The State Department said Thursday that the Obama administration won’t be pushing the International Atomic Energy Agency to release the details of the confidential arrangement it has with Iran on how inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites will proceed.
A Wednesday report from the Associated Press said Iranian staff would collect environmental samples for evidence of weapons work, which prompted a new wave of criticism of the deal Iran struck with the IAEA.
The IAEA on Thursday said that report is “a misrepresentation,” but declined to clarify the deal further except to say that it fits in with its “long-established practices.”
While many in Congress are continuing to demand the details to ensure they can accept the methods by which the IAEA will inspect Iran’s facilities under the deal, the Obama administration has also repeated several times that the agreement between Iran and the IAEA is confidential. On Thursday afternoon, State made it clear that it wouldn’t push the IAEA at all to reveal the details.
“The secretary [John Kerry] has explained, undersecretary [Wendy] Sherman has explained, Secretary [Earnest] Moniz has explained our understanding of this arrangement in classified briefings to Congress,” said State spokesman John Kirby. “The director general of the IAEA himself has explained the parameters in a classified setting.”
“The United States is not going to take a position to try to compel the IAEA to do things that are outside what they hold to be the limits of their obligations when it comes to sharing the technical details of a confidential arrangement,” he added.
When pressed again, Kirby said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano already explained the detail to Congress “to the best of his ability to do so.”
Kirby also noted that on Thursday, Amano said he has a “legal obligation” not to make the details public.
Reporters pressed again, and some suggested that the details could be released to Congress in a classified setting, especially if doing so is needed to ensure its passage in Congress. But Kirby again rejected that idea.
“We don’t believe that that’s necessary given the fact that the director general has already been to Capitol Hill to explain it,” he said.
