I wonder if the folks at the New York Times will stop automatically referring to the facility in Qom as being "clandestine" after someone reads Daniel Joyner's legal analysis of the question of whether Iran violated any law in the timing of its disclosure of the Qom facility, which concludes: "it is not at all clear that Iran violated any legal obligations incumbent upon it in the timing of its Qom declaration."
The operative point of the analysis is this:
"This absence of specification regarding the process for entry into force of the Subsidiary Arrangements, in light of the detailed specification of the process for entry into force of the Safeguards Agreement and amendments to it, including the constitutionally required consent of the Iranian domestic lawmaking institutions, is probative textual evidence that Iran did not intend for the Subsidiary Arrangements to be legally binding per se. Rather, the Subsidiary Arrangements would appear to be more accurately characterized as agreed guidelines or understandings for implementation of the Safeguards Agreement by the parties, of a non-binding legal character...
If the various Subsidiary Arrangements agreements between Iran and the IAEA were in fact non-legally-binding in character, the only legal obligation with regard to the disclosure of design details for enrichment facilities incumbent upon Iran would be the provision in Article 42 of its Safeguards Agreement which states that “such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility.”
It is uncontested that no nuclear material had, as of September 2009, been introduced into the Qom facility."