U.S. ignores IAEA study of anti-Iran allegations

June 8, 2008 - 0:0

VIENNA (IRNA) -- Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Thursday that the U.S. has ignored the outcome of technical examination of its allegations which had been compiled in the Modality Plan.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh told the Board of Governors that the U.S. is not satisfied with the work plan and its progress.
""The Agency was not allowed to deliver alleged documents to Iran but only showed to Iran just 86 pages and then requested Iran to explain them.""
- While according to the work plan, discussion meetings or interview with individuals were not foreseen, but Iran in goodwill and cooperation with the Agency agreed to have discussion and also provided the Agency with the supporting documents. As DDG-SG stated during the meetings, the Agency showed all alleged studies related documents to Iran. Then Iran provided the Agency with its assessment both in oral and in written.
- Just in the time that the Agency was preparing its March 2008 report to the BoG, U.S. presented to the Agency some new alleged documents to open an endless process on this matter.
- The Agency was expected that according to the agreed work plan to close this matter. Even if some new information came to the Agency's knowledge, it would be discussed under relevant safeguards procedure. But, unfortunately unlike the very constructive cooperation between Iran and the Agency in implementing the work plan and dealing with the alleged studies, and also in contrary to the tremendous progress achieved in this regards, because of the pressures imposed by the U.S., some fabricated and forgery slides have been shown in the technical briefing for the Agency's members.
This has happened while the Agency has had not finished its assessment on the statements made by Iran.
- I recall the fact that the Agency was not able to fulfill its obligation in delivering the materials on alleged studies due to unjustified political pressure on and interference by United States in the Secretariat functions, preventing the documents be delivered in accordance with Paragraph III of the Work Plan.
- There is a simple question: if a Member State gives materials or alleged documents claiming diversion of nuclear materials and activities to military purposes, has it right to dictate and give instruction to the Secretariat how and when to use it? Are not these violations of the Statute? - Despite the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has provided its final assessment on the alleged studies to the Agency, Iran on the base of good will and constructive cooperation agreed with the agency's request to visit Iran, in order to deal with this subject, till the Agency will be able to address the ambiguities raised by one state, in spite of the fact that the Work Plan has been accomplished.
- In this regard Iran discussed the alleged studies in several meetings with the Agency's delegation. More than 200 written pages response have been provided, despite the fact that it wasn't stipulated in the Work Plan.
- Iran requested to receive at least the list of Alleged Studies being provided to it for the sake of clarity on the scope of the subject and avoiding the endless process.
In this regard the DDG -SG provided to Iran a list of all alleged studies documents. Iran requested that for the new round of discussion at least a copy of this documents will be provided to Iran to in order to enable go thorough the documents and provide the required responses.
Unfortunately it has been we have been told that the Agency is not authorized to do so because the U.S. gave no permission to deliver the written documents on alleged studies during the discussions to Iran.
Therefore, Iran was only able to see the electronic version through the power point presentation. This situation caused serious obstacles for Iran and in the process of Agency's professional and impartial task. Despite of these impediments, Iranian experts took note and reviewed the electronic versions in three days and the result of deliberations contained by the written report with oral explanations have been provided in writing to the Agency, this matter has been reflected in the of DG's recent report, paragraph 18.
- All demonstrated pages on the alleged studies are 86 pages that entirely are baseless, forgery and fabricated.
- The only item which have been used to attribute to the alleged documents to Iran were the Persian words in some of them and nothing else.
- Iran stated that has not been involved in such activities.
- According to the Work Plan we have accomplished our undertaking in providing the assessments. (according to the DG report in Para 18) - According to the work plan, Iran provided the Agency with a copy of 15 pages U-metal document, so this issue has been closed.
- Except one document, all documents on alleged studies have been provided to the Agency by the U.S.
- None of the information in the alleged studies is substantive.
- None of the shown documents are authenticated. The original documents were not provided to Iran, since in that case their fabrication would be proved simply.
- Only a few of the shown pages have been made-up in the form of a letter which none of them were in conformity with the official letter format of the MOD. And the rest are only some pages that there are some typed sentences on them. None of the documents and materials presented by the Agency, had classification sign.
- According to DG's recent report: Para 24: It should be noted that the Agency currently has no information on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies.
Para 28: It should be emphasized that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, Soltanieh said.