In recent years though the IAEA's stance if that they've found some evidence that Iran did continue a nuclear weapons programme, and has made it quite clear that Iran is not giving it the access and information it needs to confirm that it is in compliance.
No, the 2011 IAEA report indicated that there was evidence for a program up until 2003, the same data as previously used in, e.g., US intelligence estimates. It then says that some research may have continued at a slower rate since then, but doesn't provide any new evidence.
Basically, the new IAEA director wants to be much more accommodating to Washington than the previous director. So the 2011 report, while not actually saying anything different than previous reports, was written to make it much easier to misread and encourage people to infer that there's evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Also there's been plenty of misreporting on Iran's 'refusal' to allow the IAEA access to facilities: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/29/how-the-media-got-the-iran-iaea-access-story-wrong/
They still have every opportunity to bow out gracefully.
If only that were true. Abject surrender would basically mean they'd have to give up all effective means of defense, and no nation can exist long without those. It's not like we would suddenly leave them alone. Their government has already been overthrown once by hostile foreign powers, and because of that they went from a fairly western style of democracy, (to a brutal, western-controlled dictatorship), to a socialist-Islamic style of democracy. The world would probably be a lot better of if we had never done that. I can only imagine how much worse we can make it.