How the Media got the Parchin Access Story Wrong by Gareth Porter

by Gareth Porter
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
crossposted at
February 29, 2012

News media reported last week that Iran had flatly refused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its Parchin military test facility, based on a statement to reporters by IAEA Deputy Director General, Herman Nackaerts, that “We could not get access”.

Now, however, explicit statements on the issue by the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA and the language of the new IAEA report indicate that Iran did not reject an IAEA visit to the base per se but was only refusing access as long as no agreement had been reached with the IAEA governing the modalities of cooperation.

That new and clarifying information confirms what I reported February 23. Based on the history of Iranian negotiations with the IAEA and its agreement to allow two separate IAEA visits to Parchin in 2005, the Parchin access issue is a bargaining chip that Iran is using to get the IAEA to moderate its demands on Iran in forging an agreement on how to resolve the years-long IAEA investigation into the “Possible Military Dimensions” of the Iranian nuclear program.

In an email to me and in interviews with Russia Today, Reuters, and the Fars News Agency, the Iranian Permanent Representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Iran told the high-level IAEA mission that it would allow access to Parchin once modalities of Iran-IAEA cooperation had been agreed on.

“We declared that, upon finalization of the modality, we will give access [to Parchin],” Soltanieh wrote in an email to me.

In the Russia Today interview on February 27, reported by Israel’s Haaretz and The Hindu in India but not by western news media, Soltanieh referred to two IAEA inspection visits to Parchin in January and November 2005 and said Iran needs to have “assurances” that it would not “repeat the same bitter experience, when they just come and ask for the access.” There should be a “modality” and a “frame of reference, of what exactly they are looking for, they have to provide the documents and exactly where they want [to go],” he said.

But Soltanieh also indicated that such an inspection visit is conditional on agreement about the broader framework for cooperation on clearing up suspicions of a past nuclear weapons program. “[I]n principle we have already accepted that when this text is concluded we will take these steps,” Soltanieh said.

The actual text of the IAEA report, dated February 24, provides crucial information about the Iranian position in the talks that is consistent with what Soltanieh is saying.

In its account of the first round of talks in late January on what the IAEA is calling a “structured approach to the clarification of all outstanding issues”, the report states: “The Agency requested access to the Parchin site, but Iran did not grant access to the site at that time [emphasis added].” That wording obviously implies that Iran was willing to grant access to Parchin if certain conditions were met.

On the February 20-21 meetings, the agency said that Iran “stated that it was still not able to grant access to that site.” There was likely a more complex negotiating situation behind the lack of agreement on a Parchin visit than had been suggested by Nackaerts and reported in western news media.

But not a single major news media report has reported the significant difference between initial media coverage on the Parchin access issue and the information now available from the initial IAEA report and Soltanieh. None have reported the language of the report indicating that Iran’s refusal to approve a Parchin visit in January was qualified by “at that time”.

Only AFP and Reuters quoted Soltanieh at all. Reuters, which actually interviewed Soltanieh, quoted him saying, “It was assumed that after we agreed on the modality, then access would be given.” But that quote only appears in the very last sentence of the article, several paragraphs after the reiteration of the charge that Iran “refused to grant [the IAEA] access” to Parchin.

The day after that story was published, Reuters ran another story focusing on the IAEA report without referring either to its language on Parchin or to Soltanieh’s clarification.

The Los Angeles Times ignored the new information and simply repeated the charge that Iran “refused to allow IAEA inspectors to visit Parchin military base”. Then it added its own broad interpretation that Iran “has refused to answer key questions about its nuclear development program”. Iran’s repeated assertions that the documents used to pose questions to it are fabricated were thus dismissed as non-qualified answers.

The Parchin access story entered a new phase today with a Reuters story quoting Deputy Director General Nackaerts in a briefing for diplomats that there “may be some ongoing activities at Parchin which add urgency to why we want to go”. Nackaerts attributed that idea to an unnamed “Member State”, which is apparently suggesting that the site in question is being “cleaned up”.

The identity of that “Member State”, which the IAEA continues to go out of its way to conceal, is important, because if it is Israel, it reflects an obvious interest in convincing the world that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. As former IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei recounts on p. 291 of his memoirs, “In the late summer of 2009, the Israelis provided the IAEA with documents of their own, purportedly showing that Iran had continued with nuclear weapon studies until at least 2007.”

The news media should be including cautionary language any time information from an unnamed “Member State” is cited as the source for allegations about covert Iranian nuclear weapons work. It could very likely be coming from a State with a political agenda. But the unwritten guidelines for news media coverage of the IAEA and Iran, as we have seen in recent days, are obviously very different.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.


What Are Iran’s Intentions? by Noam Chomsky

Foreign Policy’s Irresponsible Reporting on Iran’s Nuclear Program by Jeremy R. Hammond

Iran Holds Up Access to Parchin for Better IAEA Deal by Gareth Porter

Thailand, India, Georgia Bomb Blasts: The Fingerprints and Logic of False Flags Against Iran by Finian Cunningham

A Doorway To Persia

Iran Israel US Nukes

Iran on Dandelion Salad

5 thoughts on “How the Media got the Parchin Access Story Wrong by Gareth Porter

  1. Pingback: IAEA Parchin Demand Puts Iran Cooperation Pact at Risk by Gareth Porter « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: How Mossad Justified Its Murder of an Innocent Iranian Electrical Engineer by Gareth Porter « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Alleged Photos of “Clean-up” at Iran’s Parchin Site Lack Credibility by Gareth Porter « Dandelion Salad

  4. Having read the latest IAEA report and the previous one, they clearly state the documentation submitted by Iran to the IAEA was proved accurate upon inspection, pp 4, sect. 13 & 15.

    Iran rejected the “unfounded allegations” supplied to IAEA by the mysterious member states in the November report last year. There is no doubt since the ’79 Iranian Revolution that overturned Democratic America’s installed Dictator the Shah, America and the West has been demonizing Iran in the minds of the muddled masses over here.

    When Saddam was useful to the US & England, they financed the brutal 8 year he started in 1980 to nip the ’79 Iranian Revolution in the bud.

    Don’t doubt there were many private meetings between Saddam, and the highest Anglo-American officials beyond public scrutiny to encourage him to start that war on any pretext. It is estimated 1,000,000 humans lost their lives in that war because of powerful men playing God in the world.

    “The identity of that “Member State”, which the IAEA continues to go out of its way to conceal, is important, because if it is Israel, it reflects an obvious interest in convincing the world that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.”

    Persia-Iran is one old the oldest cultures in the world, and considering myself a world Citizen long before Candidate Obama spoke of it in Berlin, I can only imagine how they would view the chutzpah of the Israelis complaining to IAEA about Iran’s legitimate nuclear program under the NPT while Israel does not let IAEA inspectors into Israel and despises the UN for all the resolutions calling on Israel to stop breaking International Law.

    I totally understand and support Iran resisting and not capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy and double standard the West is attempting to impose on Iran.

    My perspective with the Revelation of details in Today’s Israeli-Iranian conflict day by day is, if Israel alone, or with the US, attacks Iran, the whole world would be irrevocably on the path to Armageddon, and we all know what that means.

    While this Generation just now beginning to see the possible consequences of the Middle East in flames, logic and reason devoid of emotional or ideological biases will tell any thinker if that happens, our economy over here will eventually collapse and there will be Hell to pay for not stopping it before it started.

    In 1976, as Americans were celebrating the 200th Anniversary of their Revolution, The Kansas City Times, in Markers of Time, wrote two stories on my visit to the City and The Republican National convention.

    On September 13, 1976, with a picture of me wearing my trademark #13 football jersey accompanying the story, The Kansas City Times records:

    “He came to town for the Republican National convention and will stay until the election in November to do God’s bidding: To tell the world, from Kansas City, that this country is found wanting and it’s days are numbered.”

    Quite honestly, as a solitary individual, with no money or organization behind me, but with Faith in Almighty God,I was amazed and surprised this major Daily newspaper printed those words and words implying the US is the last in the model of ancient Biblical Babylon that has ruled over the peoples of this world in whatever face or form it took these last 2600 years.

    No one could see that possibility in 1976, but that’s the way the world is 36 years later and the people are only now beginning to see it in real life.

    For those who don’t read the Bible, these words from Daniel 5, “that this country is found wanting and it’s days are numbered.” are the first two parts of the three part Writing on the Wall the whole world saw for the 1st time, at the same time, with the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour/Tsunami in September 2008.

    The third part is about the decline of the dominant world power of the Time, and the rise of Persia-Iran and what the world is seeing now is that ancient Bible story being replayed.

    The US is the latest, greatest dominant Superpower since the world’s first Superpower, Babylon the Great once existed on the land now known as Iraq. The tail struck the head with the Iraq war.

    For those interested, the original 1976 Kansas City Times records, the 2nd article appearing on All Souls Day, November 2nd 1976, can be read here with pictures and music videos as you read:

    ‘From the Revolutionary Spirit of ’76 to the Revolutionary Spirit of ’11’ February 23, 2011

  5. Pingback: Barack Obama’s AIPAC 2012 Speech + Transcript « Dandelion Salad

Comments are closed.