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

[wgdanson]

So it's an Ultimatum for Iranium Uranium !   LOL

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

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.

 

 

 

Other than "it's last card" being very dramatic, it doesn't actually explain what exactly is that "last card". I have no doubt a military confrontation between the USA and Iran will not be limited to these two countries. Not sure what the comment amounts to, though - Iran's affiliates are either a strong enough deterrent or their not. As far as the USA goes, I think it's the latter.

 

Interesting how? Countries posturing and building their positions prior to engaging in diplomacy is not a new phenomenon. In this case, cuts both ways.

 

So far, I think there was talk about evidence which will be submitted to the UNSC, but I don't recall it happened, to date.

 

You may believe whatever, but as things stand, the USA doesn't have enough forces in the area to mount much of an invasion. More limited operations, yes - but that's not quite the same thing. IMO, there a lot of guess work involved when trying to determine who Trump listens to at any given moment, and what will be the road taken.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

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?

 

Did the agreement compel European signatories to do business with Iran? Does it compel them doing so if their own economies come under threat? Does the Iran Deal take precedence to any other national interests of signatories?

 

And try as you may - Iran maybe wouldn't be in this mess, had it not broken international agreements and commitments, or if it was less of a threatening neighbor.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

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...

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

 

I don't think the old treaty referenced was much of an argument to begin with, and regardless - it doesn't cover all sanctions whatsoever. There's too much expectations, from some posters, that some decisive magical legal argument would come up and change how things are. It's rarely the way things go, though.

 

Perhaps, had Iran been less of a dodgy player, countries would be more inclined to go the extra mile on its behalf. Countries got interests, and taking one for Iran maybe isn't top of the list.

 

Iran's current actions, as far as enrichment goes, aren't a much of threat at this time. Doesn't change the fact that they may constitute a breach of the agreement. And yes, the Trump administration bailed out on that - but so far neither Iran nor the rest of the signatories did. So if the agreement is to be kept afloat, even without USA participation, Iran can't go about breaching it. At some point, the other signatories will not accept it.

 

The current, official, stand of Iran is that it is not prepared to engage diplomatically, unless the USA cancels the sanctions.

[Dumbastheycome]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Did the agreement compel European signatories to do business with Iran? Does it compel them doing so if their own economies come under threat? Does the Iran Deal take precedence to any other national interests of signatories?

 

And try as you may - Iran maybe wouldn't be in this mess, had it not broken international agreements and commitments, or if it was less of a threatening neighbor.

There was no compulsion. There was the promise of  continued trade as allowed  per existing sanctions.

It has not been Iran  who has threatened sanctions against permitted trading nations, it is the US.

The "mess" only came  about because the US unilaterally exited the agreement, put further sanctions which it has attempted to force others to accept and in doing so has  damaged trade etc as part of that process. International inspectors have not been able to support the US stance that Iran has been breaking the agreement. It is only now that Iran has  stated that in light of the illegitimate extortion being applied under  growing military threat that it is  NOW ready to abandon the agreement if such threat continues. It has not yet exceeded to conditions of the agreement  but is prepared to if other signatories choose to align themselves with the US

Any threats Iran  has  made are either in defense or retaliation rather than proven initiative in this specific situation. It is  hardly honest to single Iran out as the only threatening neighbor in the ME .

 

 

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

There was no compulsion. There was the promise of  continued trade as allowed  per existing sanctions.

It has not been Iran  who has threatened sanctions against permitted trading nations, it is the US.

The "mess" only came  about because the US unilaterally exited the agreement, put further sanctions which it has attempted to force others to accept and in doing so has  damaged trade etc as part of that process. International inspectors have not been able to support the US stance that Iran has been breaking the agreement. It is only now that Iran has  stated that in light of the illegitimate extortion being applied under  growing military threat that it is  NOW ready to abandon the agreement if such threat continues. It has not yet exceeded to conditions of the agreement  but is prepared to if other signatories choose to align themselves with the US

Any threats Iran  has  made are either in defense or retaliation rather than proven initiative in this specific situation. It is  hardly honest to single Iran out as the only threatening neighbor in the ME .

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my post, with regard to "the mess" Iran is in. The reference alluded to was Iran's breaching of international agreement and commitments which led to the initial sanctions, and later on the JCPOA (aka the Iran Deal). The same goes for Iran's regional activities and policies, which predate the Iran Deal, but effect the way Iran is considered.

 

Again - there is no obligation to trade with Iran. There is no obligation to put economies at risk in order to trade with Iran. There is no obligation to put the Iran Deal before any other national interest involved. The European signatories may be supportive of making the agreement work, but maybe not at all costs.

 

I don't think Iran stated anything straightforward about abandoning the agreement. That's one of them points appearing in my posts. Iran's interest is to ultimately preserve the agreement - ditching it would eventually push European signatories to a position they aren't interested in taking.

 

Iran said it will sort of breach the agreement some, and up to a point - basically to make it more of a crisis thing, without pushing the Europeans over to the other side. Whether this is acceptable is a matter of interpretation and interests. Seems like Iran is banking on the other signatories wishing to preserve the agreement, and remains to be seen if this strategy works.

 

What do you imagine will happen if Iran officially leaves the agreement? Or clear evidence of involvement in Gulf attacks emerges? Or clear indication Iran put its nuclear program back on track (specifically if it includes military applications/connections)?

 

Allow me to not take your blanket excuse for Iranian threats at face value. And, of course, there wasn't anything said about "singling" Iran - or that regional politics got a whole lot to do with honesty.

[jany123]

I doubt that if Iran exceeds its 300kg allowance, anything of real significance will happen, as what more can happen, without causing another humanitarian crisis ( not a Mexico border crisis, but a Yemen kind of crisis)

 

anyway... perhaps we’ll see some unconventional oil marketing... one kilo of uranium free, with every 100,000 barrels of oil. ????

Edited June 18, 2019 by jany123

[Morch]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

I doubt that if Iran exceeds its 300kg allowance, anything of real significance will happen, as what more can happen, without causing another humanitarian crisis ( not a Mexico border crisis, but a Yemen kind of crisis)

 

anyway... perhaps we’ll see some unconventional oil marketing... one kilo of uranium free, with every 100,000 barrels of oil. ????

 

I don't think that the Europeans will quit the agreement if Iran goes there. At least no immediately, and much depends on how much Iran will rub their noses in it. Another thing is how the IAEA will deliver its findings. China and Russia almost surly won't do much.

 

If the bottom line is that Iran can do as it will, then doubts regarding the agreement might not have been all that misplaced. And yes, I'm well aware that Trump withdrew and all that - but that relates to the manner in which the previous administration signed the agreement, and the caveats that came with it.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think you misunderstood my post, with regard to "the mess" Iran is in. The reference alluded to was Iran's breaching of international agreement and commitments which led to the initial sanctions, and later on the JCPOA (aka the Iran Deal). The same goes for Iran's regional activities and policies, which predate the Iran Deal, but effect the way Iran is considered.

 

Again - there is no obligation to trade with Iran. There is no obligation to put economies at risk in order to trade with Iran. There is no obligation to put the Iran Deal before any other national interest involved. The European signatories may be supportive of making the agreement work, but maybe not at all costs.

 

I don't think Iran stated anything straightforward about abandoning the agreement. That's one of them points appearing in my posts. Iran's interest is to ultimately preserve the agreement - ditching it would eventually push European signatories to a position they aren't interested in taking.

 

Iran said it will sort of breach the agreement some, and up to a point - basically to make it more of a crisis thing, without pushing the Europeans over to the other side. Whether this is acceptable is a matter of interpretation and interests. Seems like Iran is banking on the other signatories wishing to preserve the agreement, and remains to be seen if this strategy works.

 

What do you imagine will happen if Iran officially leaves the agreement? Or clear evidence of involvement in Gulf attacks emerges? Or clear indication Iran put its nuclear program back on track (specifically if it includes military applications/connections)?

 

Allow me to not take your blanket excuse for Iranian threats at face value. And, of course, there wasn't anything said about "singling" Iran - or that regional politics got a whole lot to do with honesty.

The "mess" of Iran as you describe it has a long history involving manipulations and interference by the US.

If anything the US seems to have created the issue originally.

 

Perhaps this will clarify  a number of considerations?

https://www.fpri.org/article/2009/09/the-u-s-and-iran-in-historical-perspective/

 

[Morch]

52 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The "mess" of Iran as you describe it has a long history involving manipulations and interference by the US.

If anything the US seems to have created the issue originally.

 

Perhaps this will clarify  a number of considerations?

https://www.fpri.org/article/2009/09/the-u-s-and-iran-in-historical-perspective/

 

 

No. Iran breached it's international commitments with regard to nuclear proliferation. That resulted in the the situation which led to the JCPOA - which was also an international agreement. Trying to make it just about the USA doesn't hold water. Spin away.

[Dumbastheycome]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No. Iran breached it's international commitments with regard to nuclear proliferation. That resulted in the the situation which led to the JCPOA - which was also an international agreement. Trying to make it just about the USA doesn't hold water. Spin away.

What nuclear proliferation? Iran to date has and is complying with the JCPOA albeit pushing to the boundaries of it. It is the US  who has breached by withdrawing. The remaining International signatories  have, although under duress from the US, have continued to recognize the agreement.

No spin.

 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

What nuclear proliferation? Iran to date has and is complying with the JCPOA albeit pushing to the boundaries of it. It is the US  who has breached by withdrawing. The remaining International signatories  have, although under duress from the US, have continued to recognize the agreement.

No spin.

 

He's referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[Dumbastheycome]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

He's referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

To which Iran  is also a signatory. Nor does the refinement of nuclear material contravene that treaty.

Beyond suspicion there has been no evidence found  by international inspection of any nuclear weapon development.

Israel however has never signed along with India and Pakistan all of which  have known prolific nuclear arsenals.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

What nuclear proliferation? Iran to date has and is complying with the JCPOA albeit pushing to the boundaries of it. It is the US  who has breached by withdrawing. The remaining International signatories  have, although under duress from the US, have continued to recognize the agreement.

No spin.

 

 

53 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

To which Iran  is also a signatory. Nor does the refinement of nuclear material contravene that treaty.

Beyond suspicion there has been no evidence found  by international inspection of any nuclear weapon development.

Israel however has never signed along with India and Pakistan all of which  have known prolific nuclear arsenals.

 

 

As another poster spelled out for you, the NPT. Not sure what exactly is the timeline of events in your reality, but it doesn't seem to explain what the sanctions laid on Iran prior to the signing of the JCPOA were about, or why the JCPOA was signed to begin with.

 

Your opinion that Iran didn't take any actions which contravened treaties signed is counterfactual.

 

[Redline]

On 6/18/2019 at 5:30 AM, webfact said:

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

The country doesn’t, the idiots in the White House pulled out of the agreement, there is no agreement, so how can it be blackmail-unreal 

[Cryingdick]

Iran is one airstrike away from being in the Stone Age. Just hit their refineries. No war needed.

[stevenl]

I really don't understand this discussion. There was an agreement in place, limiting Iran's nuclear ambitions. That agreement was working well, but USA cancelled nonetheless and started another boycott. After cancellation USA was warning others not to do business with Iran or they'd be punished.

And now people are surprised Iran is stopping adhering to that agreement?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

Iran is one airstrike away from being in the Stone Age. Just hit their refineries. No war needed.

 

Armchair generals for the win!.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

Iran is one airstrike away from being in the Stone Age. Just hit their refineries. No war needed.

The irony of being bombed into the Stone Age by a caveman.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I really don't understand this discussion. There was an agreement in place, limiting Iran's nuclear ambitions. That agreement was working well, but USA cancelled nonetheless and started another boycott. After cancellation USA was warning others not to do business with Iran or they'd be punished.

And now people are surprised Iran is stopping adhering to that agreement?

 

There were several parties to the treaty. If one of them (excluding Iran) withdraws, does it nullify the whole agreement? If the agreement holds, then Iran is beholden to terms. It's a choice. In theory, there's an option, to negotiate a new agreement based on the new circumstances.

 

I don't know that people are "surprised". That's just your way of presenting things.