposed deadline for a treaty, you come up with an agreement to agree at some future point, details to be worked out later.

The same details that were a sticking point before are a sticking point now.

The issue of inspections boils down to this: If some sites are off limits to inspections then those sites could be used for prohibited activities. If there’s a significant delay in approving site visits evidence of prohibited activities could be moved.

That’s why the U.S. wants unlimited access. But the Iranians don’t want unlimited access because of the very real chance that information about military installations, troop strength and equipment would be used by the U.S. or Israel to target them during an attack.

So it’s a conundrum.

It’s also why agreeing to agree at a later time isn’t an agreement at all.


No sovereign state allows inspection of their military facilities by another state - especially a hostile one like the USA - period. This is just one more example of how what the US calls “diplomacy” is actually just a series of threats and ultimatums.

Iran should refuse anything that violated their sovereignty, and ask why the US and the other four of the “P5” have been in violation of the NPT for decades by reneging on the requirement to make steady progress toward nuclear weapons abolition by the big five nuclear powers.


If the deal fails, and as NATO tries to surround Russia, it could send nuke missiles to Iran and the deal turns into another Cuban missile crisis.


Yunzer wrote:

‘No sovereign state allows inspection of their military facilities by another state - especially a hostile one like the USA - period. This is just one more example of how what the US called “diplomacy” is actually just a series of threats and ultimatums…’

Yes indeed! Mohamed ElBaradei (Amano’s predecessor as head of IAEA) used to say that there are legitimate non-military reasons for Iran’s unwillingness to allow unlimited inspections. Industrial nations accumulate trade secrets that give them competitive edges. There’s liitle doubt in my mind that the US has zero intentions of finalizing an agreement with Iran. The obsequious mainstream media (MSM) will dutifully report the the US gave it their best shot, but that diplomacy wouldn’t work with Iran.

And contrary to the MSM’s “reporting”, aka passing along Pentagon scripts, the most important effect of any agreement would NOT be preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. If Iran want’s an atomic bomb she can buy one from India or Pakistan. Rather, the most important effect would be the immediate termination of the draconian sanctions that the US seems to be so fond of imposing.

If by some stretch of the imagination, John Kerry does indeed sign an agreement, rest assured that he’ll claim that his fingers were crossed when he signed it.


There’s certainly a follow the money aspect to it. Iran has around $100 Billion being withheld, currently. That’s really small change to a lot of P5+1 ers, though. What really gets their little hearts going pitter patter is a potential market of over a 100 million consumers in the next decade. And, in a country brimming with natural resource products the world wants and NEEDS. Blowing up that market for a century to appease right wing absolutist nut cases in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Senate is a non-starter, too. What signal would that send to the BRICS, etc but more ratcheting up of military preparedness against Western interests. The world gets bigger and U.S./NATO control of it shrinks, almost proportionally. Sucker punching Iran won’t work here, they aren’t Iraqis.


If the US is serious about a deal, here’s what Kerry needs to do–dump the neocons and zios on his team. Sen. Corker is a yahoo from a redneck state and should be told to shut up by Obama.

The good news is that, if there is no deal, then the other P5+1 members will probably establish normal business relations with Iran. So no deal is good news for the planet, except the US, which took more than 50 years to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba (how crazy is that?).