...

3. In last several months, based on Framework for Cooperation, the Islamic Republic of Iran has voluntarily implemented 18 practical measures, two of which have not completed yet due to their complexity, incredible information and lack of 4 substantiated evidences at the disposal of the Agency. The Agency was aware that there was a possibility of not to reach the timing of 25 August and therefore first bullet of the report as well paragraphs 14 and 76 are not accurate. One of the main reasons was also related to the Agency’s late announcement on conclusion of the issue of exploding bridge wires.

4. One of the unsubstantiated allegations, among the past issues that have not already been resolved by the IAEA, was the question of exploding bridge wires (EBWs) applications. Iran by providing the necessary information and substantiated documents to the Agency proved that EBWs have been developed for the civilian applications in oil and gas industry. Needless to say that Iran has a large oil and gas industry and it is not unusual to develop and use all kind of technologies, including EBWs in this field which are “specialized industry practices.” all over the world. Therefore, the Agency’s previous view about the EBW application or need is already accommodated. In our view, this issue is closed now.

6. There have never been any authenticated documents for PMD claims and as it was underlined by the former Director General in his reports (GOV/2009/55), even the Agency has limited means to validate independently the documentation that forms the basis of it and thus in reality, there is no “system” requiring any kind of “system assessment.” Moreover so-called system assessment in not consistent with the step-by step approach, agreed in the Framework for Cooperation. However, based on our principled positions, we continue to cooperate with the IAEA on some of the ambiguities in order to clarify and resolve them.

…

7. It should be underlined that in December 2013 Iran has informed the Agency about the installation of “a new centrifuge” (IR-8) in the PEEP R&D area. During a technical visit on August 2014, the Agency also visited the same complete new centrifuge. The Agency, in its reports including in recent report referred to the already installed “new centrifuge” (IR-8) as a “casing” which is not a correct term. Since the Agency’s reports, at least, should be factually accurate it is required to rectify its reports and replace the word “casing” with “new centrifuge.”

8. Since the issue of visa for one staff was also referred to in the report, we would like to state the following. While the IAEA has added three new members to its team just in recent months all of whom got visas on time, it is surprising that the report refers to visa of “one member” that has “certain nationality”. Issuing visa is our sovereign national right and we will issue it when we deem it appropriate. Inclusion of such unrelated issue in the report has no benefit and is actually counterproductive.

...