Exclusive - Faulty devices help keep Iran in nuclear deal limits: report

[webfact]

Exclusive - Faulty devices help keep Iran in nuclear deal limits: report

By Jonathan Landay

 

FILE PHOTO - An Iranian national flag flutters during the opening ceremony of the 16th International Oil, Gas & Petrochemical Exhibition (IOGPE) in Tehran April 15, 2011. I REUTERS/STR

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Frequent breakdowns of advanced uranium enrichment devices have inadvertently helped Iran comply with restrictions in the international agreement curbing its nuclear programme, according to a new report by a Washington-based think tank.

 

Iranian compliance also is due to tougher policing by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration of the 2015 pact to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, the Institute for Science and International Security said in a report due on Friday. A copy of the report was seen by Reuters.

 

"Iran can be expected to continue to push the deal's limits, commit violations and seek interpretations that are unfounded," the report said. "One should expect many struggles to keep Iran within the nuclear limits for the duration of the deal."

 

For those reasons and because Tehran is unlikely ever to build a financially viable uranium enrichment plant, an expansion of Iran's programme would either be a "colossal waste of money ... or the basis of a nuclear weapons programme, which would not care about costs," the report said.

 

Washington and its negotiating partners in the agreement should find a way to make the deal's restrictions permanent or "severely" extend their expiration times, it said.

 

Under the deal between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, Tehran agreed to restrict its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy.

 

The report comes as Trump weighs whether to certify to Congress that Iran is complying with the agreement. He has until Oct. 16 to make that decision.

 

Decertifying Iran could lead Congress to reimpose U.S. sanctions on Iran, threatening to collapse the deal and intensify tension in the Middle East.

 

Supporters of the deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, insist that strong international monitoring will prevent Iran from developing nuclear bombs. Iran has denied that it is seeking nuclear weapons.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the pact, has found no "material breaches" by Iran, a judgement with which Washington has concurred.

 

Tehran has exceeded some deal restrictions, such as a limit on its heavy water stockpile, used in nuclear reactors, the Institute for Science and International Security said in a November 2016 report. But it either rectified some infractions or won exemptions - while President Barack Obama was in office - before the pact took effect in January 2016.

 

In its new report the institute listed other alleged Iran compliance issues, including changes to the design of a heavy water reactor that can produce plutonium, another weapons fuel.

 

BREAKING CENTRIFUGES

 

Iran's improved compliance this year in part has been "unintentional or accidental" because advanced uranium enrichment devices called centrifuges have broken during testing more often than expected, according to the think tank report.

 

Enrichment produces low-enriched uranium for power plants, but it also can make highly enriched weapons-grade uranium.

 

By August, Iran had tested eight advanced IR-8 centrifuges although the deal limits it to one at most, the report said, adding that Iran also operated between 13 and 15 interconnected IR-6 machines, which the deal restricts to 10.

 

However, according to the report, all but one of the IR-8s and many of the IR-6s broke because carbon fibre components failed.

 

David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector who authored the new report, said Iran's compliance also had improved because the United States is taking a tougher line on attempts to "violate the nuclear limits and exploit loopholes."

 

Two sources, including a senior U.S. official, said on Wednesday that the White House does not want to kill the deal.

 

Instead, it wants lawmakers to hold off taking action while it discusses with European allies making the limits on Iran's programme permanent and fixing what U.S. officials consider other flaws, said the sources, who requested anonymity.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Landay; Editing by John Walcott, Toni Reinhold)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-22

[Trouble]

Seems to me that it is only a matter of time. Heavy water, centrifuges, etc.  It's all for making the plutonium, right?  They try to tell the world it is for peaceful energy production and the by-product of their work will eventually be another regime with a nuclear weapon and the missiles to go with it.  

[bermannor]

Aaah, an anonymous Washington based think-tank. Sounds familiar to me, just like US reports before Vietnam and Irak war. May be fake news???

Edited September 22, 2017 by bermannor
addition

[Credo]

6 minutes ago, bermannor said:

Aaah, an anonymous Washington based think-tank. Sounds familiar to me, just like US reports before Vietnam and Irak war. May be fake news???

What anonymous Washington based think-tank are you talking about?  Because no name is mentioned, doesn't mean it is anonymous.   

 

Here are sources mentioned in the article.

 

Institute for Science and International Security said in a report due on Friday. A copy of the report was seen by Reuters.

 

There is also this:

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the pact, has found no "material breaches" by Iran, a judgement with which Washington has concurred.

 

Is that good enough for you, or are you going to just focus on an UNNAMED Washington think-tank?

 

 

 

[retarius]

Anybody who believes a "Washington based think tank" over the IAEA needs their head examined. 

[tonray]

Yes...just we need more sanctions and another shouting match between 2 deranged leaders.....

[boomerangutang]

        The primary goal is changing separating U-238 from the sought-after U-235.  It demands astounding precision in instrumentation/calibration.  A US nuke physicist mentioned in a speech I watched recently, that an associate of his was touring a refinement facility in Libya.  Some centrifuges were on display with a bold sign saying 'Do Not Touch.'   The associate broke the rules and, when no one was looking, he touched each centrifuge with his hand.  Two things immediately happened.  #1, regardless of effort, the oil from his hand touch can never be completely washed off.  #2. the same 'hand/palm' oil will permanently render each handled centrifuge inoperable forever.    

 

That should be done to every centrifuge worldwide:  render them inoperable. Nukes should be banned ww.  No exceptions.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, tonray said:

Yes...just we need more sanctions and another shouting match between 2 deranged leaders.....

It's different than the N.Korea/US debacle.  Re; US/Iran, there is only one deranged leader, and it's not the Iranian.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, bermannor said:

Aaah, an anonymous Washington based think-tank. Sounds familiar to me, just like US reports before Vietnam and Irak war. May be fake news???

Read the text.  It's not anonymous.  And hardly fake news.  As it says, Iran will push the limits when it can.

 

Quote

By August, Iran had tested eight advanced IR-8 centrifuges although the deal limits it to one at most, the report said, adding that Iran also operated between 13 and 15 interconnected IR-6 machines, which the deal restricts to 10.

 

Seems a violation right there.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Anybody who believes a "Washington based think tank" over the IAEA needs their head examined. 

The "think tank" gets it's data from the IAEA.  LOL.  Just anti-US are we? LOL

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

The "think tank" gets it's data from the IAEA.  LOL.  Just anti-US are we? LOL

Does it get its info from the IAEA? I didn't see anything in the article that tied info from the IAEA to the headline. Did you know that the institute is headed by David Albright who has been consistently at the least very skeptical of the Iran agreement before it was signed and afterwards? 

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/albright_david/

And most damning of all, the acronym for the institute is ISIS.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Does it get its info from the IAEA? I didn't see anything in the article that tied info from the IAEA to the headline. Did you know that the institute is headed by David Albright who has been consistently at the least very skeptical of the Iran agreement before it was signed and afterwards? 

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/albright_david/

And most damning of all, the acronym for the institute is ISIS.

Always looking on the negative side.  Gets old.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Science_and_International_Security

 

Quote

 

Reception to ISIS

A National Journal profile in 2004 called Albright a “go-to guy for media people seeking independent analysis on Iraq’s [weapons of mass destruction] programs.”^[30]

 

In 2006, David Albright received the prestigious Joseph A. Burton Forum Award from the American Physical Society, a professional society of American physicists. He was cited for "his tireless and productive efforts to slow the transfer of nuclear weapons technology. He brings a unique combination of deep understanding, objectivity, and effectiveness to this vexed area.”

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Always looking on the negative side.  Gets old.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Science_and_International_Security

 

 

I'm not denying he's done good things. Particularly on the run-up to the Iraq War. But it's a fact that he was not a supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement and has since been much more skeptical than most other experts. And since ISIS is his baby, how can you discount the relevancy of that?

And you still haven't established the IAEA  to ISIS connection regarding the source of the allegation in the headline.  

[midas]

The real tragedy about all this is that the ordinary guy on the street is not being told the truth whether its about Iran or North Korea.

No one is covering the hard-hitting questions. I.e. who exactly is pushing for war and why? You don’t have to look very far to answer that . For example the Syrian war is virtually finished and yet we still continue to see more regular unauthorised and completely illegal incursions into Syria and very hostile acts by just a small group of people.

The hunger for war is coming from the New World order supporters. Why? Because it knows the world financial system has completely reached the end of the road and that it could never implement its ambitious plans for a reset such as a digitised world currency unless everyone is on board (or everyone has been conquered)

Edited September 23, 2017 by midas

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, midas said:

The real tragedy about all this is that the ordinary guy on the street is not being told the truth whether its about Iran or North Korea.

No one is covering the hard-hitting questions. I.e. who exactly is pushing for war and why? You don’t have to look very far to answer that . For example the Syrian war is virtually finished and yet we still continue to see more regular unauthorised and completely illegal incursions into Syria and very hostile acts by just a small group of people.

The hunger for war is coming from the New World order supporters. Why? Because it knows the world financial system has completely reached the end of the road and that it could never implement its ambitious plans for a reset such as a digitised world currency unless everyone is on board (or everyone has been conquered)

The truth is out there and being reported about very well.

 

You're going way off topic. New World Order?  Financial system collapse?  Good gosh.  Sounds like the fake news you'd read on sites like Zerohedge or Breitbart. LOL

[IAMHERE]

How can Iran be so far behind North Korea? 

[bermannor]

On ‎23‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 1:41 AM, Credo said:

What anonymous Washington based think-tank are you talking about?  Because no name is mentioned, doesn't mean it is anonymous.   

 

Here are sources mentioned in the article.

 

Institute for Science and International Security said in a report due on Friday. A copy of the report was seen by Reuters.

 

There is also this:

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the pact, has found no "material breaches" by Iran, a judgement with which Washington has concurred.

 

Is that good enough for you, or are you going to just focus on an UNNAMED Washington think-tank?

 

 

 

I beg your pardon, the name of the think-tank was given. But I have the impression that it has some kind of agenda. But may be I am too sensitive after watching the 9 hour documentation about the Vietnam war and "truth" reports from the US presidents.

Edited September 27, 2017 by bermannor
correction