State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf continued Wednesday to push back on the New York Times’ coverage this week of Iran’s reportedly increasing nuclear fuel stockpiles.
The dispute between the paper and the State Department began Tuesday, when the Times published a report titled, “Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile Grows, Complicating Negotiations.”
In the article, the Times reported that, “Tehran’s stockpiles of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations,” seemingly undercutting the Obama administration’s earlier claim that Iran had “frozen” its program under terms agreed to in the Joint Plan of Action, which temporarily limits the country’s nuclear activity.
Harf maintained this week that the Times’ report, which is based on the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is bunk. However, the spokeswoman didn’t debunk the idea that stockpiles may have increased. In fact, she indicated that they have done exactly that.
Harf said that State is aware that Iran’s stockpiles could fluctuate, and that they expect Tehran to comply with any new levels once a nuclear deal is finalized. That goes against what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on March 2, which is that the Obama administration had, “actually succeeded in not just halting Iran’s progress as it relates to their nuclear program but actually rolling it back in several key areas, including reducing and eliminating their stockpile of highly enriched uranium.”
When asked whether Iran would be able to reduce its nuclear fuel stockpiles to the levels agreed to in the JPOA — despite reports that it has increased this amount by 20 percent — Harf replied, “Honestly, I’ve talked to all of the nuclear experts on this. There is not a concern that they will get down to the right amount by June 30.”
“[A]ll of the nuclear experts” agree that Iran would be able to comply with guidelines set out in the JPOA, Harf added.
“In the two previous times, the initial JPOA and then the extension, they’ve done the same thing, and they’ve always gotten back where they needed to be. If they don’t, that’ll be a problem. You’re right. We expect that they will, and we just don’t have concerns about them being able to do that,” she said.
However, the Institute for Science and International Security said in a separate report released Tuesday that it appears unlikely Iran will be able to comply with the agreed to drawdown guidelines.
“Iran has clearly fallen behind in its pledge” regarding 5 percent enriched uranium, the report’s authors, David Albright and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini, said.
Iran’s seeming failure to meet its obligations “show the risk posed by relying on technical solutions that have not yet been demonstrated by Iran,” the report added.
The Times’ Sanger was quick to note the new study. Harf was not amused, and sent out several tweets arguing that Iran’s apparent stockpile surge is not the problem the Times is making it out to be.
“You can tweet all the ISIS reports you want… doesn’t change the fact that main contentions in your story were wrong,” she said early Wednesday morning on Twitter. “You write that ‘Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why’ Iran’s stockpile is at this level — not true.”
“You write that ‘The overall increase in Iran’s stockpile poses a major diplomatic and political challenge’ — not true,” she continued. “You write that this partially undercuts our contention that the Iranian program has been ‘frozen’ — not true.”
She added, “And you insinuate Iran is doing something it’s not supposed to do under the JPOA or in violation of its obligations — not true.”
The “bottom line,” she said is that the State Department knows “exactly what’s going on” and that Iran has, in fact, agreed to “reduce to 300kg” as part of a final nuclear deal with the United States.
The deadline for a final nuclear deal between the United States and Iran is June 30.
