Skip to main content

Digesting and spinning the IAEA-Iran agreement on September 9

Today, September 10, brought media reports of reactions to the Cairo Iran-IAEA agreement on September 9. The AP and Reuters tried their best to digest the technical matters, while The Jerusalem Post spun it, as could be expected. Here are highlights from those reports. 

            Stephanie Liechtenstein of AP reported quotes from Director General Grossi’s statement on Wednesday, September 10, to the ongoing IAEA Board of Governors meeting: ‘An agreement between Tehran and the United Nations' atomic watchdog will provide the U.N. agency access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities and require Iran to report on the whereabouts of material that was at sites attacked by Israel earlier this year. [T]the document “provides for a clear understanding for the procedures of inspection notifications and their implementation.” The agreement “includes all facilities and installations in Iran and it also contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities including the nuclear material present at those." It will "open the way for the respective inspections and access” without specifying when that would happen. "The technical nature of this document does not diminish its profound significance. Iran and the agency will now resume cooperation in a respectful and comprehensive way.” 
            Her notable comment was ‘without specifying when’. That is exactly right. And I expect that we will not be told the details of timing. 

            And here is how Yonah Jeremy Bob spun it in The Jerusalem Post on September 10: ‘Contradictory statements issued on Wednesday by IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi about the agreement they reached the day before in Cairo left extremely unclear what the broader impact of that deal would be on the nuclear standoff between Tehran and the West. 
              Araghchi said: "Based on reports that Iran will issue in the future, the nature of access will have to be discussed at an appropriate time," essentially reducing the deal to the limited progress that the IAEA had made with Iran already last week, far short of what England, Germany, France, and the US are demanding. 
            Bob ended his dispatch with: ‘Israel has threatened additional attacks on Iran's nuclear program.’ 
            Bob gets across the Israeli message: Iran and IAEA are not doing and will not do anything right and we are ready to attack again. 

            The important statement made by Iran Foreign Minister Araqchi was reported by both Bob and Reuters: ‘[T]he IAEA's board of governors' meeting on Wednesday would be crucial concerning how cooperation with the IAEA develops’. We wait with fingers crossed to learn what the IAEA Board does this week and the IAEA General Conference does next week.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

More on MOABs

MOAB is a 30,000-pound steel-alloy, precision-guided bomb designed to destroy subterranean targets. Its proper name is GBU-57, also known as “bunker buster” or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). MOP development dates to at least 2002. In 2007, the Air Force said it could penetrate up to 200 feet. The latest version, known as GBU-57E/B, has been in the operational inventory since 2016. In January 2018, the 4th upgrade was completed. Upgrades continue, especially improving the fuse.  The number available for operational use is not public; the initial order to Boeing was for 20. In February 2018, more were ordered. Some have been used in tests.  The small number of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers are the only aircraft that can deploy MOAB. There are no public reports of MOAB being used in combat. ( But it was reported that one was deployed in Afghanistan .)  Much of the impetus for the MOP program was provided by Iran’s push to bury its nuclear enrichment infrastructure deep und...
Post a Comment
Read more