Germany, France, and the UK have issued a joint statement accusing Iran of “excessively invasive physical searches” of IAEA inspectors. UK Ambassador Corinne Kitsell accused Iran of “intimidation” with those searches.
The reports had claimed inappropriate touching during searches, and orders to remove certain articles of clothing. It’s not clear at all that these are violations of the IAEA’s agreements with Iran.
These searches aren’t coming out of the blue. Iran has long had mistrust of inspectors from certain nations, noting how often the details of inspections get leaked through third party countries, and lack the confidentiality that normally is expected.
Iran has also had a serious problem with sabotage attacks, and while the IAEA was not involved in that sabotage, they have also gone out of their way in not publicly condemning Israeli sabotage, even when it damaged IAEA equipment in places.
Again, this isn’t to accuse the IAEA of anything untoward, but all of this put Iran into a position where they feel the need to scale up security in general.
Everyone knows iaea search teams r essential for Israel to get on the ground Intel so it will be stupid not to search them thoroughly.
They should be grateful anal probes r not part 9f the search regimen
“and while the IAEA was not involved in that sabotage”
Maybe not physically but “noting how often the details of inspections get leaked through third party countries” makes them suspect to say the least.
Actually, the IAEA has been responsible for sabotage of the NPT – And in fact, Atoms for Peace was a set up aimed at the Soviets. But an inspector who had a suspicious device triggered an alarm in Iran. Be honest, Jason. And informed.
Iran has the absolute right to search the inspectors as some of them are in fact zionist spies….! So now Corinne Kitsell has gotten the upper hand to play victims just like Israel does when it comes to Palestinians…!
Iran is correct in searching out plants among IAEA inspectors.
Thanks for the story … wanted to note this very common misuse of language that can be made by even the most conscientious Antiwar reporter:
“Iran has long had mistrust of inspectors from certain nations …”
The proper word is not mistrust but distrust. Mistrust is when the lack of trust is unnecessary; distrust is when the precautions and lack of trust is earned by treachery and lies, which we all know are a hallmark of IAEA’s relationship with Iran.
It may seem a small thing; but the most important thing we are fighting here is the constant and all-pervasive western narrative building for war and conflict. Iran “mistrusting” the IAEA implies they are not reasonable and deserve censure. “Distrusting” puts the blame on the other, more appropriate side.