THIS is in response to Aunil Muntazir’s letter regarding Iran’s nuclear programme (June 13). Mr Muntazir states that ‘if Iran is enriching its uranium for peaceful power generation, why is Iran not allowing the IAEA to visit its sites?’

I suggest that the writer visit the IAEA website and read its latest report on Iran, where it states in Section C (Facilities Declared under Iran’s Safeguard Agreement) that the IAEA ‘continues to implement safeguards’ at ‘16 nuclear facilities and nine locations outside facilities’. This means that a total of 25 sites have been accessed by the IAEA. In spite of this fact stated in the IAEA’s own report, the writer asks why Iran does not allow the IAEA to access its sites.

The IAEA report discusses the Natanz nuclear facility and states in point 15 that ‘the Agency has concluded that the facility has operated as declared by Iran in the relevant Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ)’. Regarding the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) the report states in point 26: ‘The Agency has verified that FFEP is being constructed according to the latest DIQ provided by Iran’.

There is only concern in the report about one site — Parchin. But I would like to ask the writer how many nuclear sites has Israel granted the IAEA access to? Has Israel signed the NPT? How is it that there is no concern in the IAEA regarding Israel's undeclared nuclear sites but there is so much concern about one site in Iran while 25 others are under scrutiny and have been cleared by the IAEA?

ZAIN MANKANI Karachi

P5+1 meeting I DISAGREE with Mr Muntaz’ statement. The IAEA has paid frequent visits to Iran’s nuclear sites, and stated that Iran nuclear sites were safe and that they did not come across any case of diversion of objectives.

We should wait for the results from P5+1 meetings. Why is the US so much worried about Iran’s N-plan?

KHIZER ALI Karachi