WASHINGTON -- Several members of Arkansas' congressional delegation said Thursday that reports that the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency would allow Iran to self-inspect one of its potential nuclear sites should be reason enough to block the broader nuclear agreement with Iran.
"If it wasn't such a serious matter, it would be almost laughable. I would sure hope that anybody who is thinking about supporting this deal would look at the facts before us," said U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark. "I don't see how a rational person could conclude that it's a good deal."
The Associated Press revealed the agreement between the U.N. nuclear regulatory agency and Iran in a news story Wednesday saying Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors and equipment to verify that there is no nuclear work being done at the Parchin military site.
Critics questioned some aspects of the article, which was changed by the news company repeatedly, including to indicate that the International Atomic Energy Agency staff would monitor Iranian personnel during the site inspections. The AP also released a transcript of the draft agreement on which the news report was based.
U.N. inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities are central to the agreement reached by Iran, the United States and other world powers this summer that would lift crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran stalling its nuclear program for 10 years. The U.N. agency is responsible for verifying that Iran has made agreed-to changes at its nuclear sites before many of the sanctions can be lifted.
Direct access to the Parchin military site, where several countries suspect that Iran experimented with detonators for nuclear weapons a decade ago, has been a sticking point in negotiations and a source of concern for many who oppose the Iranian nuclear deal.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Yukiya Amano released a statement Thursday saying he is disturbed by claims that the atomic energy regulator gave responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran.
"Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work," Amano said.
Congress gave itself 60 days to review the Iran nuclear deal and is expected to vote by Sept. 17 on a joint resolution either approving or disapproving it. President Barack Obama has promised to veto a disapproving resolution. Overriding a veto requires approval from two-thirds of members in each chamber, and House and Senate leaders have said they expect Democrats to band together to block a veto override.
As of Thursday, 26 Democratic senators have said they plan to support the Iran nuclear deal. Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri announced her support Thursday, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Ed Markey of Massachusetts announced their support Wednesday. So far, two Democrats have said they will not support it.
Members of Arkansas' delegation -- who are all Republicans -- oppose the deal.
In a statement, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said reports of the Iranian-inspection arrangement should be enough to persuade members of Congress to reject the overall Iran nuclear deal.
"Put aside the billions we will give back to the ayatollahs to fund terror. Put aside the sanctions relief given to terrorist chief Qasem Soleimani [an Iranian general]. Put aside that this agreement legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state within 10 to 15 years. Entrusting Iran to verify itself turns what is a bad deal into a farcical one. And the only ones laughing are the ayatollahs," Cotton said.
Cotton, a former Army captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., first drew public attention to the International Atomic Energy Agency agreements with Iran in July, labeling them "secret side deals."
The International Atomic Energy Agency and the White House have called the agreements routine parts of the agency's dealings with countries that have or want to have nuclear power.
The logistical arrangements of the U.N. inspections were negotiated between Iran and the regulatory agency. Amano said in a statement that such deals are confidential and that he legally could not make the details public.
"However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way," he said.
A White House National Security Council spokesman has said the Obama administration is confident that the U.N. regulatory agency's agreement is sufficient.
Amano briefed the representatives of the world powers negotiating the deal about the logistical arrangements before the deal was announced in July, and International Atomic Energy Agency officials have since briefed several members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., who said Wednesday that the conversation didn't ease his concerns.
"I didn't get from the IAEA any additional clarity that would provide me a level of confidence that the nuclear deal as proposed by the Obama administration is anything but fraud and not in the best interests of the world," Womack said of his meeting with officials in Vienna in the first week of August. "We pressed the IAEA for information with no success."
If Iranians wanted world leaders to trust that there is no military component in their nuclear program, they should have agreed to open inspections at all military sites, he said.
"Given the history of Iran, I don't think that you can basically give Iran the power to self-inspect and report, and have confidence in the truthfulness and the accuracy of the report," Womack said. "I just don't know how you can trust the country to be honest brokers in this process."
Westerman said the United States shouldn't have agreed to a deal when it didn't know all of the specifics.
U.S. Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., said he is concerned that the inspection agreement doesn't go far enough and that Americans won't play a role in the inspections.
"[The agreement] didn't meet the president's more rigorous objective of anytime, anywhere arrangements," Hill said. "Allowing Iran to self-inspect and report back to IAEA seemed unusual, and it didn't, in my opinion, boost confidence."
U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., called the Iran self-inspection reports "more than a little bit troubling."
"The federal government doesn't trust farmers to self-certify on farm fuel storage, but they do trust the Iranian regime to self-certify on nuclear weapons," Crawford said. "To me that just seems so out of place. I just think it's entirely naive on the part of this administration."
Metro on 08/21/2015