clear
Friday, 13 February 2015
Satellite Imagery Analysis of Iran’s Parchin Military site Question Nuclear Deal
Share
clear

 

 

 

 

On October 9, 2014, we posted on the mysterious explosions that occurred at the Parchin Military  testing site.  The Islamic Republic attributed the blast to an unnamed “foreign intelligence power”.   We noted the findings of nuclear watchdog, the Washington, DC –based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) headed by former UN inspector David Albright:

Earlier today, it has been reported that the imagery shows that the damage is consistent with an attack against bunkers and that the locality is adjacent to another installation where work was being conducted that involves controlled detonation of fuses intended to serve as triggers for nuclear devices.

However, it is important to note that there is no evidence of either an attack or nuclear weapon-related activities at this specific site. There may be confusion over alleged high explosive nuclear weapon-related activities at another site at Parchin that occurred prior to 2004.

We commented :

With questions raised about the pending final agreement proposals  under discussion in Vienna between representatives of the P5+1 and Iran, the Parchin military test site blast begs disclosures  on what triggered it.  Why Iran has denied access to the facility to the IAEA since 2005?  It is time for the Senate and House Select Intelligence Committees to hold closed door hearings on Iran’s nuclear activities during the year long interim agreement. An agreement that gave the green light for lifting some US and International sanctions.  Perhaps, Israel has information on both the incident at Parchin and Iran’s nuclear program. Yuval Steinitz, Israeli Minister of Intelligence , revealed before President Rouhani’s speech at the UN General Assembly in  September 2014 that  he had  such information  from “reliable sources”.

Parchin, Iran Military Testing site 1-31-15

Source: Digital Globe/ISIS

Fast forward to satellite imagery taken on January 31, 2015 that raised more questions about what is going on at Parchin, a site barred by Iran from IAEA inspections. Further, it is excluded from the  final P5+1 agreement  with a target date of March 24th looming.  ISIS recently published its assessment of new activity at Parchin, noting that the asphalting was consistent with hiding prior activities, perhaps the explosions that occurred there last October.  The ISIS report concluded:

Over the last three years, Iran has substantially modified the Parchin site. Like its actions at the Lavisan site, Iran’s more recent modifications at Parchin are probably aimed at concealing past nuclear weapons-related activities from the IAEA and the P5+1, who are in charge of negotiating a long term agreement with Iran. Tehran has a long history of hiding its nuclear facilities and conducting secret, illicit nuclear procurement activities to outfit its nuclear programs. The removal of key economic and financial sanctions will depend on a variety of factors in a long term agreement, including significant cuts in Iran’s centrifuge program. But the lifting of these sanctions also depends on Iran stopping its nuclear-related concealment activities and its illicit nuclear procurements and addressing the IAEA’s concerns about past and possibly on-going work on nuclear weapons.

ISIS further commented on the wisdom of the pending final agreement:

Prospects for a comprehensive agreement dim if Iran remains intransigent on Parchin. A deal that does not include Iran addressing the IAEA’s concerns about the past and possibly on-going military dimensions of its nuclear program would undermine the verifiability of a long-term agreement, and thus the credibility of a comprehensive deal. Any deal will depend heavily on the adequacy of the verification arrangements. Unless reversed, Iran’s consistent and unjustified refusal to address the IAEA’s concerns, which require access to Parchin and other military sites, creates a dangerous precedent that makes adequate verification of a long-term agreement impossible, even if Iran ratifies the Additional Protocol. Prior to the finalization of a long-term deal, the IAEA must make significant progress on resolving  its concerns about Parchin and other  alleged nuclear weapons related activities. Certainly, without such progress, no key economic or financial sanctions on Iran should be lifted.

 

Patrick Goodenough of CNS, writing about these latest ISIS findings and conclusions, reported  the abiding  concerns  by IAEA director Yukio Amano in a late January 2015  speech in Jakarta:

 

In addressing the Iran nuclear issue…. the Agency needs to clarify issues with possible military dimensions to the satisfaction of member-states.

 

Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, Goodenough recalled,  had testified before a Senate Foreign Committee Hearing in February 2014 that a final agreement had to address the military activities at sites like Parchin. Couple  the latest evidence of Iran evading disclosure of nuclear trigger testing at Parchin, the P5+1  relenting on limiting the number of centrifuges for enrichment and the remarks last Sunday by Ayatollah Khamenei that:

 If [the Americans] want a deal, they should cover both generalities and details in a single session, instead of leaving details for later and separating generalities which are vague and leave room for different interpretations.

These remarks by  Iran’s Supreme Ruler  appear to have upended President Obama’s representations  during  last Friday’s  White House Joint Press Conference with German Chancellor Merkel. The President  suggested  that  “issues had narrowed” and that  “Iran had complied with  enrichment at the 20 percent level” . Further,  that Israel PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress could “sour negotiations”.  Calculations by  former IAEA  deputy Dr. Olli Heinonen  suggest  that  proposed  centrifuge limits  of 9.500 units  could enable Iran to achieve nuclear breakout in less than six months of an agreement. This analysis  rebuts   the Administration’s  roseate views  on a P5+1  final agreement .  The Washington Post editorial  board opinion published  last Sunday, has already  effectively   deemed   what  emerges  on March 24th, as a bad deal.   This mounting evidence bolsters why Congress, especially Democrats, should heed similar warnings from  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu  when he speaks before a Joint Session of Congress on March 3rd

clear
Posted on 02/13/2015 5:02 PM by Jerry Gordon
Comments
No comments yet.


Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!


Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!


Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!

Subscribe

Categories

Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew E. Harrod (2) Andrew Harrod (5) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bill Corden (5) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Bruce Bawer (16) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (867) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (730) Daniel Mallock (5) David Ashton (1) David J. Baldovin (3) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Devdutta Maji (1) Dexter Van Zile (75) Donald J. Trump (1) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (12) Esmerelda Weatherwax (10051) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (76) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (179) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (344) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (31) Hugh Fitzgerald (21464) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (25) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janet Charlesworth (1) Janice Fiamengo (2) jeffrey burghauser (2) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2521) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (3) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (6) John M. Joyce (394) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Hanson (1) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (29) Lawrence Eubank (1) Lev Tsitrin (16) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (3) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (50) Matthew Stewart (2) Michael Curtis (763) Michael Rechtenwald (58) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2592) New English Review Press (132) Nidra Poller (73) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (221) Rebecca Bynum (7242) Reg Green (23) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sam Westrop (2) Samuel Chamberlain (2) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (34) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (966) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (32) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
clear
Site Archive