There is no dearth of rumors about the Iran nuclear deal. In the latest scare, two allegations have filled the media: the first, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran made “secret side deals”; the second, that the IAEA, in those negotiations, put the Iranian government in charge of investigating alleged nuclear research at its Parchin military base.

The latter supposed exposé comes from a now-debunked story by Associated Press (8/19/15). The piece, in its first draft, was full of errors and distortions (Vox, 8/20/15; War on the Rocks, 8/24/15). But its supposed revelations filled the airwaves.

Citing the AP report, NBC (8/19/15) claimed a “‘side deal’ allows Iran to inspect its own military site.” The Wall Street Journal (8/19/15) reported on Iran’s supposed “secret self-inspections.” Fox (8/19/15) wrote “lawmakers rip Iran deal over report Tehran can use own nuke inspectors” and cited a conservative politician characterizing it as a “dangerous farce.”

To its credit, the New York Times (8/21/15) did not take the bait. It waited two days and released a more carefully researched piece calling into question the allegations, with the more nuanced headline, “Prospect of Self-Inspections by Iran Feeds Opposition to Nuclear Deal.”

AP subsequently revised its article, tacitly admitting that crucial elements of it were incorrect.

This did not stop conservative media in particular from going wild with the story, nevertheless. Media Matters (8/20/15) noted “conservative media are seizing on a flawed, and later revised, Associated Press report.”

Opponents of the nuclear deal, primarily the US right-wing, have wielded such rumors in hopes of stirring public disapproval and pitting congresspeople against the deal.

IAEA: Media Reports ‘Misrepresent’ Facts

The allegations first made by AP and later echoed by the corporate media have been outright denied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself.

In an official statement, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano flatly refuted the allegations:

I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.

Amano noted that the agreements made between the IAEA and Iran in July are confidential, just like the “hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA member states.” There is nothing unique about these purported “secret side deals”; they are the same kinds of deals the IAEA makes with scores of other countries, including the United States.

Nor were the side negotiations secret in the first place. In mid-July, when the nuclear deal was reached, the IAEA said that it had worked with Iran to create a “road map that sets out a timetable for clarifying past and present outstanding issues by the end of this year.”

“I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way,” Amano said, describing the road map between Iran and the IAEA as “a very robust agreement, with strict timelines.”

FAIR contacted the IAEA, seeking a statement on the now-debunked AP article. An IAEA representative instead pointed to the official statement made by Director General Amano. IAEA Press and Public Information Officer Jeffrey Donovan also noted that “the text of the JCPOA is widely available on the internet,” referring to the official name for the Iran deal. “The model Additional Protocol may provide further assistance,” he added.

Experts: ‘Iran Will Not Be Allowed to Inspect Itself’

The nuclear deal, reached by the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—plus Germany), the EU and Iran, will bring a gradual end to Western sanctions on the Islamic Republic in return for the removal of two-thirds of Iran’s installed centrifuges; the cessation of its production of enriched uranium for at least a decade; the ridding of 98 percent of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, reducing it to a small percentage of what would be needed for a single weapon; and constant supervision of Iran by the IAEA.

Many opponents of the deal claim it is not tough enough, and argue that it allows Iran loopholes, such as those alleged in the debunked AP article.

Leading Iran expert Gary Sick pointed out in an email that AP‘s report was filled with falsities (Informed Comment, 8/20/15). Sick drew attention to a statement by the Arms Control Association (ACA) published on July 30, weeks before the allegations emerged. “Would the IAEA depend on Iran for nuclear residue testing?” the ACA asks. “No,” it answers.

“Congressional critics of the [nuclear deal] are misinterpreting information received in briefings about the process for IAEA inspections at sensitive sites,” the ACA explained 20 days before the publication of the debunked AP article, noting that the details agreed upon in the negotiations constitute “an established procedure.”

In an article in The Hill (8/21/15), two experts explain in great detail that, “contrary to allegations printed beginning on August 19, Iran will not be allowed to inspect itself.”

Authors Mark Hibbs—a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace working on IAEA safeguards issues—and Thomas Shea—who has served as an IAEA Safeguards official, as head of the IAEA Trilateral Initiative Office, and as head of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory—write, “What’s being said and published in some quarters about how the Iran nuclear deal would be implemented has now spun out of control.”

The rumors that emerged in early August that the IAEA had made “secret side deals” with Iran constitute a “disinformation milestone” and a “manufactured controversy,” the experts wrote. They clarify that the IAEA has such “safeguards agreement with 180 countries,” and that all of these nations “have similar information protection provisions”–that it is normal protocol.

“Congress may not be happy that it is not in the loop,” Hibbs and Shea add, but it is not up to the IAEA to decide whether to share information about where and how its personnel do their work in Iran.

The specialists further describe the latest myth, propagated by AP, that the Iranian government is being allowed to monitor itself as “wholly specious.”

Opponents claim Iran may have potentially conducted nuclear weapons-related work several years ago at Parchin military base. Because the site is a military base, Hibbs and Shea explain, “IAEA has negotiated with Iran procedures so the IAEA can collect the information it needs in a way that does not compromise the security of the site.” They make it clear that this “is entirely usual in such cases.”

In order to test the allegations, the IAEA wants to do environmental sampling, to detect traces of nuclear material that would be left over from experimentation. The experts describe the complex process by which the IAEA and Iran will do such testing. This complex process involves numerous parties, potentially including the US; multiple laboratories; and several layers of scrutiny, all of which have independent overseers.

Nuclear physicist and US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz explained in a tweet (8/20/15 ): “FACT: the #IranDeal mandates the most robust nuclear inspections ever peacefully negotiated.”

Opponents Continue to Spread Debunked Myths

A week later, even after the AP story has been thoroughly debunked, opponents of the Iran deal continue to use the myths in an attempt to bludgeon the international negotiations.

In an email sent to those on its mailing list on August 24, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI) falsely claimed that “Iran had made SECRET side deals in the nuclear agreement” and that “documents leaked to the Associated Press reveal secret side deals that allow Iran to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms.”

CNFI compares the supposed procedure to “Lance Armstrong conducting his own doping test,” referring to the professional cyclist who used illegal performance-enhancing drugs for years.

Right-wing pro-Israel lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) created CNFI as a tax-exempt advocacy group to oppose the Iran deal. AIPAC and CNFI plan to spend $40 million to lobby against the nuclear agreement.

AIPAC and CNFI are not the only ones to disseminate such rumors, nevertheless. The myths continue to fill right-wing news sites and blogs.

The conservative Accuracy In Media published an article (8/25/15) claiming Iran would be inspecting itself under the nuclear deal days after the myth had been thoroughly debunked.

Controversies like this demonstrate the importance of an independent monitor of the media. AP is one of the most well-respected sources of journalism in the world, yet even it sometimes bends the truth, often in the interest of power.

Ben Norton is a freelance journalist and writer. His website can be found at BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.