U.S. denounces 'nuclear blackmail' as Iran plans to breach uranium limit

[webfact]

U.S. denounces 'nuclear blackmail' as Iran plans to breach uranium limit

By Parisa Hafezi and Steve Holland

 

The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria March 4, 2019. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger/Files

 

DUBAI/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran said on Monday it would soon breach limits on how much enriched uranium it can stockpile under a 2015 agreement rejected by the United States, in a new point of contention with Washington which accused Tehran of "nuclear blackmail."

 

Tensions between Iran and the United States are rising more than a year after President Donald Trump announced Washington was withdrawing from the nuclear deal.

 

Fears of a confrontation have mounted since last Thursday when two oil tankers in the Gulf were attacked, which the United States has blamed on Tehran. The U.S. military on Monday released images that it says show Iran's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the tankers.

 

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity told Reuters on Monday the United States is preparing to send additional troops to the Middle East in response to mounting concerns over Iran. They did not provide details on how many or the timing.

 

On May 24, Washington announced the deployment of 1,500 troops to the region in reaction to tanker attacks in May that it also blamed on Iran.

 

The 2015 accord, which Iran and the other signatories have maintained following Trump's decision, caps Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium at 300 kg enriched to 3.67 percent.

 

But Iran's Atomic Energy Organization spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said on Monday: "We have quadrupled the rate of enrichment (of uranium) and even increased it more recently, so that in 10 days it will bypass the 300 kg limit."

 

"Iran's reserves are every day increasing at a more rapid rate," he told state TV, adding that "the move will be reversed once other parties fulfil their commitments."

 

The move further undermines the nuclear pact also signed by Russia, Britain, Germany, China and the European Union, but Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the collapse of the deal would not be in the interests of the region or the world.

 

A White House National Security Council spokesman said Iran's plan amounted to "nuclear blackmail" and must be met with increased international pressure.

 

The nuclear deal seeks to head off any pathway to an Iranian nuclear bomb in return for the removal of most international sanctions.

 

Britain said if Iran breached agreed limits then London would look at "all options."

 

Israel, Iran's arch foe, urged world powers to step up sanctions against Tehran swiftly should it exceed the enriched uranium limit.

 

However, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the EU would only react to any breach if the International Atomic Energy Agency formally identified one.

 

GULF TANKERS

Trump's administration has accused Iran of being behind the explosions on tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a vital oil shipping route.

 

Iran's armed forces chief of staff, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, on Monday denied Tehran was behind the attacks and said if the Islamic Republic decided to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz shipping lane it would do so publicly.

 

The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, said Tehran was responsible for security in the Gulf and urged U.S. forces to leave the region, state TV said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has spoken to officials from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, China, Kuwait, South Korea, Britain and other countries to share evidence of Iran's involvement in the attacks on the Norwegian and Japanese tankers, a senior State Department official said. 

 

Iran on Monday accused its main regional rival Saudi Arabia - a close U.S. ally - of adopting a "militaristic, crisis-based approach" for accusing Tehran of carrying out the tanker attacks.

 

In May, Tehran said it would reduce compliance with the nuclear pact in protest at the U.S. decision to unilaterally pull out of the agreement and reimpose sanctions.

 

The accord requires Iran to curb its uranium enrichment capacity, capping Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium at 300 kg of uranium hexafluoride enriched to 3.67 percent or its equivalent for 15 years. That is far below the 90 percent needed for weapons grade uranium and also below the 20 percent level to which Iran enriched uranium before the deal.

 

A series of U.N. inspections under the deal have verified that Iran has been meeting its commitments.

 

Iran's Rouhani said on Monday that European nations still had time to save the accord.

 

"It's a crucial moment, and France can still work with other signatories of the deal and play an historic role to save the deal in this very short time," Rouhani was quoted as saying during a meeting with France's new ambassador in Iran.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron said he regretted Iran's announcement but that Paris would hold talks with Iran and its partners to avoid any further escalation in the region.

 

NUCLEAR REACTOR

Kamalvandi, in a news conference at Iran's Arak heavy water nuclear reactor which has been reconfigured under the deal, said Tehran could rebuild the underground facility to make it functional. Heavy water can be employed in reactors to produce plutonium, a fuel used in nuclear warheads.

 

In January, Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi told state TV that "despite pouring concrete in pipes within the core of the Arak reactor ... Iran had purchased pipes for replacement in case the West violated the deal."

 

The United States and the IAEA believe Iran had a nuclear weapons programme that it abandoned. Tehran denies ever having had one.

 

Pompeo said on Sunday the United States did not want to go to war with Iran but would take every action necessary, including diplomacy, to guarantee safe navigation through Middle East shipping lanes.

 

(Reporting by Dubai newsroom and Parisa Hafezi in Dubai, Additional reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin and William Schomberg in London, Francois Murphy in Vienna, Robin Emmott in Brussels, and Dan Williams in Jerusalem; Writing by Alistair Bell, Grant McCool; Editing by William Maclean, Cynthia Osterman and Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[Tug]

Uhhh isent Donald the one who pulled out of the treaty and is now trying to wreck their economy?

[Emdog]

Donnie just likes good old fashioned blackmail. Idiotic to expect Iran to just sit and take a beating.

[legend49]

The Duck does it again, Donald pulls out of the agreement then expects Iran to comply with it , <deleted>! Leave it to the United Nations to sort out.

[soalbundy]

The US has 6,800 nuclear warheads, Iran zero, who is blackmailing who?

[neeray]

Iran is attempting to use the Kim playbook. Beware, your results may differ.

[kamahele]

It's not blackmail. There was a treaty, the US pulled out of the treaty and Iran is no longer bound by  the treaty..

[neeray]

Somebody needs to explain that theory to Donald. Problem is, he can't understand anything so complex.

[sammieuk1]

Big Don's busy sorting out the mayor of London and UK politics but will be back to take out the Ayatollah with a single tweet???? 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, kamahele said:

It's not blackmail. There was a treaty, the US pulled out of the treaty and Iran is no longer bound by  the treaty..

 

I don't know that it's that simple, unless the agreement clearly provided for such circumstances. There is a mechanism included regarding complaints about breaching the agreement, and how to deal with them - so far none of the parties resorted to using them, because it could lead to the whole thing getting scrapped.

 

If Iran decides it is no longer bound by the agreement, and restarts its nuclear program - I think it's a safe bet that European signatories will reject this and reintroduce sanctions themselves.

 

Can't be "no longer bound" by the treaty, and ask for signatories to support you at the same time.

 

And yes, the USA current BS is astounding, pretty much amounts to the same as the above - eating the case and having it too.

[Pedrogaz]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know that it's that simple, unless the agreement clearly provided for such circumstances. There is a mechanism included regarding complaints about breaching the agreement, and how to deal with them - so far none of the parties resorted to using them, because it could lead to the whole thing getting scrapped.

 

If Iran decides it is no longer bound by the agreement, and restarts its nuclear program - I think it's a safe bet that European signatories will reject this and reintroduce sanctions themselves.

 

Can't be "no longer bound" by the treaty, and ask for signatories to support you at the same time.

 

And yes, the USA current BS is astounding, pretty much amounts to the same as the above - eating the case and having it too.

The spineless EU have hung Iran out to dry and won't trade with them. What is the point, it's all just the prelude to war which has been inevitable since the US embassy in Tehran was attacked in 1979 (or whenever it was). I am heartily sick of the US and its warmongering. Why do the American voters keep electing jerks to run the country?

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

The spineless EU have hung Iran out to dry and won't trade with them. What is the point, it's all just the prelude to war which has been inevitable since the US embassy in Tehran was attacked in 1979 (or whenever it was). I am heartily sick of the US and its warmongering. Why do the American voters keep electing jerks to run the country?

 

The EU is not a direct party to the agreement. And despite some posters' fantasies, the agreement does not compel other nations to suffer economic consequences of dealing with Iran. Doubt it relates a clear figure as to level of trade between countries either. It's European firms choosing not to do business with Iran, not that it's forbidden by their governments.

 

 

[Spike1938]

4 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

The spineless EU have hung Iran out to dry and won't trade with them. What is the point, it's all just the prelude to war which has been inevitable since the US embassy in Tehran was attacked in 1979 (or whenever it was). I am heartily sick of the US and its warmongering. Why do the American voters keep electing jerks to run the country?

Iran has offered the EU a way to resolve this. All the EU has to do is to provide a way to circumvent the USA blackmailing and bullying sanctions and trade with Iran. If they do and the USA responds by sanctioning all of the EU countries the USA will be the loser. Trump and his warmongering cohorts Pompeo and Bolton will look like the fools that they are. Nobody, including most Americans do not want another mideast unwinable war.

[spidermike007]

There are some basic misunderstandings here. First and foremost the US does not understand their new place in the world. They are not nearly as influential as they used to be, and their stick is not as big as it once was. The declining influence has been happening for some time now, but has greatly accelerated under the non leadership of Trump, his complete dismissal of the state department, and foreign policy, and the extreme lack of respect he has paid to our closest allies around the world. 

 

He pulled out of the treaty. How does this small minded man expect that Iran will not change the terms of the deal now? If only he was willing to read. Or study up on an issue. Or even listen to a briefing by an expert. But, since he and his closest advisor Fox News know better, he does not need the help. 

 

With Trump in charge, and advisors like Blindfold Bolton advising, the world is a very dangerous place. Starting a war with Iran would be very ill advised. The havoc they could and would wreak on the US could be devastating, and this could be a far greater mistake than invading Iraq was. 

 

Thankfully, Trump will be dismissed in 19 months, and will face charges for the many felonies he has committed. The world at large hopes he will spend his remaining years in prison. 

[Dumbastheycome]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The EU is not a direct party to the agreement. And despite some posters' fantasies, the agreement does not compel other nations to suffer economic consequences of dealing with Iran. Doubt it relates a clear figure as to level of trade between countries either. It's European firms choosing not to do business with Iran, not that it's forbidden by their governments.

 

 

The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

 

Thank you, my mistake.

I still don't think the agreement compels countries and companies to trade with Iran, or suffer consequences of doing so, though.

[candide]

Me stupid! I thought Trump, with the help of Netanyahu, stated long time ago that Iran had already breached the treaty.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Spike1938 said:

Iran has offered the EU a way to resolve this. All the EU has to do is to provide a way to circumvent the USA blackmailing and bullying sanctions and trade with Iran. If they do and the USA responds by sanctioning all of the EU countries the USA will be the loser. Trump and his warmongering cohorts Pompeo and Bolton will look like the fools that they are. Nobody, including most Americans do not want another mideast unwinable war.

 

The "circumventing" discussed is neither easy to implement, nor sure to work as advertised. So far, relevant companies chose not to trust this option to hold water.

 

As for asserting that "the USA will be the loser" - guess European governments aren't half as sure as you seem to be. But then, it wouldn't be you shouldering the responsibility of going down that road.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, candide said:

Me stupid! I thought Trump, with the help of Netanyahu, stated long time ago that Iran had already breached the treaty.

 

Yes, and the current statement is upping the ante. It's not just breached terms, but supposedly active "blackmail".

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Thank you, my mistake.

I still don't think the agreement compels countries and companies to trade with Iran, or suffer consequences of doing so, though.

In continuance of those signatories recognition with  the exception of the US there is of course no  compulsion.

However it is the US  who has pressured those countries with threats of trade sanction.

It is  due to that and the uncertainty the US has invoked that has brought about commercial reticence although not Governmental . No surprise in that but in light of the US claims of "blackmail" against Iran it rings rather hollow.

 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There are some basic misunderstandings here. First and foremost the US does not understand their new place in the world. They are not nearly as influential as they used to be, and their stick is not as big as it once was. The declining influence has been happening for some time now, but has greatly accelerated under the non leadership of Trump, his complete dismissal of the state department, and foreign policy, and the extreme lack of respect he has paid to our closest allies around the world. 

 

He pulled out of the treaty. How does this small minded man expect that Iran will not change the terms of the deal now? If only he was willing to read. Or study up on an issue. Or even listen to a briefing by an expert. But, since he and his closest advisor Fox News know better, he does not need the help. 

 

With Trump in charge, and advisors like Blindfold Bolton advising, the world is a very dangerous place. Starting a war with Iran would be very ill advised. The havoc they could and would wreak on the US could be devastating, and this could be a far greater mistake than invading Iraq was. 

 

Thankfully, Trump will be dismissed in 19 months, and will face charges for the many felonies he has committed. The world at large hopes he will spend his remaining years in prison. 

 

Nothing much supports the wishful thinking bit about the USA's supposed "new place in the world". As expected, the opinion doesn't even specify what the current "new place in the world" is compared with.

 

The same old scaremongering with regard to Iran's supposed capabilities is on offer again. The same old nonsense about "invasion" - where are the troops?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

In continuance of those signatories recognition with  the exception of the US there is of course no  compulsion.

However it is the US  who has pressured those countries with threats of trade sanction.

It is  due to that and the uncertainty the US has invoked that has brought about commercial reticence although not Governmental . No surprise in that but in light of the US claims of "blackmail" against Iran it rings rather hollow.

 

 

I don't disagree that the current USA statements appearing in the OP are absurd and offensive. Posted to this effect up the topic. Be that as it may, can't see that Iran got a whole lot to earn officially ditching the agreement.

[candide]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, and the current statement is upping the ante. It's not just breached terms, but supposedly active "blackmail".

Well if Iran already breached the treaty, it cannot blackmail by threatening to breach it.   ????

[Dumbastheycome]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't disagree that the current USA statements appearing in the OP are absurd and offensive. Posted to this effect up the topic. Be that as it may, can't see that Iran got a whole lot to earn officially ditching the agreement.

It may be that Iran is giving notice that it is prepared to play it's last card?

And it is  quite a dangerous one because if in the event of US military intervention it will not be such a localized  event given the  clandestine affiliates Iran has in the Middle East.

I find it interesting that having attempted to what amounts to bully and threaten countries that declined to acquiesce to the US stance on Iran is now demonstrating diplomatic cajoling and offers of  "evidence" in support of it's desire for justification. Is the US putting this in front of the UN?

I believe the US is committed to a war.

 

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Be that as it may, can't see that Iran got a whole lot to earn officially ditching the agreement.

Iran may want to wait out its re-engagement for nuclear weaponization until August 2019 - not that far away that may motivate the Trump administration for even more immediate and hysterical pressure against Iran to renege much sooner.

• the EU is saying that inspectors, not declarations [by Iran], will determine how it approaches Iran going forward. And that may take some time: Data on Iran’s nuclear activities will be unclear until the International Atomic Energy Agency publishes its quarterly report in August. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/09/europe-responds-to-irans-nuclear-deal-threat.html

[dexterm]

Several countries who were party to the treaty were trading enthusiastically with Iran and now they ain't, because Trump bullied them with threats of sanctions against them too. The EU promised mechanisms to circumvent sanctions which haven't so far materialised.

 

Looks to me that the EU has reneged on the deal too.

 

And of course the US hypocrisy is astounding when they turn a blind eye to the one country in the Middle East that does have over 100 nuclear warheads.

 

So who can blame Iran with so many broken promises and threats aimed at them?

[jany123]

The trump breached the 2015 deal

Iran took the trump to the ICJ

the ICJ ruled that sanctions be lifted in line with a different treaty (1955 perhaps)

so... the  trump broke that treaty, too , to circumvent ICJ orders, whilst arguing that the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the current issue.

 

The ICJ and the international community has failed Iran, leaving Iran with very few options other than acquiescing to the trumps (thinly) hidden agenda of regime change. Obviously that option is not acceptable, so what would be, other than to start reneging on its obligations to a broken treaty.

 

incidentally, Iran’s current actions pose very little real threat, as this uranium stockpile increase is a world away from weaponizing. Iran would need to build infrastructure before any threat can be realized, so “nuclear blackmail” is a dubious assertion (surprise surprise)

 

Meanwhile...

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Pompeo said on Sunday the United States did not want to go to war with Iran but would take every action necessary, including diplomacy

Perhaps it’s time for the trump to employ its the last option... diplomacy

[Kasane]

This is rich. The only country that has destroyed cities and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians by using nuclear weapons. Who has nuclear weapons that can destroy thw world 20 times over. Now says its being nuclear blackmaled by a country that has no nuclear weapons. Hypocrite bullies.

[candide]

The irony is that Iran initially started its nuclear program with the help of the USA, while the Shah was still in power.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, candide said:

Well if Iran already breached the treaty, it cannot blackmail by threatening to breach it.   ????

 

There are breaches and then there are breaches. The USA alleging a breach is one thing, the Iran publicly advertising one is another.