Basically, a reporter asks a provocative question about Iran and a tunnel, the briefer and the reporter have a back and forth which could only leave the worst impression (of Iran) in the listener's minds, but which, fundamentally, mischaracterizes what the IAEA actually said here.
The Agency has continued implementing the measures of the Additional Protocol. Complementary access at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) site on 15 December 2004 revealed underground excavation activities which Iran had failed to report in a timely manner to the Agency as required under Code 3.1. of the Subsidiary Agreements to its Safeguards Agreement (i.e. at the time the decision was taken to authorize or carry out such construction). Through a letter received by the Agency on 13 December 2004, Iran submitted an updated Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) for UCF providing preliminary design information for a tunnel that was being constructed at the UCF site. In the DIQ entry related to the purpose and nature of the tunnel, Iran indicated that, "in order to increase capacity, safety and security of nuclear material, a storage is considered and will be constructed". Iran also indicated that the modifications had been initiated in September 2004.(emphasis mine)
Who was this reporter? Why would he characterize a revelation that Iran voluntarily made as he did? Was this another case of a friendly questioner, a la Guckert?
Post a Comment