Israel has once again escaped an attempt by the Arab bloc to force Israel to submit its nuclear facilities to international scrutiny.

The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted overwhelmingly against the resolution sponsored by Egypt calling for international monitoring of Israel’s nuclear facilities.

This year’s proposal – which is presented annually – was voted down by 61 member nations, including the entire European Union.

Forty-three nations supported the resolution and 33 countries abstained from casting a vote.

The office of Israel’s prime minister hailed what it called a “great victory for Israel in the international arena” following the vote, held Thursday at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 59th General Conference in Vienna.

“In recent weeks, there has been a combined national effort, led by the Prime Minister and the National Security Council, the Foreign Ministry, and the Atomic Energy Commission,” the office observed in a statement.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday night that he personally had spoken directly with more than 30 presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers about the importance of the issue.

“I explained that there was no place to hold a discussion of this kind as long as the main problem in the Middle East is Iran’s efforts to arm itself with nuclear weapons and its clear declarations regarding its intention to destroy the State of Israel.

I welcome the fact that the gap in Israel’s favor was significantly larger than the votes in previous years,” he said, adding that he thanked all the countries that supported Israel, and “especially the U.S., Australia and Canada.

“I thank the EU for voting as a single bloc in favor of Israel against the decision,” he added.

The resolution included a clause referring to Israel’s nuclear arsenal as a “permanent threat to peace and security in the region,” and would have forced the Jewish State to become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus placing Israeli nuclear facilities directly under IAEA supervision. Israel has never formally acknowledged any possession of nuclear arms, and maintains an official position of “atomic ambiguity.”

Egypt itself is presently in the process of negotiating construction of its own nuclear facilities with Russia, which has been involved in producing nuclear plants for Iran for more than a decade.

After the Senate’s filibuster of the Nuclear Iran Deal on Thursday, Sept. 10, perhaps the only remaining way for Congressional opponents of the Nuclear Iran Deal to block the measure is if Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) authorizes the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for failing to comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin).

That avenue is wide open, at the moment, thanks to a decision by a Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. issued on Wednesday, Sept. 8.

The court in House of Representatives v. Burwell found that the House has standing, that is, the right, to bring a lawsuit against the executive branch of the U.S. government. The issue in the Burwell case is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The legal basis for the potential lawsuit would be the failure of the White House to comply with the requirements laid out in Corker-Cardin. Under that legislation passed earlier this year, the White House had to provide Congress with all documents relating to the Nuclear Iran Deal, whether codicils, side agreements, or any other agreements bearing on the issue, with or between the parties.

As was discovered this summer, there are two secret side agreements dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, the only parties to which are Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The administration has never provided Congress with any documents relating to those side agreements. As was revealed yesterday in the JewishPress.com, the administration claimed, with a straight face, that it has provided Congress with all the documentation it has. The administration was able to make that claim because not one member of the U.S. government has a single piece of paper or digital notation regarding those side deals – those were all left with the Iranian negotiators and the members of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Iranians physically threatened to harm IAEA members if information about the secret side deals were shared with Americans, the Washington Free Beacon noted, quoting the Iranian Fars news service.

Of course the administration knew that Corker-Cardin required it to produce documentation regarding the side deals. Perhaps for this reason, first the administration tried to hide the fact that those side deals existed.

But the existence of those side agreements was discovered anyway, by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), two U.S. legislators trying to represent the interests of America, who traveled to Vienna to meet with IAEA officials in July, and who were told about the side agreements then.

Once the existence of those side deals became known, the administration officials still hid critical information about them – even to themselves, if they can be believed – although those officials had to know they were violating Corker-Cardin all along by allowing every jot of documentation to remain beyond U.S. borders.

Think about the growing mound of lies and obstructions surrounding Messr.s Obama and Kerry’s Nuclear Iran Deal. What is in it that they are so convinced Americans would revolt if the truth about it were known?

Which brings Congress, finally, at this very late date, to the possibility of litigation.

This only works if the House of Representatives, as an institution, brings the case, and that requires Boehner’s approval. Although Boehner has been late to the party, he has now become alive to the need for a vigorous legal attack on the flawed legislation itself and on the administration’s abrogation of its obligations under Corker-Cardin.

Perhaps this newfound interest stems from very serious challenges to his leadership. Those challenges are coming from Republicans on his right who have been the strongest opponents to the treaty as a threat both to the United States, as well as to Israel and the rest of the civilized world.

If Boehner has finally awakened and is prepared to use all the tools at his disposal as leader of the Republican majority in the House – which has strongly and consistently opposed this capitulatory deal – something historic may happen.

A report by the entity responsible for ensuring the peaceful development of nuclear energy worldwide and the one upon which the world depends for monitoring Iran’s nuclear activity revealed that over the past few months Iran has been working on and adding to a building at its Parchin site.

Parchin is an Iranian military complex located southeast of Tehran. It is the focus of speculation regarding possible testing of weaponization of nuclear material by the Iranians.

A November, 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report revealed satellite imagery of certain structures and chambers or vessels which indicate that Iran conducted various activities consistent with nuclear blast assessments.

But the U.S. State Department, according to its spokesperson during a public briefing on Thursday, Aug. 27, has already conclusively determined – or at least concluded – that no such activity has taken or is taking place. Not to worry.

The confidential IAEA report issued on Thursday, Aug. 27, obtained by Reuters, said: “Since (our) previous report (in May), at a particular location at the Parchin site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction materials. In addition, a small extension to an existing building” appeared to have been built.

The report was generated as part of the IAEA’s inquiry into possible military dimensions of Iran’s past nuclear activity. Such “PMD”s, as it is known, were a serious point of discussion in the lead-up to the July 14th Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed by the U.S. and the other member nations of the P5+1.

Many expressed great disappointment that there is nothing included in the JCPOA regarding PMDs. That issue, along with inspections of Parchin itself, are covered by the two side agreements which are exclusively between Iran and the IAEA.

According to Reuters, the IAEA says any activities Iran has undertaken at Parchin since U.N. inspectors last visited in 2005 could jeopardize its ability to verify Western intelligence, suggesting Tehran carried out tests there relevant to nuclear bomb detonations more than a decade ago. Iran has dismissed the intelligence as “fabricated.”

“It’s funny that the IAEA claims there has been a small extension to a building … Iran doesn’t need to ask for the IAEA’s permission to do construction work on its sites,” Reza Najafi, Iran’s envoy to the agency, was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.

State Department spokesman John Kirby‘s response to a media question about building at Parchin not only echoed Najafi’s response, but put the rabbit in the hat. Nukes? What nukes?

Here are the question and answer from the briefing:

QUESTION: There was just one element I wanted to ask you about. I think the report – without getting too much into the details, I mean, it confirmed broad compliance. But there was some mention of the Parchin base again and about construction or other activity that was going on there. Independent of the report, is that something the United States has noted and is also concerned about?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’d say, without getting into the specifics here – as I said, we’re not going to do that – I think it’s important to remember that when you’re talking about a site like Parchin, you’re talking about a conventional military site, not a nuclear site. So there wouldn’t be any IAEA or other restrictions on new construction at that site were they to occur. (emphasis added)

In other words, Kirby, representing the official position of the State Department, has declared that Parchin is simply a regular military site and, despite earlier reports by the IAEA and believed by many analysts, there is no and was no PMD activity there at all.

Not to worry.

(JNi.media) Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif on Saturday rejected US media claims about suspicious new developments at the Parchin facility, complaining that the Western media “have no other goal but to create an atmosphere of misunderstanding,” IRNA reported.

“The comments show that all the claims raised against the Islamic Republic of Iran on the issue are baseless,” Zarif insisted, adding that “it has been announced that a road building project has been implemented in the area.”

But the US-based think tank Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS, that’s actually their name, since 1993) is insisting that’s no road work over there, pointing to satellite images that show vehicles and containers being moved at Parchin.

Parchin is a military complex, some 19 miles southeast of Tehran. In July, the Iranian UN mission declared that there was no nuclear weapon production on the site and that the suspicions about Iran reactivating the site are born by a misconception caused by road reconstruction opposite the Mamloo Dam, which is located near the complex.

The UN International Atomic Energy Agency is very suspicious about Iran’s Parchin facility, and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) has voiced concern about the kind of access the IAEA expected to have there.

“We cannot get [IAEA head Yukiya Amano] to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin,” Corker told reporters last week.

We probably will not.

ISIS said the satellite images were taken after Iran signed its deal with the 5+1 world powers on July 14.

“This renewed activity occurring after the [signing of the deal] raises obvious concerns that Iran is conducting further [cleanup] efforts to defeat IAEA verification,” the think tank’s report states.

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters on Thursday that a cleanup effort, if one is taking place, would be “cause for concern.” But he insisted the US is confident it knows what’s taking place at Parchin and is able to detect nuclear activity at any Iranian site.

“You can’t cover up past nuclear activity very easily. It lasts for decades, even longer,” Toner said.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest played down the possibility of Iranian efforts to restart nuclear works, but also said he wasn’t at liberty to discuss specific intelligence matters.

The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (CA) has submitted a bill to disapprove the nuclear deal between the U.S., world powers and Iran.

Congress has until September 17 to approve or disapprove of the agreement that was signed on July 14 under the Iran Nuclear Review Act signed in May by President Barack Obama.

The announcement means the Republican-led Congress will make an effort to pass the resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 64, rather than a resolution of non-binding approval.

A resolution of disapproval would prohibit the White House from lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran, probably killing the deal entirely. If the resolution passes, Obama may be expected to veto it.

Royce wrote in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that it was “imperative” for lawmakers to see the so-called “side deals” being negotiated between the Islamic Republic and the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency while the agreement is being debated in Congress.

“While this may not be typical IAEA practice, there is nothing typical about the Iranian threat or this nuclear agreement,” he wrote. “Reviewing these side agreements is critical to Congress understanding whether Iran intends to pass that test… It is clear to me that this issue deserves more scrutiny by the Committee. Indeed, all Members of Congress should have access to the separate arrangements negotiated between Iran and the IAEA,” he continued.

“The ‘separate arrangement’ agreed to between the IAEA and Iran regarding inspection of the facilities at Parchin will almost certainly be regarded by Tehran as a precedent for IAEA access to future suspicious sites in Iran.

“I have little doubt that ‘side deals’ of today will become central to the agreement’s verification provisions tomorrow.

“These ‘separate arrangements’ have the potential to seriously weaken our ability to verify the agreement as a whole.”

The White House called the ‘arrangements’ between the IAEA and states standard and confidential. However, IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano is slated to present a closed-door briefing to members of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday (Aug. 5.)

Longtime former IAEA deputy director Dr. Olli Heinonen, who headed the agency’s arms inspections , currently of Harvard’s Belfer Center, expressed his opposition to the nuclear agreement Tuesday in a news briefing at the National Press Club in Washington DC.

The State Dept. was caught in yesterday’s press briefing claiming there were no “secret deals” with Iran but admitted that it has no written copy of the arrangements it is defending.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee questioned spokesman Mark Toner at Thursday’s press briefing about many Congressmen’s concerns over IAEA access to Iran’s nuclear sites under the nuclear agreement.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker has said that IAEA director Dr. Yukiya Amano did not accept an invitation to testify at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the deal.

Toner declined to say whether Dr. Amano should testify but added:

There’s [sic] no secret deals, and we heard that expression thrown out constantly over the last couple of days. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The IAEA, which is the one that verifies – will verify this deal, does create arrangements with countries under what’s called the Additional Protocol.

And Under Secretary Sherman has already had a secure briefing with the House leadership talking about this arrangement, and we’ve continued to provide or we will continue to provide those briefings in a classified setting, as needed….

So the perception that this has somehow been – that Congress hasn’t been looped in on this, and what we know about these arrangements is, frankly, incorrect. But they’ve had to take place in a classified setting.

Fine and dandy, but the reasonable assumption is that someone knows about the arrangements.

Lee told the spokesman:

But the notion – you said the notion that Congress hasn’t been looped in, but you haven’t been looped in because you guys haven’t read it.

Toner admitted:

We haven’t received a written copy of it, but we have been briefed on the contents.

And Lee retorted:

So someone with a photographic memory has looked at it and copied everything down in their brain and then repeated it up on the Hill?

Toner fidgeted and explained that “nuclear experts with much bigger degrees than I can ever attain have looked at this and their comfort level with it is good.”

But that does not answer the question, “If there is no secret deal, why isn’t a written version available?

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said Monday that Iran never will allow unrestrained access to the countries’ infrastructures.

The April 2 tentative agreement reached between Iran and P5+1 on Iran’s nuclear development is to be followed by an “Additional Protocol” once a final agreement is signed by the June 30 deadline imposed by President Barack Obama.

Zarif stated:

The Additional Protocol never allows excessive and unreasonable access to the countries’ infrastructures; rather it provides a regulated framework which is today being implemented in about 124 countries.

He added that implementation of the Additional Protocol is “voluntary” and that “the existent regulations prevents a misuse of accesses” by the IAEA to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

His statements turn the whole objective of the agreement on its head. Instead of the United States and the other P5+1 countries inspecting Iran’s nuclear plants to make sure it is not guilty of “misuse” of nuclear technology and enriched uranium, it is the Islamic Republic that is to make sure the IAEA does not “misuse” its access.

Zarif also said there will no such things as “inspections.” Instead, they are “access based on a clear and managed framework.”

But what about insistence by President Barack Obama and other Western leaders that there will be no restrictions on access?

All of that is just rhetoric to “pacify” pressure groups, according to Zarif.

He was quoted by The Tehran Times as saying, “Excessive demands [by the P5+1] would only prolong talks and would bring no result for the side that seeks excessive demands.”