2018 IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report

I received a copy of the 2018 Safeguards Implementation Report from a friend. Find a link to it below.

A different friend, Jonathan Tirone, wrote a typically excellent summary of some of the takeaway points from the SIR regarding Iran inspections today over at Bloomberg News. You can find his story here.

For ease of reference, I’ll also paste the text of his story below.  All of this is relevant to the current Trump-imposed crisis regarding Iranian compliance with the JCPOA.

Iran Snap Nuclear Inspections Jump as Tensions With U.S. Rise

By Jonathan Tirone

May 10, 2019, 9:39 AM CDT

Snap inspections at Iranian nuclear facilities jumped last year, underscoring the wide-reaching ability of international monitors to access potential sites that could feed clandestine research.

The finding was included in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest Safeguards Implementation Report, which is circulating among nuclear-security officials as the specter of another Middle Eastern conflict rises. Europe in particular has found itself squeezed between hostile governments in Washington and Tehran after the U.S. left the nuclear deal and slapped sanctions on Iran.

According to a copy of the restricted report published this week and obtained by Bloomberg News, inspectors deployed in Iran conducted a record number of so-called complementary accesses for a third year running in 2018. Almost 400 inspectors spent some 1,867 person-days combing Iranian sites and triggered more than three surprise visits a month.

“These snap inspections are a reflection of the concern, particularly among Europeans, that Iran would ramp up nuclear work in a clandestine fashion after the U.S. left the nuclear deal,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Iran Snap Inspections

Monitors conducted more than three surprise visits a month last year

Source: IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report

Iran on Wednesday warned that it would abandon some elements of the 2015 accord if European nations failed to come up with ways to protect banking and oil business within 60 days. A day later the U.S., which left the agreement a year ago and is sending a carrier strike force to the Persian Gulf, piled on more penalties.

The escalation is disconcerting to non-proliferation officials who see the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and world powers as a model agreement, one that bestowed unprecedented powers and access to international monitors.

The agreement “amounts to the most robust verification system in existence anywhere in the world,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said last month in Washington after meeting with U.S. officials.

Since the deal came into force in January 2016, IAEA inspectors have issued 14-straight reports showing that Iran has remained within the parameters of the deal.

That could change during the third quarter, after the U.S. revoked two waivers that permitted Iran to ship out enriched uranium and heavy water. Delivering his response to a year of U.S. pressure, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday that recent enriched-uranium stockpiles would exceed limits if the country isn’t allowed to send its inventories of the heavy metal overseas.

Four years of IAEA verification, amounting to more than 8,000 inspection days and more than 100 snap inspections, have cost about 85.5 million euros ($96 million), or about three-fifths the cost of a single F-35 fighter jet made by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Iran Monitoring Costs

Total inspections costs are less than EU100 million under the deal

Source: IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report

“We’re seeing the cost of keeping peace through this diplomatic accord far cheaper than the cost of a potential military confrontation,” according to Geranmayeh, who advises EU governments. “That’s something to consider for a cost conscious U.S. president that complains about ‘forever wars’. The cost of the deal is a drop in the ocean.”


SIR 2018_6May2019dstr


6 Comments on “2018 IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report”

  1. My understanding is that four days of running a US Naval Task Force and nuclear carrier in the Persian Gulf is the same as the inspection costs in Iran by IAEA. If the carrier should hit an uncharted reef the costs will soar.

    • Dan Joyner says:

      Hey Bob. Huh – that does sound about right. Some of the rhetoric coming out of the WH on intel they supposedly have of inchoate threats that Iran poses to US forces and allies in the region is very disturbingly deja vu all over again from 2002. And funny enough, a good few of the same people are in the administration now as were then, e.g. Bolton.

      • robertkelley2012 says:

        If the task force gets lost they might end up on a reef in the Gulf of Tonkin. Remember the Maine!

      • Cyrus says:

        Lets just hope they don’t end up shooting down another Iranian Airbus while supposedly coming to the rescue of a non-existent tanker in a manufactured incident https://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118

      • Cyrus says:

        BTW this was the “Harassment of tankers” committed by Iran that was used to justify the attack on Iran’s navy

        The US was protecting co-belligerents in the Iran-Iraq war (Kuwait, Saudis) and was a co-belligerent itself

  2. El roam says:

    Interesting, although the ” The cost of the deal is a drop in the ocean ” indeed, but not in the eyes of Trump.In his eyes, the real issues right now, are the ballistic missiles or programs of the Iranians,and support of terror ( including, but not limited to : Syria and Yemen ).That, without touching his political main base consideration ( Evangelists, Israel supporters, Neo-conservatives and so forth…). And for him, this is not drop in no ocean no hell. He has proven already his determination, to do whatever it takes, to support Israel ( see relocation of the US embassy, see recognition of the Golan height as sovereign part of Israel, and more ). He wouldn’t buy it, in noway would….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s