There was nothing specific in the piece. The crucial document AP alleges to have "seen" was not even the final signed agreement between Iran and the IAEA. AP did not quote any passage from the document. The bombastic "exclusive" tag relied just on the opening paragraph's sensationalist language:
"Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the UN agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press."
The article states nothing specifically. "Own inspectors" - in this context - means that Iran, according to the agreement, is allowed to exclude "inspectors" from states which have their own confrontational agenda. Everyone knows who the usual suspects are.
According to the final agreement, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors must always be present at any inspection. The additional presence of Iranian experts allows them to track the selected UN inspectors; some of them may be outright spies, which was exactly the case with the 1990s UN inspections of Iraq.
Managers shall be managed
Iran security expert Gary Sick was among the first to identify AP's falsehoods.
Here, in synthesis, is what everyone involved and/or following the Iranian nuclear dossier must know about nuclear residue testing.
Under the terms of the so-called "managed access" procedures agreed between the P5+1 and Iran, "the inspected party may take environmental swipe samples at a particular site in the presence of the IAEA inspectors using swabs and containment bags provided by the IAEA to prevent cross contamination. According to former IAEA officials, this is an established procedure."
Scientists agree that, "the process ensures the integrity of the inspection operation and the samples for all parties."
Here, in detail, are the key facts regarding environmental sampling and managed access regarding specifically the controversial Iranian military-industrial site in Parchin. The source is unimpeachable: Tarif Rauf is a former head of verification and security policy coordination at the IAEA, reporting directly to the Director-General.
To his credit, the head of the IAEA Yukiya Amano, released a statement seriously dressing down AP's sensationalism. Yamano stresses the agreements are "confidential" - as in AP did not read anything; and he defends the procedures as "technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices." Yamano - who got his job via American influence - could never be accused of being an Iran-appeaser.
What is AP up to?
AP, an American news agency whose dispatches are reproduced in full by countless newspapers and magazines all across the world, once again is being used as a crude propaganda vehicle - just like US corporate media as a whole was used as a crude propaganda vehicle in the run-up towards the invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq.
At a micro level, this is yet another stance of the rampant politicization of the IAEA. Washington has been doing this for years.
At a macro level, the implications are really serious. The "exclusive" went out at an extremely sensitive point of the relentless campaign by the US War Party and the Israel lobby against the Vienna deal.
There's only one purpose for selling this piece not as an Op-Ed but as an "unbiased", fact-based breaking news story: To convince wavering politicians, all of them Democrats, on Capitol Hill, that the Vienna deal is a bad deal.
Especially because none of these politicians will be reading Noam Chomsky's more detailed debunking of a Washington cottage industry; the demonization of Iran.
BREAKING: Putin lifts ban on delivery of S-300 missiles to #Iran http://t.co/nYEFmcVTz4 pic.twitter.com/nqYZ8yvyWa
โ RT (@RT_com) April 13, 2015
AP at least removed some - but not all - of its allegations from the original "exclusive". But damage has been done. If this had originated from media based in BRICS nations, especially Russia, China and Brazil, one can imagine the "international community" outrage. AP being exceptionalist-based, they might have thought they could get away with it. Well, they can't.
Reader Comments
I believe this story proves something that I have been harping about for a long time.
AP is possibly THE major player in the American MSM (along with Bloomberg), maybe even the world. Aren't these AP folks supposed to be just a bunch of 'presstitute' media, mindlessly supporting and doing the bidding of the US government, right or wrong, correct? (Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.)
I want to vomit every time I read another moron who keeps repeating this absolute pile of horse-crap non-sense.
Presstitute media? The American mainstream media is NOT a bunch of 'presstitues' working on behalf of the US government and its policies. Not even close.
Only a truly blind or wilfully ignorant person could fail to see that, especially in view of the current story's context.
If the US media, in this case the Associated Press, was actually nothing but presstitutes completely beholden to the Obama Administration, they would be working their asses off to 'seal the deal' on Iran, rather than submarine/sink the Iran deal. Yet, the AP seems to be clearly trying to scuttle the Iran deal with garbage stories like this one.
So who, exactly, opposes this Iran deal, that the AP is apparently aiming to please with this bullshit Iranian hit-piece? The USA? NATO? The EU? The UN Security Council? Britain? India? Russia? China?
Nope, they all strongly support the deal. Even the Sauds, though not happy, went along relatively quietly ('quietly' for the House of Saud, that is.)
Who, then, is opposed to this Iranian deal? Who is it that the AP is desperately trying to please or appease with this crap propaganda Iranian hit piece?
ISRAEL and the ZIONISTS, that's who. And what does THAT mean?
It mean that there is NOT a "presstitute" mainstream media that blindly supports the Administration, obviously.
The MSM today in America (and most of the West) is clearly controlled by and for ZIONISTS and their neocon interests and agenda, period.
When the US government doesn't do what the zionists or Israel wants, watch the MSM suddenly turn from being so-called government ass-kissing lackey 'presstitutes', to vicious anti-government attack dogs hurling unadulterated crap stories to try and defeat anything the zionists dislike, or deflect anything the zionists don't want you to know or hear. From the American MSM's perspective, Israel is the only 'teflon' country. Not America, no way.
Who then, exactly, is it that we are not allowed to criticize?
As Voltaire made abundantly clear, we may not criticize those who truly control things. Controlling it all like the Wizard of Oz, from behind that opaque curtain of anonymity.
Israel/Zionism is NEVER allowed to be honestly and truly criticized by either the US government or the MSM.
Now you know who controls your world. And the MSM.
Presstitutes for the government? Sure. Much of the time, no doubt. But ultimately, when conflicting interests cause a US Administration push to come to a Israeli/zionist shove, the MSM ultimately shills for the interests of the zionists, baby! Even if it HURTS American interests in the process.
So, the next time you see someone use the term 'presstitutes' when referring to the MSM, remember that person is what is known as a 'useful idiot', as the zionists and their neocon minions just LOVE when anyone voluntarily directs attention away from the hidden truth (which invariably is 'anti-semitic') and focuses everyone's attention far away from the "kippas behind the curtain" who are REALLY pulling the MSM's strings and deciding what the public may or may not be allowed to think or see............