UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site

[Samhain]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site

Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied.

Surely they can't be serious? How the hell did anyone sign off on this?!?!?!

How anyone can support this deal is beyond normal comprehension. "I assure you we have no nuclear weapons."

 

[Samhain]

Obama admin response:

Obama's logic is: "if IAEA is ok, then I'm ok".

 

[OrphanSlug]

Brilliant... This agreement allows Iran to obtain its own "experts" and use whatever equipment it wants to employ in the inspection for evidence that Iran consistently denies exist.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site



Surely they can't be serious? How the hell did anyone sign off on this?!?!?!

Not part of the P5+1 deal. Parchin is a military base and is apart of the possible military demnsions (PMD) of the Iran. Those were specifically handled between the IAEA and Iran. The US was not involved in those negotiations, but only briefed on how they were going.

How anyone can support this deal is beyond normal comprehension. "I assure you we have no nuclear weapons."

The key words in the report are all past tense. "Has worked", "may have experimented", etc. All in the past tense. All not going on or suspected to be going on now. Why is this important, well because Iran essentially admitted to testing high explosive detonators there, in the past... Ill just post what I have posted in the past on Prachin because I'll just be repeating myself:
"1.)Key word here "past". Past as in early 2000's.
2.)Parchin is a military institution used for blast testing of Irans military.
3.)The IAEA has inspected Parchin twice. Its also a military base used as a blasting ground and in this agreement there is set up a way to enter military bases such as Parchin. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a sperate negotiaton handled exclusively by the IAEA. The US and other countries in the P5+1 pushed Iran on such issues but got nowhere, Iran was saying this is the whole reason why were in direct negotiations with the IAEA. No one suspects Parchin is currently being used for nuclear tests anymore, they may of been used as one in 2002, but currently not... "Most notably, Iran entered into a separate agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday that obligates Tehran to answer a series of queries related to past weaponization activities... the suspected site of nuclear-weapons-related ballistics tests in 2002: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...uclear-program
"Iran and the IAEA agreed on another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin." Hell they have even admitted to testing "bridge wires" there in 2002 while the IAEA was there years later....

And as stated earlier: The P5+1 negotiations are about the specific nuclear program of Iran, not about the military of Iran. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a separate negotiations. Almost every country does not say, "hey wanna come look at our military research facilities!?", we dont even do that. That is one of the whole things dealing with sovereignty. However we did push for a way to get into military bases and we won on this end with the dispute resolution mechanism which can be found in the deal.
Here is a brief explanation on the dispute resolution mechanism: How the Iran Deal?s ?Snap Back? Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant | The Diplomat
Its important to note that this resolution mechanism can be used for any site the P5+1 and IAEA deem suspicious... Any site, including military bases...

Also the IAEA will be there, they will not be doing the sampling. They will be monitoring the officials who are taking the samples, and also be given information in relation to their questions.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If this wasn't from the AP, and there wasn't a link to the story to prove it, I would have thought this was as story from The Onion.

Any member of Congress that signs off on this, should be recalled for dereliction of duty. Even a 12 year old can understand this is crazy.

I wonder what else has been kept from us?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Not part of the P5+1 deal. Parchin is a military base and is apart of the possible military demnsions (PMD) of the Iran. Those were specifically handled between the IAEA and Iran. The US was not involved in those negotiations, but only briefed on how they were going.


The key words in the report are all past tense. "Has worked", "may have experimented", etc. All in the past tense. All not going on or suspected to be going on now. Why is this important, well because Iran essentially admitted to testing high explosive detonators there, in the past... Ill just post what I have posted in the past on Prachin because I'll just be repeating myself:
"1.)Key word here "past". Past as in early 2000's.
2.)Parchin is a military institution used for blast testing of Irans military.
3.)The IAEA has inspected Parchin twice. Its also a military base used as a blasting ground and in this agreement there is set up a way to enter military bases such as Parchin. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a sperate negotiaton handled exclusively by the IAEA. The US and other countries in the P5+1 pushed Iran on such issues but got nowhere, Iran was saying this is the whole reason why were in direct negotiations with the IAEA. No one suspects Parchin is currently being used for nuclear tests anymore, they may of been used as one in 2002, but currently not... "Most notably, Iran entered into a separate agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday that obligates Tehran to answer a series of queries related to past weaponization activities... the suspected site of nuclear-weapons-related ballistics tests in 2002: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...uclear-program
"Iran and the IAEA agreed on another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin." Hell they have even admitted to testing "bridge wires" there in 2002 while the IAEA was there years later....

And as stated earlier: The P5+1 negotiations are about the specific nuclear program of Iran, not about the military of Iran. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a separate negotiations. Almost every country does not say, "hey wanna come look at our military research facilities!?", we dont even do that. That is one of the whole things dealing with sovereignty. However we did push for a way to get into military bases and we won on this end with the dispute resolution mechanism which can be found in the deal.
Here is a brief explanation on the dispute resolution mechanism: How the Iran Deal?s ?Snap Back? Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant | The Diplomat
Its important to note that this resolution mechanism can be used for any site the P5+1 and IAEA deem suspicious... Any site, including military bases...

Also the IAEA will be there, they will not be doing the sampling. They will be monitoring the officials who are taking the samples, and also be given information in relation to their questions.

How can the P5+1 plan work, if the IAEA has a separate (secret) agreement on the side that is in contradiction to the goals of the P5+1 plan? How can the P5+1 plan be implemented and the results trusted when there is no independent inspection of the Parchin nuclear site?

Seriously. How?

 

[Samhain]

Not part of the P5+1 deal. Parchin is a military base and is apart of the possible military demnsions (PMD) of the Iran. Those were specifically handled between the IAEA and Iran. The US was not involved in those negotiations, but only briefed on how they were going.


The key words in the report are all past tense. "Has worked", "may have experimented", etc. All in the past tense. All not going on or suspected to be going on now. Why is this important, well because Iran essentially admitted to testing high explosive detonators there, in the past... Ill just post what I have posted in the past on Prachin because I'll just be repeating myself:
"1.)Key word here "past". Past as in early 2000's.
2.)Parchin is a military institution used for blast testing of Irans military.
3.)The IAEA has inspected Parchin twice. Its also a military base used as a blasting ground and in this agreement there is set up a way to enter military bases such as Parchin. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a sperate negotiaton handled exclusively by the IAEA. The US and other countries in the P5+1 pushed Iran on such issues but got nowhere, Iran was saying this is the whole reason why were in direct negotiations with the IAEA. No one suspects Parchin is currently being used for nuclear tests anymore, they may of been used as one in 2002, but currently not... "Most notably, Iran entered into a separate agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday that obligates Tehran to answer a series of queries related to past weaponization activities... the suspected site of nuclear-weapons-related ballistics tests in 2002: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...uclear-program
"Iran and the IAEA agreed on another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin." Hell they have even admitted to testing "bridge wires" there in 2002 while the IAEA was there years later....

And as stated earlier: The P5+1 negotiations are about the specific nuclear program of Iran, not about the military of Iran. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a separate negotiations. Almost every country does not say, "hey wanna come look at our military research facilities!?", we dont even do that. That is one of the whole things dealing with sovereignty. However we did push for a way to get into military bases and we won on this end with the dispute resolution mechanism which can be found in the deal.
Here is a brief explanation on the dispute resolution mechanism: How the Iran Deal?s ?Snap Back? Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant | The Diplomat
Its important to note that this resolution mechanism can be used for any site the P5+1 and IAEA deem suspicious... Any site, including military bases...

Also the IAEA will be there, they will not be doing the sampling. They will be monitoring the officials who are taking the samples, and also be given information in relation to their questions.

If the IAEA is going to let them inspect their own sites regardless of what we do, then why give them sanction relief?

 

[MMC]

If this wasn't from the AP, and there wasn't a link to the story to prove it, I would have thought this was as story from The Onion.

Any member of Congress that signs off on this, should be recalled for dereliction of duty. Even a 12 year old can understand this is crazy.

I wonder what else has been kept from us?

Good news. Flake the only Repub that BO peep was wooing. Has come out against the Deal. Which means now it will also be viewed by the UN and all of the rest of the planet, that BO peep and the lost sheep have no Bipartisanship to approve the deal. That in essence they will have to ram this deal down the American peoples throats.

Any Demos voting for the Deal should be branded traitors and called out as one.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

How can the P5+1 plan work, if the IAEA has a separate (secret) agreement on the side that is in contradiction to the goals of the P5+1 plan?

1.)It was not secret. Its been well known and even openly stated the IAEA and Iran are and have been undergoing negotiations that specifically deal with the PMD issue(s).
2.)It also does not contradict the P5+1 negotiations. The Joint Plan of Action (P5+1) agreement left the IAEA to deal with the issue in a parallel set of negotiations with the IAEA that deal with the possible military dimensions of the Iranian program while the P5+1

How can the P5+1 plan be implemented and the results trusted when there is no independent inspection of the Parchin nuclear site?

Because, the P5+1 agreement does not deal with military sites. Thats the IAEA. But as I explained in the comment you just quoted: "3.)The IAEA has inspected Parchin twice. Its also a military base used as a blasting ground and in this agreement there is set up a way to enter military bases such as Parchin. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a sperate negotiaton handled exclusively by the IAEA. The US and other countries in the P5+1 pushed Iran on such issues but got nowhere, Iran was saying this is the whole reason why were in direct negotiations with the IAEA. No one suspects Parchin is currently being used for nuclear tests anymore, they may of been used as one in 2002, but currently not... "Most notably, Iran entered into a separate agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday that obligates Tehran to answer a series of queries related to past weaponization activities... the suspected site of nuclear-weapons-related ballistics tests in 2002:"

Seriously. How?

And how? how does it work? Well the same how it has worked in the past.
"On November 11, 2013, Iran and the IAEA concluded a framework agreement for moving forward to resolve the outstanding concerns.

Under the terms of the framework, Iran and the IAEA agreed to resolve all outstanding issues, including PMDs, in a step-by-step manner.

In the past year, under this framework, Iran has agreed to three sets of actions and in total has provided the IAEA with information and access on 16 areas of concern, including one PMD issue. In May, Iran provided the IAEA with information regarding its experiments with exploding bridge wire detonators and has since provided additional information based on further questions from the IAEA. Iran maintained that its work with these detonators was for civilian purposes. Bridge wire detonators are used for drilling in oil and gas fields.

In May, as part of a set of five more actions under the framework, Iran agreed to provide the IAEA with information on two more PMD issues." https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-b...-Military-Dimensions-to-Irans-Nuclear-Program

 

[TheDemSocialist]

If the IAEA is going to let them inspect their own sites regardless of what we do, then why give them sanction relief?

I think this explains it perfectly:
"Tying a comprehensive nuclear agreement to a resolution of the IAEA's investigation into the PMDs is unnecessary and risks derailing a deal.

Expecting Iran to "confess" that it pursued a nuclear weapons program is unrealistic and unnecessary. After having spent years denying that it pursued nuclear weapons and having delivered a fatwa against nuclear weapons, Tehran's senior leaders cannot afford to admit that it hid a nuclear weapons program.

Resolution of the agency's investigation is not necessary to put in place a comprehensive monitoring and verification regime that will prevent Iran from pursuing a covert program to build nuclear weapon or deviating from a comprehensive nuclear deal.

Establishing a baseline of Iran's nuclear program based on the agency's investigation will also take some time. In a best-case scenario, IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano said last month that the IAEA will need 15 months to complete its investigation and assessment of Iran's nuclear declaration and PMDs. Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 have six weeks to reach a comprehensive deal. Rushing the IAEA to complete its investigation will not provide the agency with the appropriate amount of time it needs to assess the entire program.

The IAEA's investigation into Iran's past nuclear activities related to weapons development is a separate process, and conditioning a nuclear deal on completion of the agency's investigation would delay and likely undermine the prospect for the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear deal that limits Iran's nuclear potential and improves the international community's ability to detect and disrupt any potential future nuclear weapons-related effort.

Stringent and intrusive monitoring and verification mechanisms under the terms of the Additional Protocol would give the IAEA access to all of Iran's nuclear sites at short notice and access to additional sites if the agency suspects nuclear activities may be talking place. The IAEA and the international community will be able to quickly detect and deter any attempt to pursue nuclear weapons, whether through a covert program or by using declared facilities. Such measures are only possible with the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement by the P5+1 and Iran.

Additionally, sanctions relief that is important to Iran is likely to be tied to a satisfactory conclusion of the IAEA's investigation. The covert nature of Iran's nuclear program in the last decade spurred the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Subsequent sanctions that prohibit Iran from important materials and technologies important to nuclear development were put in place because Iran was not cooperating with the IAEA. It is unlikely that all of these sanctions will be removed without satisfactory completion of the IAEA's investigation.. A comprehensive nuclear agreement can also take Iran's compliance with its IAEA obligations into account. Any future expansion of Iran's nuclear program, particularly its uranium enrichment, could be contingent on the IAEA's satisfactory conclusion of its investigations. A deal between Iran and the P5+1 could also assure Iran that it will not be penalized for disclosures about past PMD activities.

Understanding Iran's past nuclear activities related to weapons development is important, but the international community must remain focused on a the future and ensuring that Iran's nuclear program is transparent and limited. Focusing too much on the past will only jeopardize the best opportunity in a decade to reach a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran. " https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-b...-Military-Dimensions-to-Irans-Nuclear-Program

 

[Renae]

Not part of the P5+1 deal. Parchin is a military base and is apart of the possible military demnsions (PMD) of the Iran. Those were specifically handled between the IAEA and Iran. The US was not involved in those negotiations, but only briefed on how they were going.


The key words in the report are all past tense. "Has worked", "may have experimented", etc. All in the past tense. All not going on or suspected to be going on now. Why is this important, well because Iran essentially admitted to testing high explosive detonators there, in the past... Ill just post what I have posted in the past on Prachin because I'll just be repeating myself:
"1.)Key word here "past". Past as in early 2000's.
2.)Parchin is a military institution used for blast testing of Irans military.
3.)The IAEA has inspected Parchin twice. Its also a military base used as a blasting ground and in this agreement there is set up a way to enter military bases such as Parchin. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a sperate negotiaton handled exclusively by the IAEA. The US and other countries in the P5+1 pushed Iran on such issues but got nowhere, Iran was saying this is the whole reason why were in direct negotiations with the IAEA. No one suspects Parchin is currently being used for nuclear tests anymore, they may of been used as one in 2002, but currently not... "Most notably, Iran entered into a separate agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday that obligates Tehran to answer a series of queries related to past weaponization activities... the suspected site of nuclear-weapons-related ballistics tests in 2002: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...uclear-program
"Iran and the IAEA agreed on another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin." Hell they have even admitted to testing "bridge wires" there in 2002 while the IAEA was there years later....

And as stated earlier: The P5+1 negotiations are about the specific nuclear program of Iran, not about the military of Iran. The P5+1 talks did not specifically deal with such issues, that was a separate negotiations. Almost every country does not say, "hey wanna come look at our military research facilities!?", we dont even do that. That is one of the whole things dealing with sovereignty. However we did push for a way to get into military bases and we won on this end with the dispute resolution mechanism which can be found in the deal.
Here is a brief explanation on the dispute resolution mechanism: How the Iran Deal?s ?Snap Back? Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant | The Diplomat
Its important to note that this resolution mechanism can be used for any site the P5+1 and IAEA deem suspicious... Any site, including military bases...

Also the IAEA will be there, they will not be doing the sampling. They will be monitoring the officials who are taking the samples, and also be given information in relation to their questions.

Apologists for the Obama and UN Failure, you should apply for a position with them.

 

[Roadvirus]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site



Surely they can't be serious? How the hell did anyone sign off on this?!?!?!

How anyone can support this deal is beyond normal comprehension. "I assure you we have no nuclear weapons."

From the "You just can't make this **** up" department.

I knew this deal was a joke, but this is.....ah ****...i don't even know how to describe it.

 

[humbolt]

Bridge wire detonators are also used to detonate nuclear devices. We can stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but we won't. We are unwilling to do what is necessary to achieve that, and we're going to have a nuclear armed ME as a result. Not the end of the world, but it's easy to see it from that vantage point. I fear for the world's children, and mine in particular.

 

[Objective Voice]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site



Surely they can't be serious? How the hell did anyone sign off on this?!?!?!

How anyone can support this deal is beyond normal comprehension. "I assure you we have no nuclear weapons."

From Wikipedia pertaining to the Parchin Military Complex in question per the OP article:

Parchin Military Complex (35.52°N 51.77°E) is located approximately 20 kilometers southeast of downtown Tehran. The IAEA was given access to Parchin on 1 November 2005, and took environmental samples: inspectors did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material.[36] Parchin is a facility for the testing and manufacturing of conventional explosives; IAEA safeguards inspectors were looking not for evidence of nuclear material, but of the kind of explosives testing consistent with nuclear weapons research and development.[37] In November 2011, the IAEA reported that it had "credible" information that Parchin was used for implosion testing.[38] The IAEA sought additional access to Parchin, which Iran did not grant.[39]

So, yeah, this is a big deal since "implosion" is the explosive reactionary affect of nuclear fission.

 

[MMC]

Looks like Graham is going to give the IAEA something to think about. Think BO peep and his Team saw this one coming?



Graham: Defund inspection agency unless Iran 'side deals' revealed

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is threatening to withhold funding from an international inspection agency pivotal to the Iran nuclear agreement unless President Barack Obama’s administration discloses specifics of several controversial “side deals” the agency has with Tehran.

“As an indication of how serious I view the provision of copies of these side agreements to our national security, I intend to condition and/or withhold voluntary contributions to the IAEA in fiscal year 2016 should they not be provided prior to the congressional debate next month,” Graham wrote Tuesday. His office released the letter Thursday.

Graham said there is precedence for the IAEA to make agreements public. In the letter to Kerry, Graham said in 2007 the agency released a document on Iran to the public. The IAEA receives about $88 million from the U.S. annually.


Read more: Iran nuclear deal: Sen. Lindsey Graham may defund IAEA unless ‘side deals’ revealed - POLITICO

 

[Beaudreaux]

...

Well, I'm glad you're happy with the situation. I respectfully disagree since the entire deal (including the IAEA portion) is based on having to trust the Iranians, and this part is like trusting professional athletes to do their own drug testing.

 

[MMC]

Well, I'm glad you're happy with the situation. I respectfully disagree since the entire deal (including the IAEA portion) is based on having to trust the Iranians, and this part is like trusting professional athletes to do their own drug testing.

Heya Beaudreaux. :2wave: Why would Graham still be talking about some side deal if it was allegedly, already to have been shown and that now there is no side deal. Just why would Graham come out with this six days ago?

Have you heard anything about the side deal being presented within the last 6 days?

 

[t4pi0k4]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site



Surely they can't be serious? How the hell did anyone sign off on this?!?!?!

How anyone can support this deal is beyond normal comprehension. "I assure you we have no nuclear weapons."

This information is totally flawed: do you really think that these physicists working at the IAEA would allow such thing without strong safeguards, that's part of their job description, that's why we pay them, that's why for our common sake we need to let them do their job, that's why we need to confide in them! These dudes are not the nitwits you want us to believe they are! They know how to split the atom, a feat i KNOW you don't!
guys you are so brainwashed, that you start behaving like crazies!

 

[iguanaman]

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site



Surely they can't be serious? How the hell did anyone sign off on this?!?!?!

How anyone can support this deal is beyond normal comprehension. "I assure you we have no nuclear weapons."

The author of this "story" has been known to release Israeli propaganda with nothing to back it up before over the AP. This is just another of those red herrings. It is shameful.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/the-aps-george-jahn-serves-up-israeli-propangada-on-iran-yet-again

 

[WSUwarrior]

The people running this country are very, very stupid, corrupt, pieces of ****.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Heya Beaudreaux. :2wave: Why would Graham still be talking about some side deal if it was allegedly, already to have been shown and that now there is no side deal. Just why would Graham come out with this six days ago?

Have you heard anything about the side deal being presented within the last 6 days?

There's evidently "still to be disclosed" portions of the IAEA agreements with Iran. I think those are what Graham is speaking about, although I may be mistaken.

At first, the Obama/Kerry deal covered ALL facilities, including military bases, that either are or were or will be nuclear program sites in Iran.

However, now that this portion of the IAEA agreement has come to light (by the AP getting a clandestine copy) the Obama Administration is saying that military bases are NOT part of their agreement, and that is why it's part of the IAEA deal.

This thing is so screwed up, that it should embarrass anyone that had anything to do with its creation. What amazes me, are the otherwise intelligent people that are supporting this deal blindly on ideological grounds alone.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The author of this "story" has been known to release Israeli propaganda with nothing to back it up before over the AP. This is just another of those red herrings. It is shameful.

The AP's George Jahn serves up Israeli propangada on Iran yet again

Really? What about all the other people that are confirming it, including the US State Department? Are they (the US State Department) putting out Israeli propaganda as well? Their spokesperson was just interviewed on CNN and he confirmed that it exists, and tried his best to spin it as if it was good thing for the US.

 

[iguanaman]

This information is totally flawed: do you really think that these physicists working at the IAEA would allow such thing without strong safeguards, that's part of their job description, that's why we pay them, that's why for our common sake we need to let them do their job, that's why we need to confide in them! These dudes are not the nitwits you want us to believe they are! They know how to split the atom, a feat i KNOW you don't!
guys you are so brainwashed, that you start behaving like crazies!

The story is nothing but a lie from Israeli intelligence. It wil be debunked shortly. The sad thing is how quickly some fall for such propaganda. That is what I find scary.

The AP's George Jahn serves up Israeli propangada on Iran yet again

 

[iguanaman]

Really? What about all the other people that are confirming it, including the US State Department? Are they (the US State Department) putting out Israeli propaganda as well? Their spokesperson was just interviewed on CNN and he confirmed that it exists, and tried his best to spin it as if it was good thing for the US.

What are they confirming? That a IEAE document exists? There is nothing on CNN.com about it. No links..it didn't happen.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The story is nothing but a lie from Israeli intelligence. It wil be debunked shortly. The sad thing is how quickly some fall for such propaganda. That is what I find scary.

The AP's George Jahn serves up Israeli propangada on Iran yet again

Here's an article quoting the US State Department spokesperson confirming the deal:

“We’re confident in the agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program,” State Department Spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday.

The seven-party talks aiming to place limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions “endorsed” that the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear work be “adequately addressed by the IAEA,” he added.