Iran seen breaking nuclear pact limit in days; Trump says 'no time pressure'

[snoop1130]

Iran seen breaking nuclear pact limit in days; Trump says 'no time pressure'

By Francois Murphy and Roberta Rampton

 

Cars of the Iranian delegation are parked outside a building of the at Diaoyutai state guesthouse in Beijing as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif meets Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, China, May 13, 2018. REUTERS/Thomas Peter/Files

 

VIENNA/OSAKA (Reuters) - Diplomats said Iran is on course to breach a threshold in its nuclear agreement within days but U.S. President Donald Trump, who has ratcheted up pressure on the Middle Eastern country, said there was "absolutely no time pressure" on the issue.

 

The prospect that Tehran could soon violate its nuclear commitments, a week after Trump called off air strikes on Iran at the last minute, has created additional diplomatic urgency to find a way out of the crisis.

 

Iran had set Thursday as a deadline beyond which it would exceed the threshold for stockpiles of enriched uranium allowed under its 2015 nuclear deal with major powers, which Tehran is still following even though Washington abandoned it last year.

 

The diplomats, citing U.N. inspectors' data, said the Islamic Republic was on course to exceed the limits soon by accumulating more enriched uranium than permitted but it had not done so by Thursday.

 

However, Trump said of Iran on Friday: "We have a lot of time. There's no rush."

 

"They can take their time. There's absolutely no time pressure. I think in the end, hopefully, it's going to work out. If it does, great - and if it doesn't, you’ll be hearing about it," he said as he greeted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Osaka.

 

Other world leaders gathered in Japan continued to express concern about Iran, even as Trump appeared relaxed.

 

Chinese President Xi Jinping said the Gulf region was "standing at a crossroads of war and peace", calling for calm and restraint and talks to resolve the issue.

 

"China always stands on the side of peace and opposes war," state news agency Xinhua paraphrased Xi as saying in Osaka. "All parties must remain calm and exercise restraint, strengthen dialogue and consultations, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability."

 

European Council President Donald Tusk, also at the G20, expressed concern about Iran potentially breaching the pact, saying the European Union would continue to monitor Tehran's compliance.

 

"We strongly urge Iran to continue the full implementation of all its commitments under the nuclear deal, and we take very seriously the possibility of any breach of its commitment," he told a news conference.

 

"Maintaining the nuclear deal is in the regional and international security interest," Tusk said. "The EU is committed to the deal as long as Iran continues to uphold it."

 

One diplomat in Vienna, headquarters of the U.N. nuclear agency the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said on Thursday: "They haven't reached the limit ... It's more likely to be at the weekend if they do it."

 

'NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL'

 

The U.S. envoy on Iran, Brian Hook, met European officials in Paris on Thursday to discuss what he described as Iran's "nuclear blackmail".

 

France, one of the European countries caught in the middle, said it would ask Trump to suspend some sanctions on Iran to make room for negotiations to defuse the escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

 

"I want to convince Trump that it is in his interest to reopen a negotiation process (and) go back on certain sanctions to give negotiations a chance," French President Emmanuel Macron said in Japan on Thursday.

 

The United States withdrew last year from the pact, under which Iran accepted curbs on its nuclear programme in return for relief from economic sanctions. Iran has said it wants to abide by the agreement but cannot do so indefinitely because U.S. sanctions mean it is receiving none of its benefits.

 

The escalating crisis has put the United States in the position of demanding its European allies enforce Iranian compliance with an accord Washington itself rejects.

 

"Our sanctions do not give Iran the right to accelerate its nuclear programme," Hook said in an interview before meeting European officials. "It can never get near a nuclear bomb. We are looking very closely at that so it doesn't get below the one-year nuclear breakout time."

 

The confrontation, brewing for a year after Trump quit the pact, accelerated last month when the United States sharply tightened its sanctions to force countries to eliminate purchases of Iranian oil, Tehran's main source of income.

 

U.S.-Iranian military tensions have risen over the past two months. Washington accused Iran of carrying out attacks on six tankers in May and June, which Tehran denies.

 

Iran shot down a U.S. drone last week it said was in its airspace. The United States said it was in international skies.

 

Trump said later he hoped to avoid war but that, if one took place, it would be short and not involve boots on the ground. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter in response on Thursday a "short war with Iran is an illusion", and the threat to obliterate Iran amounted to a threat of genocide.

 

Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, seeking support from NATO allies in Brussels, said: "We do not seek armed conflict with Iran but we are ready to defend U.S. forces and interests in the region."

 

The Trump administration says its ultimate goal is to force Iran back to the table for negotiations. It argues that the 2015 deal, negotiated under Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, was too weak because it was not permanent and did not cover non-nuclear issues, such as Iran's missile programme and regional behaviour.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-28

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[jany123]

The simple solution here would be to give Iran it’s own nuke... c’mon kimmy, you can do it!.... stability restored.

 

ironical? maybe... silly? Perhaps... plausible? Certainly... counterproductive? Definitely.... but arguably better than the current situation.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, jany123 said:

The simple solution here would be to give Iran it’s own nuke... c’mon kimmy, you can do it!.... stability restored.

 

ironical? maybe... silly? Perhaps... plausible? Certainly... counterproductive? Definitely.... but arguably better than the current situation.

 

Nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons in the hands of religious zealots, and in one of the World's top flashpoints. It would take some effort building the case that this is "arguably better than the current situation".

Edited June 29, 2019 by Morch

[The Theory]

Iran break the nuclear pact = EU will have no choice but joining US for more sanctions on Iran. 

No war needed. 

[jany123]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons in the hands of religious zealots, and in one of the World's top flashpoints. It would take some effort building the case that this is "arguably better than the current situation".

Lol... define religious zealots.... and nutjobs aren’t always religious zealots, but are just as capable of firing a nuke... one nutjob in particular, was ten minutes away from starting a war last week, after Iran downed a spy drone flying over its territory (vs downing a real military aircraft that was within its air space, and therefore, arguably,  a legitimate target)

 

Obviously the argument is based on mutually agreed destruction, which comes down to no one being foolish enough to fire the first nuke, because it only takes one nuke, so possessing a nuke protects you from big bullies with more guns.... simple really

 

and is nuclear non proliferation really working?

[jany123]

7 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Iran break the nuclear pact = EU will have no choice but joining US for more sanctions on Iran. 

No war needed. 

Ummm... but... a significant reason leading to the  Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was US sanctions... sooo... maybe your theory has a couple of holes in it.

[tonbridgebrit]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons in the hands of religious zealots, and in one of the World's top flashpoints. It would take some effort building the case that this is "arguably better than the current situation".

Iran is not a danger and threat to world peace. I think, that Trump has noticed that the war-mongers in the White House are insane, and that's why Trump has said "We have a lot of time. There's no rush" in response to Iran possibly having a nuke pretty soon.

Trump is in Osaka right now, and Beijing has declared "All parties must remain calm and exercise restraint, strengthen dialogue and consultations, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability." Trump will be talking to Xi Jinping pretty soon in Osaka. And indeed, let Beijing be a peace maker. There is a danger in that Trump is going to be influenced by the war-mongers in Washington, and Trump really will end up declaring war on Iran.

Let's hope Beijing will have more influence over Trump than the war-mongers in the White House.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

Lol... define religious zealots.... and nutjobs aren’t always religious zealots, but are just as capable of firing a nuke... one nutjob in particular, was ten minutes away from starting a war last week, after Iran downed a spy drone flying over its territory (vs downing a real military aircraft that was within its air space, and therefore, arguably,  a legitimate target)

 

Obviously the argument is based on mutually agreed destruction, which comes down to no one being foolish enough to fire the first nuke, because it only takes one nuke, so possessing a nuke protects you from big bullies with more guns.... simple really

 

and is nuclear non proliferation really working?

 

I think many among Iran's leadership (more so hardliners, but not exclusively) would qualify. Nothing said about them being nutjobs.

 

You'll notice that the USA cancelled attack was neither nuclear, nor did it materialize. Embracing Iran's version with regard to the drone's (and the other aircraft's) location is a choice. There was no, as far as I am aware, conclusive evidence presented to support it.

 

Obviously, the argument is nonsensical. MAD assumes sides involve operate along similar principals, and/or that there's an option to communicate in order to avoid mistakes. Thankfully, most of the world doesn't share your views.

 

Limiting nuclear proliferation is tricky. And once a country goes nuclear, it's not easy undoing this. On the whole, I think the answer is yes, though. There's a small number of countries that possess nuclear arms, and it mostly stays that way. The more of these weapons around, the likelier a disaster will happen.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

Ummm... but... a significant reason leading to the  Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was US sanctions... sooo... maybe your theory has a couple of holes in it.

 

Because circumstances and conditions are the same?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Iran is not a danger and threat to world peace. I think, that Trump has noticed that the war-mongers in the White House are insane, and that's why Trump has said "We have a lot of time. There's no rush" in response to Iran possibly having a nuke pretty soon.

Trump is in Osaka right now, and Beijing has declared "All parties must remain calm and exercise restraint, strengthen dialogue and consultations, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability." Trump will be talking to Xi Jinping pretty soon in Osaka. And indeed, let Beijing be a peace maker. There is a danger in that Trump is going to be influenced by the war-mongers in Washington, and Trump really will end up declaring war on Iran.

Let's hope Beijing will have more influence over Trump than the war-mongers in the White House.

 

You say Iran is "not a danger and threat to world peace". Obviously, many countries do not feel the same - not even the ones upholding the JCPOA. The JCPOA came about because Iran wasn't seen in the rosy light you try to present it. And, of course, you're also in the habit of saying China is "not a danger and threat to world peace" as well....

 

I doubt you've got the inside track as to what's going on in the White House. Or what goes on in Trump's mind. China would sure like things to get sorted, that oil...yum yum.

 

And as usual, your post doesn't have much to do with mine. You're not here for that.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Morch

[jany123]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Because circumstances and conditions are the same?

Your spoiling my fun. ????

[jany123]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I think many among Iran's leadership (more so hardliners, but not exclusively) would qualify. Nothing said about them being nutjobs.

 

You'll notice that the USA cancelled attack was neither nuclear, nor did it materialize. Embracing Iran's version with regard to the drone's (and the other aircraft's) location is a choice. There was no, as far as I am aware, conclusive evidence presented to support it.

 

Obviously, the argument is nonsensical. MAD assumes sides involve operate along similar principals, and/or that there's an option to communicate in order to avoid mistakes. Thankfully, most of the world doesn't share your views.

 

Limiting nuclear proliferation is tricky. And once a country goes nuclear, it's not easy undoing this. On the whole, I think the answer is yes, though. There's a small number of countries that possess nuclear arms, and it mostly stays that way. The more of these weapons around, the likelier a disaster will happen.

Lol... I was referencing non religious nut jobs... the highly unpredictable and proud of it one that lives in a white house specifically, and his bolt on attachment.... so your probably right in suggesting that both sides don’t think alike (so mad doesn’t apply)... as one side is nuts!

 

re the drone... I believe Russia, who verified Iran’s claim, and called out the trump for lying.

 

The US military admitted to the manned plane being 17km offshore Iran, so within its territory. This is the plane that the trump referenced by saying something like... did you see that? They could have shot down a manned plane but they didn’t.

 

with the non proliferation... nine countries so far

the US stabbed the Brits in the back and tried to stop them getting access to a nuke, as had been agreed in 1943... they still got it, along with France, China and Russia, who then tried to stop everyone else getting nukes.... but that didn’t work either, with India and Pakistan getting theirs last century, and North Korea this century.

 

No one seems to know when Israel got their 80 odd warheads, but as they are a direct threat to Iran, it’s only logical that Iran wants/ needs one too, and as its neighbor (Pakistan) has already admitted to proliferating nuclear armament in both North Korea and Iran, its not a long stretch to imagine a little more help for the latter.... so... I’m not so sure non proliferation is stopping opposing sides seeking and getting nukes

 

admittedly, those countries not opposing the US, aren’t seeking nukes, so imo, non proliferation is achieved not by the non proliferation pacts, but by virtue of having an ally with a nuke.... but as alliances are being sorely tested at the moment, we might see a change in this kind of thinking

 

but hey.... that’s just my uneducated take, and I fully expect that you can school me on this.

[Morch]

On 6/29/2019 at 8:39 PM, jany123 said:

Your spoiling my fun. ????

 

One of the long gone old-timer posters called me a "killjoy" once. My reply was that it's Mr. Killjoy.

 

 

On 6/29/2019 at 9:48 PM, jany123 said:

Lol... I was referencing non religious nut jobs... the highly unpredictable and proud of it one that lives in a white house specifically, and his bolt on attachment.... so your probably right in suggesting that both sides don’t think alike (so mad doesn’t apply)... as one side is nuts!

 

re the drone... I believe Russia, who verified Iran’s claim, and called out the trump for lying.

 

The US military admitted to the manned plane being 17km offshore Iran, so within its territory. This is the plane that the trump referenced by saying something like... did you see that? They could have shot down a manned plane but they didn’t.

 

with the non proliferation... nine countries so far

the US stabbed the Brits in the back and tried to stop them getting access to a nuke, as had been agreed in 1943... they still got it, along with France, China and Russia, who then tried to stop everyone else getting nukes.... but that didn’t work either, with India and Pakistan getting theirs last century, and North Korea this century.

 

No one seems to know when Israel got their 80 odd warheads, but as they are a direct threat to Iran, it’s only logical that Iran wants/ needs one too, and as its neighbor (Pakistan) has already admitted to proliferating nuclear armament in both North Korea and Iran, its not a long stretch to imagine a little more help for the latter.... so... I’m not so sure non proliferation is stopping opposing sides seeking and getting nukes

 

admittedly, those countries not opposing the US, aren’t seeking nukes, so imo, non proliferation is achieved not by the non proliferation pacts, but by virtue of having an ally with a nuke.... but as alliances are being sorely tested at the moment, we might see a change in this kind of thinking

 

but hey.... that’s just my uneducated take, and I fully expect that you can school me on this.

 

And I wasn't referencing any nut jobs. Given what's at stake when dealing with nuclear arms, it's just an extra arguing if someone's a nut job or not. Even mistakes by reasonable people can have similar results.

 

And no, the differences do relate to having different cultural, political and religious points of view. It can be said that some of these apply to any international relations, but in some cases, the differences are a bit much. As said, having a "nut job" in the lead is just icing on that cake.

 

You believe Russia. Good on you. How, exactly, did Russia "verify" Iran's claims? What concrete evidence was presented? What relevant assets does Russia have in the area? The answers to all of these questions don't seem to matter. You believe Russia. Because Russia doesn't have any interests involved? Or maybe because Russia demonstrated how trustworthy it is on such matters in the past? 

 

I don't know that the USA military "admitted" to what you claim, or that it implies what you think. And it was Iranian officials who claimed that they could have shot the manned aircraft. Trump just "thanked" them for not doing so. Them little differences.

 

Non-proliferation efforts aren't perfect. Not when it comes to mission, scope or results. And yet, they are better than rampant proliferation, and every small bit dictator (or as you'll have it - "nut job") having them and holding the world hostage.

 

9 countries out of how many? How many countries got the industrial and technological capability to go there, and still don't? How many of the countries which do hold them make overt threats regarding usage a thing?

 

With non-proliferation, it's half-glass full thing. What's done is done, and history shows it's no easy feat getting countries to let go of such. Hence prevention is a better strategy.

 

[bristolboy]

On 6/29/2019 at 7:30 PM, Morch said:

 

You say Iran is "not a danger and threat to world peace". Obviously, many countries do not feel the same - not even the ones upholding the JCPOA. The JCPOA came about because Iran wasn't seen in the rosy light you try to present it.

Nice piece of vagueness there about "many countries." It depends what countries you're talking about. The major signatories to the nuclear agreement feel so threatened by Iran's broaching of its limit that they seem entirely disinclined to do anything about it. Not just that. they have launched a financial system to work around American sanction. It's just beginning but given time...Even the UK is pushing it.