If An Anti-Iran Deal Talking Point Gets Upended And No One Listens, Can Opponents Still Use It?

WASHINGTON -- A report released last week undermined a key criticism against the Iran nuclear deal. But it appears to have come too late in the debate to dramatically upend one the skeptics' top talking points.

On Friday, Reuters reported that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will physically accompany Iranian officials as the Iranians collect samples at Parchin, a military site suspected of hosting nuclear activity in the past.

The Reuters story directly challenged claims made in August by The Associated Press, which said that a confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA suggested inspectors from nuclear watchdog agency would be barred from physically entering Parchin. The AP, in a comment to The Huffington Post, stood by its story.

"Regrettably, Reuters has misread and misrepresented the AP story they cite," said Paul Colford, vice president and director of AP Media Relations, on Friday.

But if a misinterpretation took place, it also happened with a large swath of congressional Republicans.

Opponents of the broader nuclear accord negotiated between Iran, the U.S. and the five world powers quickly jumped on the AP story as evidence that the agreement was a sham and should be scrapped entirely.

"Allowing the Iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites, particularly a notorious military site, is like allowing the inmates to run the jail," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said at the time.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) sarcastically suggested his colleagues come to the House floor and change the Olympic Committee rules. "Those athletes should be able to test themselves, he said.

And just before the House voted on the Iran deal last week, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) reminded his colleagues of the AP allegations.

"Reports have indicated that there's also a side deal -- a side deal between Iran and the IAEA that allows Iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites," he said. "This would be like a person in college or any school being allowed to grade their own test."

But the reaction to last weeks Reuters story, which cites two anonymous Western diplomats familiar with the contents of the confidential Parchin arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, was comparably muted, underscoring the challenge of influencing preconceived notions about the weakness of the nuclear accord.

At this point, it is impossible to verify whether the AP or the Reuters story is correct. Both rely on anonymous sourcing and neither have been confirmed by the IAEA. In response to pushback last month from nuclear nonproliferation experts who expressed skepticism that the IAEA would forfeit its right to physically inspect Parchin, the AP published what is said was a draft version of the confidential side arrangement. But former IAEA official Tariq Rauf quickly noted that the document does not resemble typical IAEA safeguards agreements.

But the recent Reuters report should at least give politicians pause before suggesting, as Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) did last week, that "President Obama's Iran deal is like giving Tom Brady and the Patriots the right to determine whether a football is deflated."

The White House and the IAEA have refused to comment directly on whether agency officials will be allowed into Parchin during its investigation.