On Friday, November 7, the U.S. Representative Office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI-US) unveiled previously undisclosed information on the Iranian regime’s illicit nuclear weapons-related activities at Parchin military facility in Tehran.
The NCRI’s revelations coincided with a report on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stating that the Iranian regime has failed to cooperate with the IAEA in clarifying two outstanding practical measures in its nuclear program.
Relying on intelligence provided by its main component, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the NCRI has exposed several dozen nuclear sites, directly involved in nuclear weapons-related activities since 2002.
Below is the transcript question and answer at the U.S. Department of State briefing on Friday:
Question: The NCRI, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, they are the ones who exposed parts of the Iranian nuclear program years ago, came out that there was another report that the facilities in Parchin is still being used for nuclear weapons development and the regime despite what it says publicly remains committed to seeking nuclear arsenal. Do you have anything to say about that?
Jen Psaki, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State: We are aware of the claims that have been made but we don’t have any comments on the subject.
Question: Democratic congressman Adam Schiff from California said that the subject of the letter should be the last thing the U.S. offer to Iran to come to a deal. How does that work to the upcoming negotiation on the 24 of this month?
Jen Psaki: I don’t think anyone has confirmed the letter or the existence of the letter. Obviously it was reported the letter from the president…
Question: Did your comment about what the NCRI reported, is that I just need the whole thing, have you seen it? Or looking at it right now? There are other allegations in there right now beside the Parchin well they are related to Parchin but have to do with Ukrainian scientists being involved …
Jen Psaki: I don’t anticipate to have any comments on it but obviously we are just coming on it this morning and I will check back on that particular piece as well
Question: More broadly, when you see these kinds of reports, both the IAEA report and the NCRI report, and I am not suggesting that they should be taken with equal weight or anything like that, doesn’t that give you pause about Iranian’s credibility as negotiating partner in the p5+1 …
Jen Psaki: well, it has never been about trust. It is about why Iran wants to convince the world or show the world that they are having a peaceful program and it is about the U.S. and other countries who are a part of this feeling that this is verifiable and it can be monitored and it can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Question: the problem that I have over my head is that they have demonstrated that they are not reliable when it comes to verification as evidenced by the IAEA’s latest report which is a repeat of the previous report which you definitely seen about stonewalling them on the investigation into the possible military dimension or possible military aspect of …
Jen Psaki: That’s why there would be a process by which any ideal would be verifiable and includes monitoring and if it is not abided by then obviously it is not a deal. So, we are not at that point yet but obviously the details are important and certainly the implementation of it is important…
Question: does the U.S. consider the NCRI a valid interlocutor on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program?
Jen Psaki: I am not going to have any comment on the group…