Sometimes you have to say to yourself "Donny, you’re out of your element," and this is one of those days. Andreas Persbo at Arms Control Wonk finds Iran to be in a clear breach of its obligations. I’m not exactly sure where in my reporting I went wrong, since my interview hinged around Code 3.1 of the subsidiary agreement, but I did somewhere, and I’ve reported the error to the Attackerman inspector-general’s office.

Finally, we are definitely looking at a safeguards violation. It’s worth recalling that Iran did upgrade its subsidiary arrangements to oblige them to report facilities to the IAEA when they were at the design stage. They did this in 2003. They unilaterally pulled out of this arrangement in 2007. As James Acton correctly points out, the arrangement entered into force through simple exchange of letters. As in any contract, the principle pacta sunt servanda prevails (just put that term in Google).

A state can no more pull out of a contract than you can get out of, say, a mobile phone contract before it expires. It takes two parties to terminate an agreement. And the IAEA never accepted Iran’s withdrawal. Not that it matters. It would seem like construction started at some time before March 2007. That is, at a time when even Iran itself considered itself bound by Code 3.1.

Either way, wrong, correction, apology, etc.