When is the AP going to explain its bogus Parchin story?

Remember how a few weeks ago, the AP’s George Jahn reported that he’d seen a draft of the agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency governing site inspections at Iran’s Parchin military base? And how Jahn explained that the draft said Iran would be allowed to do its own site inspections without the IAEA being present, which if true sounded like a pretty bad way to conduct a site inspection? But then how lots of people who read Jahn’s story said, “uh, a lot of this doesn’t make sense” and the IAEA was all “this story is completely inaccurate,” and parts of Jahn’s story started mysteriously disappearing from the web and then reappearing (it’s almost entirely gone now; see for yourselves)? But the AP mostly stood by Jahn’s reporting and released his transcription of the draft he’d seen, and that only kind of made the whole story seem even worse?

Yeah, about that:

United Nations inspectors will be present with Iranian technicians as they take samples from a key military site, two Western diplomats said, undercutting an objection by U.S. Republicans to the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.

The diplomats were familiar with details of a confidential arrangement between Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog for inspections at the Parchin site, where some countries suspect nuclear weapons-related tests may have taken place.

Iran has denied that allegation, but agreed to accept comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of its suspect sites as part of the historic July deal in exchange for an easing of international sanctions.

An August report by the Associated Press, in its original version, said the agreement on Parchin suggested that IAEA inspectors would be barred from the site and would have to rely on information and environmental samples provided by Iranian technicians. The AP later published what it said was the text of an early draft of the agreement that remains unconfirmed.

One more time for the record, please:

But the Western diplomats told Reuters that while Iranians would be allowed to take the samples themselves, the agency’s inspectors would be physically present and would have full access to their activity.

“There was a compromise so the Iranians could save face and the IAEA could ensure it carried out its inspections according to their strict requirements,” said one of the diplomats.    Inspections at the Parchin site, which is about 30 km (19 miles) southeast of Tehran, would by carried out by mixed IAEA and Iranian teams coupled with cameras overlooking and recording the process, the other diplomat said.

“The IAEA will be present when the Iranians take the samples (at Parchin). This approach to managed access is something that’s fairly standard in the IAEA toolbox. Nothing to worry about really,” the diplomat said.

“Unfortunately there have been distortions and inaccuracies in the media that made it look like Iran would simply inspect itself. That’s not how it works,” the diplomat added.

Uh-huh. So, what was the deal with that AP thing then? Did Reuters get the story wrong? Maybe, but the Reuters report isn’t Swiss-cheesed through with inconsistencies and logical breakdowns the way Jahn’s report was, so if we’re going to believe one or the other, I’m going with Reuters. It’s possible that Jahn got hold of an early draft of the agreement and that the final version included this pretty major change, but Jahn’s own reporting said that the draft “doesn’t differ substantially from the final version.” This is a substantial change, and if it’s accurate then Jahn’s reporting is completely undermined.

Jim White, at emptywheel, thinks that Jahn has some ‘splainin to do, and I think he’s got a point:

If Jahn was shown a document that differed so substantially from the final arrangement, it is at least possible that he was completely manipulated by whoever showed him the document. He can save a considerable amount of face by publicly identifying who brought the document to him. His promise of confidentiality should not apply to information that turned out to be false. If he stands by his reporting, however, then we must seriously consider that he intentionally put Iran in the worst possible light and assumed he would never be called out on it.

If Jahn was genuinely played, fingering the person who played him wouldn’t just help his fraying credibility, it would actually be in his job description. After all, if somebody is running around bamboozling reporters at major media outlets in an attempt to scuttle the Iran deal, that’s news. And last time I checked, though I admit it’s not always crystal clear, the AP was supposed to “report” on things that are “news.” Jahn is a person who, at least in theory, does such “reporting” (or, as I like to say, he’s a “reporter”), and so he’s sort of obliged to say something here.

Hey, thanks for reading! If you come here often, and you like what I do, would you please consider contributing something (sorry, that page is a work in progress) to keeping this place running and me out of debtor’s prison? Thank you!