The Iran Nuclear Deal: What the NY Times Needs to Know

Concerning the terms of the framework nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers, The New York Times is at odds with the U.S. State Department, the White House and . . . The New York Times. The Gray Lady reported yesterday (“New Amendments Imperil Measure on Iran in Congress“):

The interim agreement reached between Iran and six world powers would dismantle much of Tehran’s nuclear program . . .

In fact, according to the U.S. State Department, the agreement will not dismantle much of Tehran’s nuclear program. Tellingly, the State Department’s April 2 “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program” does not use the word “dismantle” even once. In fact, just one single element of Iran’s vast nuclear program will be destroyed, according to the U.S. administration, which has noted that

The original core of the [Arak] reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be destroyed or removed from the country.

As for more than 10,000 existing centrifuges that Iran would not be allowed to use under the framework deal, they would be mothballed. The “Parameters” document states:

All excess centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure will be placed in IAEA monitored storage and will be used only as replacements for operating centrifuges and equipment.

The document adds:

Iran will remove the 1,000 IR-2M centrifuges currently installed at Natanz and place them in IAEA monitored storage for ten years.

Also, “Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing base will be frozen and under continuous surveillance,” according to the U.S. parameters. In addition, also according to the government’s parameters, “All centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure removed from Fordow and Natanz will be placed under continuous monitoring by the IAEA.”

Thus, of all of the elements of Iran’s nuclear program discussed in the State Department’s “Parameters,” only Arak’s core may be destroyed (or removed).

In addition, the White House, including in its infographics about the deal, also does not assert that the agreement would “dismantle much of Tehran’s nuclear program.”

Indeed, in an article aptly headlined “The Iran Nuclear Deal: What You Need to Know,” The New York Times’ own foreign desk correctly reported April 4 “) that Iran:

Is allowed to keep its nuclear facilities, which it insists are for civilian uses only, but they would be subject to strict production limits. Two facilities will be converted into research sites without fissile material.

Cuts the number of its centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, by two-thirds to 5,060, and reduces its stockpile of low-enriched uranium from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms — not enough for a nuclear weapon — for 15 years. Thousands of centrifuges will be put into storage.

On what basis does The Times assert this week, that contrary to official documents released by the U.S. government as well as its own earlier reports, that the interim agreement “would dismantle much of Tehran’s nuclear program”?