Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

Remember that Mortgage Crisis in 2009? Part Deux

Posted on by

Primer:

Obama extended this program through December 2015.

The Making Home Affordable Program is a critical part of the Obama administration’s efforts to provide relief to families at risk of foreclosure and help the housing market recover from the housing crisis, HUD explained.

“The housing market is gaining steam, but many homeowners are still struggling,” said Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

He added, “Helping responsible homeowners avoid foreclosure is part of our wide-ranging efforts to strengthen the middle class, and Making Home Affordable offers homeowners some of the deepest and most dependable assistance available to prevent foreclosure. Extending the program for two years will benefit many additional families while maintaining clear standards and accountability for an important part of the mortgage industry.”

Now the real truth of more toxic mortgages. A must read in full detail by clicking here.

Hedge funds get cheap homes, homeowners get the boot

PublicIntegrity: Julius Uwansc was in trouble with his mortgage after refinancing in 2009, just after the real estate bubble popped. Like millions of others, he found himself owing more on his house than it was worth.

The Nigerian-born father of four moved into his house on Richardson Road in Gwynn Oak, Maryland, in 2005. “We loved it because it has this big yard where the kids can play,” Uwansc says.

But soon after closing on the loan, Uwansc began having trouble making payments. He believed he had worked out a loan modification with Bank of America in 2011 after signing paperwork, but the bank disputed the terms Uwansc thought he had secured. When he didn’t pay the amount the bank said he owed, it claimed he was in default.

Uwansc’s mortgage was insured by the Federal Housing Administration, meaning if he failed to make payments, the bank would typically be paid the full value of what was left of the mortgage, plus costs associated with servicing the debt.

Bank of America filed for a claim and received payment. The mortgage was then transferred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the FHA.

Normally at this point, instead of taking over the mortgage, HUD regulations would require the bank to work with the borrower during a pre-foreclosure stage. If there’s no way to keep the homeowner in the home, HUD shepherds the property through the foreclosure process.

But not in this case.

The program

In 2010, HUD launched the mortgage sales program — now known as the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program, or DASP — under intense pressure from Congress to improve its finances. HUD can’t reduce the principal owed on mortgages it holds for homeowners, but it can sell the mortgages in bulk to investors at a steep discount — at times as little as 41 percent of the mortgages’ collective value.

The agency, through the FHA, insures loans to lower-income and first-time homebuyers. During the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession, many of those homeowners fell behind on their mortgage payments and foreclosures loomed.

Meanwhile, the FHA, due to an onslaught of claims, was desperately in need of a funding infusion.

The DASP program has a dual purpose: to lessen the impact of FHA insurance claims on defaulted mortgages on HUD’s finances, and according to a statement in April by Genger Charles, then the acting commissioner of HUD’s Office of Housing, to provide borrowers “a second chance at avoiding foreclosure.” Through DASP, lenders cash in on an FHA insurance claim on mortgages that are at least six months delinquent and HUD takes ownership of the mortgages. HUD then sells those mortgages to the highest bidder in bulk auctions.

Over 98,000 loans have been funneled through the DASP system since it began in 2010, with mortgages amounting to more than $16.7 billion in total debt.

The sales have helped the FHA insurance fund become solvent. According to an analysis of HUD’s sales results by the Center for Public Integrity, buyers have paid HUD $11.2 billion over the course of these auctions. The fund currently holds $4.8 billion, after being $16 billion in the red two years ago.

But when it comes to helping homeowners avoid foreclosure, the results are unimpressive. The program, it was hoped, would help homeowners because the investors who bought the loans were expected to offer better terms to borrowers.  As part of the initiative, HUD included a stipulation that buyers must wait six months (it has since been bumped up to a full year) to foreclose to allow borrowers a chance to work with their new creditors.

“Once we sell [the mortgage] for something less than the principal balance,” explains HUD spokesperson Brian Sullivan, the lender “has more room to work with the homeowner.”

But the new owners of these mortgages are more likely to flip the homes for a profit or take advantage of the booming rental market, say some advocates. The transactions may make good financial sense, but they can leave struggling homeowners like Julius Uwansc in the dark, and in some cases on the streets.

“The investors are there to make money,” says Diane Cippolone, a mortgage servicing consultant to the National Fair Housing Alliance, a nonprofit organization. “They are not there to do neighborhood revitalization or neighborhood stabilization.

Depending on secrecy

FHA loans by law offer extra protections against foreclosure. In order to obtain that FHA insurance, a loan servicer, the company that collects payments and administers the loan, must make a series of efforts to modify loan terms to help owners keep their homes.

A lender can file a claim and turn the loan over to HUD for sale only when all these efforts have failed. The loans in DASP, according to HUD spokesman Sullivan, “are all headed to foreclosure — 100 percent of them — because they’ve exhausted their loss-mitigation options.”

But legal advocates and several borrowers say they have seen otherwise. The original lender reports that they’ve taken all the necessary steps, and HUD essentially takes their word for it, says the NCLC’s Geoff Walsh. “We’re hearing from a lot of homeowners that were still involved in loss mitigation,” he says, and could avoid foreclosure through normal FHA pathways.

Uwansc says he had no idea his mortgage was up for sale. Walsh says, “The program depends on secrecy. The program depends on the homeowner not knowing that their loan is being sold.”

Digesting Putin today and in the Near Future

Posted on by

CNN: President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet during next week’s gathering of the United Nations General Assembly, a senior administration official said. The official noted the meeting comes “at the request of President Putin.”

“Given the situations in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the President believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians,” the official said.

White House officials have repeatedly complained about Russia’s recent military buildup in Syria, a move the Kremlin insists is aimed at defeating ISIS. But Obama administration officials suspect Putin is attempting to gain a foothold in the war-torn country should it collapse under the weight of a bloody civil war.

“Russia’s decision to double down on Assad is a losing bet,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, accusing Putin of propping up Syria’s embattled leader, Bashar al-Assad.

During their bilateral discussion, Obama will press Putin to deescalate tensions in Eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian forces continue to clash with the Ukrainian military.

RussiaDirect: At the UN later this month, Vladimir Putin will likely eschew the bombastic and hypocritical statements about Russia’s role in the world that many Western analysts are expecting.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kazan, Russia on July 24, 2015. Photo: AP

According to numerous forecasts, the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, scheduled to start in late September this year, could be the scene of a blazing rhetorical battle.

The General Assembly will feature speeches by the heads of the world’s leading countries, with U.S. President Barack Obama, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani potentially mounting the rostrum in sequence on Sept. 28, the very first day of the gathering.

Of course, the ceremonial nature of the 70th anniversary of the event will leave a mark on the content of the speeches, and the leaders of the great powers are unlikely to set about listing their grievances without prolix preambles and platitudes.

Rather, attentive listeners will have to read between the lines and fish out their own interpretations from the stream of evasive phrases and allusions.

However, such sessions always demand the appearance of a maverick speaker to tear up the script and add spice to the staid proceedings. In previous years, the presidents of Iran and Venezuela have played this role, but at the 70th Session of the General Assembly the odds-on favorite is Putin.

 Recommended: “Putin UN trip might lead to a second Munich in New York.” 

All eyes and ears will be tuned to the Russian president for potentially scandalous denunciations of the United States and its allies, and off-the-wall solutions to international exigencies. Journalists, of course, would love for him to sail close to the wind, thereby livening up their reports and ensuring a wider audience.

But all told, one must be prepared for the fact that such expectations might be in vain. Neither can it be ruled out that Putin will suddenly decide to subcontract his UN speech to a subordinate.

in today’s international climate, particularly in the UN, it is hard for the Russian president to take the moral high ground over his opponents

The fact is that in today’s international climate, particularly in the UN, it is hard for the Russian president to take the moral high ground over his opponents. And without the certainty of victory, Putin will not act — or will at least limit himself to a formal address.

From the Atlantic Council:

The Kremlin says Russia will take countermeasures if the U.S. places new nuclear weapons at a base in Germany.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s comments, reported Wednesday by Russian news agencies, came in response to a report by Germany’s ZDF television. The report said that preparation is underway by the U.S. to station B61-12 nuclear bombs at Buechel Air Base in Germany.

ZDF said its information was based on examination of U.S. federal budget reports. The claim couldn’t immediately be confirmed….

Peskov said “unfortunately, if this step is implemented … it may disrupt the strategic balance in Europe and therefore will clearly make Russia take corresponding countermeasures to re-establish the balance.”

—————————————————————-

From RussiaDirect:

In the middle of September, the Russian authorities closed the American Center at the Russian State Library of Foreign Literature in Moscow. This happened after 22 years of the center’s activity in the sphere of bilateral cultural exchanges and shortly after the death of Ekaterina Genieva, a famous librarian and cultural critic as well as former president of George Soros’ Open Society Institute in Russia, who did her best as the director of the library to prevent this move.

Closing the American Center is the next step in the Russian authorities’ general campaign against “foreign agents,” primarily, American ones. Over the past two years, American centers across Russia have been shut down. Nearly one year ago, Russia cancelled the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) Program – the largest educational exchange program between Russia and the U.S.

Putin continues to challenge NATO and those states with an established NATO relationship or getting military support with particular emphasis on the United States. The matter of Ukraine and the Baltic States is far from being settled.

RFEU: NATO has expressed concern after a news report that Russia is building a large military base near its border with Ukraine.

Speaking to RFE/RL on September 10, a NATO spokesman said that, “Overall, NATO remains concerned about Russia’s military buildup near Ukraine’s borders and its continued attempts to destabilize Ukraine.”

Reuters reported on September 9 that Moscow had started building a major military base in Belgorod Oblast, which abuts the Luhansk region of Ukraine that has been a hotspot of conflict between Ukrainian forces and separatists that NATO says are being trained and reinforced by Russian troops.

The report said workers were erecting a perimeter fence at the alleged site, near the town of Valuiki, less than 20 kilometers from Ukrainian territory.

Citing public documents, the news agency said the Defense Ministry is building the base on a 300-hectare site.

The facility is to house ammunition depots and barracks for 3,500 soldiers, as well as a recreation center with a skating rink and a swimming pool.

The ministry says it plans to use the base to train soldiers on artillery and army air defense, as well as in driving armored vehicles. The plan includes a site for studying the tactics of the U.S. military.

 

Germany Leadership Knew About VW Cheating Emissions

Posted on by

The Volkswagen CEO resigned and Germany’s Angela Merkel knew about the cheating but ignored it. Many more details here. Additionally, VW received U.S. subsidies for emissions.

German ministers were reportedly warned of VW test-beating software

FNC: German government ministers reportedly turned a blind eye to Volkswagen installing cheat devices to fool U.S. diesel emissions tests, raising the possibility that the mushrooming scandal could cause embarrassment for Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph, citing a German parliamentary answer, reports that German ministers were warned months ago of “defeat device” software installed on Volkswagen’s diesel cars. The transport ministry answered a parliamentary question about the country’s car industry on July 28 saying, “The federal government is award of (defeat devices), which have the goal of (test) cycle detection,” according to The Telegraph.

The paper reported that while the government’s statement did not specifically mention Volkswagen, the question that precipitated it, from a member of the country’s Green Party, implied that the carmaker engaged in such practices.

“The government told us in July that it knew about this software, which has been used in the U.S.A.,” Green Party Deputy Leader Oliver Krischer told Germany’s N24 television Wednesday. “It’s clear they knew the software was widely in use.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reported that Volkswagen sent recall letters to California owners of its diesel-powered cars this past April, telling them to take their cars to a dealer for new software that the company said would ensure emissions were “optimized and operating efficiently.”

Reuters reported that the company had sent the letters in an effort to fend off suspicious U.S. regulators who investigating discrepancies between the company’s laboratory emissions test results and the amount of real-world pollution emitted by the cars.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) confirmed to Reuters that the letters were part of a voluntary recall that the state agency, the EPA, and Volkswagen had agreed to in December of last year. At the time, the car maker insisted that the discrepancy stemmed from a simple technical glitch.

“This is one of the fixes they presented to us as a potential solution.”  CARB spokesman Dave Clegern told Reuters. “It didn’t work.”

Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned on Wednesday under intense pressure following the EPA’s disclosure Friday that stealth software makes VW’s 2009-2015 model cars powered by 2.0-liter diesel engines run cleaner during emissions tests than in actual driving. The EPA has said that Volkswagen could be subject to fines of as much as $18 billion.

Early Thursday, member of Volkswagen’s supervisory board said he expected further resignations at the German automaker.

Olaf Lies, economy and transport minister of VW’s home state Lower-Saxony, which holds a 20 percent stake in the company, told rbb-Inforadio Thursday that “there must be people responsible for allowing the manipulation of emission levels to happen.”

The EPA accused VW of installing the so-called “defeat device” in 482,000 cars sold in the U.S. VW later acknowledged that similar software exists in 11 million diesel cars worldwide and was setting aside 6.5 billion euros to cover the costs of the scandal.

“As CEO I accept responsibility for the irregularities that have been found in diesel engines and have therefore requested the Supervisory Board to agree on terminating my function as CEO of the Volkswagen Group,” Winterkorn said in an announcement. “I am doing this in the interests of the company even though I am not aware of any wrongdoing on my part.”

The U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the scandal, while Other governments from Europe to South Korea have begun their own inquiries, and law firms have already filed class-action suits on behalf of customers. Volkswagen revealed plans on Wednesday to voluntarily submit a complaint to the state prosecutors’ office in Brunswick, Germany. Late Wednesday, VW filed a criminal complaint with German prosecutors seeking to identify those responsible for any illegal actions in connection with the scandal.

For the U.S. market, Volkswagen has yet to reveal a plan to fix its vehicles. The company has said it is working to “eliminate these (emissions) deviations through technical measures.”

Obama Admin uses Corrupt Brookings Inst. as Foreign Lobby

Posted on by

There is some questionable history of the Brookings Institute:

Brookings had a cameo role in the Watergate saga. President Nixon reportedly told aides to rifle through the office of Brookings fellow Leslie Gelb, who had been a Department of Defense analyst with Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the “Pentagon Papers” to the New York Times and the Washington Post. One version of events says the break-in was foiled when a Brookings security guard, Roderick Warrick, stopped two men with attaché cases who were trying to sneak into the building on a summer evening in 1971. Additionally, the President of Brookings and a board member is Strobe Talbott. 

Stobe has an interesting history that includes Russian spies, a long friendship with the Clintons and…. Bill Clinton and Strobe Talbott;
 The former president lived with the former deputy secretary of state and journalist when Clinton was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University.

talbott clinton

Disclosure: Brookings Takes Millions from Foreign Governments
Documents reveal contributions from Qatar, UAE

FreeBeacon, Adam Kredo: The Brookings Institution, one of the country’s top left-leaning think tanks, has for the first time admitted to Congress that it receives millions of dollars every year from foreign governments, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, according to official disclosure forms obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The disclosure of these figures comes as a result of a recently implemented federal law mandating that those who testify before Congress reveal any potential conflicts created as a result of funding by foreign entities.

Brookings has come under intense scrutiny by reporters and others for not fully disclosing the large amounts of cash it receives from Middle Eastern governments.

The practice has led some to accuse Brookings and its most prominent scholars of pushing biased analyses aimed at making these foreign governments look good. The think tank’s relationship with Qatar has received particular attention due to the Middle Eastern country’s close relationship with the terrorist group Hamas and its ongoing funding of various terrorist entities.

The disclosure form, which is presented to Congress before an individual testifies, reveals that Brookings received nearly $15 million from the Embassy of Qatar between 2013 and 2015. Brookings also maintains a facility in the Qatari capital of Doha, where Hamas is known to operate freely.

The think tank received another $1,920,000 from the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates between those same years.

Several million dollars also have been donated over those years by the Norwegian and Swedish governments. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) also donated more than $250,000 to Brookings.

These disclosures came as a result of a Sept. 17 congressional hearing at which Suzanne Maloney, a Brookings senior fellow, offered testimony on Iran’s relationship with the terrorist group Hezbollah.

The forms further reveal that, in addition to the millions in foreign donations, Brookings has received federal grants.

Both the foreign donations and federal grants “were for independent research and analysis related to an number of subject matters,” according to Maloney. A “portion” of these funds may have been “related to the hearing,” which discussed the ways in which Hezbollah stands to profit from Iran in the wake of the recent nuclear deal.

When questioned about the foreign donations by the New York Times last year, Martin Indyk, a Brookings scholar who has also worked with the Obama administration, defended the practice and maintained that it does not bias his views.

“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Indyk, who reportedly received a $14.8 million check from Qatar.

Many experts have refuted Indyk’s claim and accused Brookings and Indyk of ignoring a clear conflict of interest.

“When an American think tank like Brookings accepts money from Middle Eastern regimes that sharply restrict free speech, it is saying it doesn’t care that its scholarship on the Middle East might at least appear to be compromised,” said Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who has reported on Brookings’ funding. “It is saying it doesn’t care that there is at least the appearance if not the reality of a very obvious conflict of interest.”

This appearance of a conflict became acute when Indyk was selected by the Obama administration to mediate peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Smith said.

“The problem was further compounded when the Obama White House named Martin Indyk to serve as envoy to a peace process between two actors, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, that are both at war with Hamas—a terrorist organization that, like Brookings, is funded by Qatar,” Smith said. “That neither Indyk nor Brookings nor the White House ever saw this as a conflict of interest is evidence of an arrogance beyond compare.”

Josh Block, CEO of the Israel Project, said the new disclosure rules are necessary for transparency.

“The reason we supported this rule change is because the American people deserve to know what foreign governments are paying to influence U.S. policy by funding these ‘independent experts’ to the tune of millions of dollars—especially countries like Russia or Qatar with  long, sordid records of mischief or supporting terrorism against Americans and our allies and of rank hostility toward Israel,” Block said.

“Until now, the potential foreign financial conflicts of interests and the motives of those funding the experts testifying was totally hidden from view,” Block said. “This kind of transparency is good governance. We applaud those in Congress who adopted this rule for matters of foreign affairs and national security and would like to see its expanded use in other committees in both the House and Senate.”

Brookings did not respond to a request for comment on its foreign funding.

Secret Iran Nuclear Inspections, a Proven Fraud

Posted on by

The lies began in the White House with regard to the anytime any location inspections.

John Kerry is defending the IAEA and Iran fraud on the Parchin inspection that occurred last week.

Washington (CNN) The Obama administration is acknowledging that Iranians would be involved in inspections of the sensitive Parchin military site under a draft arrangement with the U.N., but officials are stressing that they are not the only ones who would be investigating the Iranian location long believed to have hosted covert militarized nuclear activity.

A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have “total oversight” of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site.

“Iran is not self-inspecting,” the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will “play a role.”

It seems likely that IAEA staff would either be present or watching via video camera when the Iranians take samples from the site, a practice that the international nuclear agency has used in previous inspections agreements.

A senior administration official, meanwhile, said that while Iranians may be taking the samples at Parchin, individuals from other countries will be a part of their analysis. The official noted that the arrangement satisfies the demands of the IAEA. More details here.

What the secret nuclear inspection accord between Iran and the UN says _ and what others say

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press

VIENNA (AP) — An AP report has revealed that the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency has agreed with Iran that Iranian experts and equipment will be used to inspect Iran’s Parchin military site, located not far from Tehran, where Iran is suspected of conducting covert nuclear weapons activity more than a decade ago.

Here are some questions and answers about the document, and what it means for the larger deal between Iran, the United States and five other world powers to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for easing sanctions against Iran.

WHAT HAVE IRAN AND THE IAEA AGREED?

According to a draft document viewed by AP, Iran has agreed to cooperate with the U.N. in answering longstanding allegations about possible past work to develop nuclear weapons at its Parchin plant — but only with the Iranians conducting the inspections themselves. Iran would collect its own environmental samples on the site and carry out other work usually done by IAEA experts. The IAEA will be able to review the Iranians’ work after the fact. The deal on Parchin was between the IAEA and Iran. The Obama Administration was not a direct party to the agreement, but apparently was aware of it.

___

WHAT DO OPPONENTS OF THE DEAL SAY?

Opponents of the broader deal are seizing an opportunity to say the entire exercise of negotiating with Iran is flawed, that it relies too much on trust of the Iranian government.

___

WHAT DOES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAY?

The Obama administration and other supporters say the wider agreement say it is focused on the future, with ample inspections, and that the side accord between Iran and the IAEA is focused on Iran’s activities in the past and therefore is not central to the overall deal.

___

HOW UNUSUAL IS THE AGREEMENT ON PARCHIN?

Any IAEA inspection of a country suspected of nuclear irregularities is usually carried out by agency experts. They may take swipes of residue on equipment, sample the air or take soil samples in attempts to look for signs of clandestine work on atomic arms or other potentially dangerous unreported activity.

The document on Parchin, however, will let the Iranians themselves look for signs of the very activity they deny — past work on nuclear weapons. It says “Iran will provide” the agency with environmental samples. It restricts the number of samples at the suspect site to seven and to an unspecified number “outside of the Parchin complex” at a site that still needs to be decided.

The U.N. agency will take possession of the samples for testing, as usual. Iran will also provide photos and video of locations to be inspected. But the document suggests that areas of sensitive military activity remain out of bounds. The draft says the IAEA will “ensure the technical authenticity of the activities” carried out by the Iranians — but it does not say how.

In contrast, the main nuclear deal with Iran gives IAEA experts greatly expanded authority compared to what it has now to monitor Iranian nuclear activities as it works to ensure that Tehran is hewing to its commitments; reducing the scope and output of programs that Iran says it needs to generate energy but which can also be turned to making the fissile core of atomic weapons.

___

WHY IS THE PARCHIN AGREEMENT IMPORTANT?

Any indication that the IAEA is diverging from established inspection rules could weaken the agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog with 164 members, and feed suspicions that it is ready to overly compromise in hopes of winding up a probe that has essentially been stalemated for more than a decade.

Politically, the arrangement has been grist for American opponents of the broader separate agreement to limit Iran’s future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Critics have complained that the wider deal is built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

The separate agreement on past nuclear activities does not affect the broader deal signed in July. And it doesn’t appear yet that the revelation will change any votes in Congress for or against a resolution of disapproval, which President Barack Obama is expected to veto if it passes.

___

HOW DID THIS AGREEMENT HAPPEN?

It could be a matter of priorities.

The Obama administration’s main focus in the broader Iran deal — signed by the U.S., Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — is crimping Iran’s present nuclear activities so they cannot be used in the future toward making a bomb. Faced with more than a decade of Iranian resistance to IAEA attempts to probe the allegations of past weapons work at Parchin, there may be a willingness to settle for an agency report that is less than definitive — and methods that deviate from usual practices.

The IAEA also appears to have recognized that Iran will continue to insist the allegations are lies, based on false U.S., Israeli and other intelligence. After a decade of stalemate it wants to close the books on the issue and allow the U.N. Security Council to do so as well.

The alternative might well have been no inspection at Parchin any kind.

___

WHAT DOES THE IAEA SAY?

Director General Yukiya Amano says, “The arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our … standards in any way.” He says agreements with Iran on clearing up the nuclear arms allegations “are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public – the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA member states.”

___

WHAT DO OTHERS SAY?

Ned Price, spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House: “We are confident in the agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s former program, issues that in some cases date back more than a decade. Just as importantly, the IAEA is comfortable with the arrangements, which are unique to the agency’s investigation of Iran’s historical activities.”

Olli Heinonen, in charge of the Iran investigation as IAEA deputy director general from 2005 through 2010, says he can think of no similar arrangement — a country essentially allowed to carry out much of the probe of suspicions against it.

___

HOW CRUCIAL IS PARCHIN TO THE OVERALL DEAL?

U.S. intelligence officials do not consider the Parchin inspections a critical part of the broader deal, according to one official, commenting only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted. The U.S. believes most weapons work occurred there in 2003, the official says, and the site has been thoroughly cleaned up since then.

___

AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian contributed to this report.