Iran to lift uranium enrichment to 5%, above level in 2015 deal - official

[rooster59]

Iran to lift uranium enrichment to 5%, above level in 2015 deal - official

By Parisa Hafezi

 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi attends a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna, Austria, June 28, 2019. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday will announce an increase in uranium enrichment to 5%, a concentration above the limit set by its 2015 nuclear deal, an Iranian official told Reuters, in a move signalling a deepening challenge to escalating U.S. sanctions pressure.

 

The declaration comes at a time of sharply increased U.S.-Iranian confrontation, a year after Washington quit the pact and reimposed sanctions that had been lifted under the accord in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear work.

 

"The main announcement tomorrow will be the increase of the level of enrichment to 5% percent from 3.67% that we agreed under the deal," the official said on Saturday on condition of anonymity.

 

In a sign of heightening Western concern, French President Emmanuel Macron said he and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani had agreed to seek conditions for a resumption of dialogue on the Iranian nuclear question by July 15.

 

Macron's office added that he would keep on talking with Iranian authorities and other involved parties to "engage in a de-escalation of tensions related to Iranian nuclear issue."

 

The deal is aimed at extending the time Iran would need to produce a nuclear bomb, if it chose to, to a year from roughly 2-3 months. Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation, and not to make bombs.

 

Under its deal with six world powers, Iran can enrich uranium to 3.67 percent fissile material, well below the 20 percent it was reaching before the deal and the roughly 90 percent suitable for a nuclear weapon.

 

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported that senior nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi would announce more cuts in its commitments to the pact at a news conference at 10:30 a.m. (0600 GMT) in Tehran.

 

Sunday's planned announcement is a setback for Britain, France and Germany, co-signatories of the deal who have pressed for months to persuade Iran to remain committed to the accord.

 

Iran has said that the Europeans have done "too little, too late" to salvage the pact by protecting Iran's economic interests from U.S. sanctions.

 

"ECONOMIC WAR"

 

Washington tightened those curbs from May, ordering all countries and companies to halt all imports of Iranian oil or be banished from the global financial system. It has also dispatched extra troops to the region to counter what it describes as Iranian threats.

 

In reaction to the toughened U.S. sanctions, Iran said in May that it would scale back its commitments to the deal after a 60-day deadline to European signatories of the pact to protect Iran's economic interests from U.S. sanctions.

 

However, Iran's Rouhani said last week that all the measures taken by Iran were "reversible" if other parties to the deal fulfilled their promises.

 

Leaving room for diplomacy, Rouhani said in a telephone conversation with his Macron: "Lifting all sanctions can be the beginning of a move between Iran and six major powers."

 

"The U.S. sanctions are a full-scale economic war against Iran that could create more crisis in the region and in the world," he told Macron, according to state TV.

 

Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Iranian officials were unanimous in raising the level of uranium enrichment beyond the 3.67% set in accord, in remarks posted on Khamenei's officials website.

 

"For example, we need uranium enriched to 5% for use in the Bushehr (power plant) and this is a completely peaceful purpose," Velayati said, hinting that this might be the first step Iran might take in raising the enrichment level.

 

Iran's main demand - in talks with the European parties to the deal and as a precondition to any talks with the United States - is to be allowed to sell its oil at the levels before Washington pulled out of the deal and restored sanctions.

 

Iranian crude exports were around 300,000 barrels per day or less in late June, industry sources said, a fraction of the more than 2.5 million bpd Iran shipped in April 2018, the month before Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal.

 

(Reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by William Maclean)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-07

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[Emdog]

It is disappointing, to say the least, that the other signatories to the nuke agreement didn't stand up together against Trump: "You can pull out if you want, but don't going telling us we can't keep the agreement" would have been good response. They supposedly are sovereign nations. 

[teacherofwoe]

And they have every right to do so.

 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, teacherofwoe said:

And they have every right to do so.

 

 

Arguably, no country has the right to dictate to any other country what they can and can't do within their own borders. All countries can refuse to trade with, or have diplomatic relations with any other country. But they have no right to impose their chosen actions on any others.

 

The US, under Trump, apparently has no problem with terrorist nest Pakistan, ultra Hindu nationalist India, or secretive Israel having nuclear weapons. Just oil rich Iran!

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Baerboxer

[phantomfiddler]

I have a feeling that one day we will see an ad saying..."Car parking for sale, formerly known as Iran" ????

[Tug]

4 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

I have a feeling that one day we will see an ad saying..."Car parking for sale, formerly known as Iran" ????

I know you are kidding I can’t imagine what a nuclear war would do to the worlds economy’s to say it would be devastating would be a gross understatement not to mentition the people men women and children affected respectively that was in very poor taste

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Emdog said:

It is disappointing, to say the least, that the other signatories to the nuke agreement didn't stand up together against Trump: "You can pull out if you want, but don't going telling us we can't keep the agreement" would have been good response. They supposedly are sovereign nations. 

 

They could have. And what good would it have done in the face of the USA sanctions? Ultimately, it is the European firms which voted no-confidence in their government's ability to protect them, and chose the better economic option of remaining on the USA's good side.

 

Governments aren't in place to fulfill posters' political fantasies. Quite often, they need to make unsavory compromises and accommodations to navigate complex realities. Such is life. 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Arguably, no country has the right to dictate to any other country what they can and can't do within their own borders. All countries can refuse to trade with, or have diplomatic relations with any other country. But they have no right to impose their chosen actions on any others.

 

The US, under Trump, apparently has no problem with terrorist nest Pakistan, ultra Hindu nationalist India, or secretive Israel having nuclear weapons. Just oil rich Iran!

 

 

 

Arguably, there are international accords, treaties and agreements which may essentially imply otherwise. The original sanctions on Iran were a result of breaching one of these. The JCPOA, which followed, was again an international effort (as opposed to a single country) basically dictating what Iran may or may not do.

 

Countries can and do leverage influence and might to promote interests and goals. That's part and parcel of international relations. Not all countries got an equal shot at this owing to not all being as powerful. And yes, not all countries got a leader like Trump, who ignores conventions and common sense when it comes to such issues.

 

Countries which already have nuclear weapons are a different ball game. Prevention is a much easier and safer route.

[nkg]

13 hours ago, teacherofwoe said:

And they have every right to do so.

 

 

It would be a waste of time. The US has the capability to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities whenever they wish.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, nkg said:

 

It would be a waste of time. The US has the capability to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities whenever they wish.

It has the capability. But as we have seen from Trump's reversal on the drone strike, the political will is lacking.

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.

 

[teacherofwoe]

21 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Arguably, no country has the right to dictate to any other country what they can and can't do within their own borders. All countries can refuse to trade with, or have diplomatic relations with any other country. But they have no right to impose their chosen actions on any others.

 

The US, under Trump, apparently has no problem with terrorist nest Pakistan, ultra Hindu nationalist India, or secretive Israel having nuclear weapons. Just oil rich Iran!

 

 

I think you mistook my statement. Iran has every right to increase uranium enrichment.

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, teacherofwoe said:

I think you mistook my statement. Iran has every right to increase uranium enrichment.

But not under the terms of the nuclear pact. That said, it's clear that other signatories are giving Iran lots of latitude because they recognize that it's the USA that is the root cause of this situation.

[nkg]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It has the capability. But as we have seen from Trump's reversal on the drone strike, the political will is lacking.

 

Yes, the political will is lacking  - for now.

 

Let's assume that 18 months from now, Iran have enriched their uranium to 75%-80%, and they are a few months away from having a nuclear device.

 

Other countries would be pleading with the US to launch strikes against Iran. The political landscape would be completely different. By that point, Israel would have probably have launched strikes of their own.

 

Sure, Iran can keep enriching their uranium, but it is just posturing on their part. They will never be allowed to go all the way to having nuclear weapons.

[teacherofwoe]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

But not under the terms of the nuclear pact. That said, it's clear that other signatories are giving Iran lots of latitude because they recognize that it's the USA that is the root cause of this situation.

JCPOA provisions permit Iran to increase uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes beyond levels agreed on if other signatories fail to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. 
That’s precisely what happened by Trump’s illegal withdrawal, along with breach of the agreement by Britain, France, Germany and the EU. 
Uranium enrichment beyond the JCPOA-permitted 300 kg/3.67 level is Iran’s legal right because of the Western breach as stipulated in Articles 26 and 36. 

[Morch]

On 7/8/2019 at 4:46 PM, teacherofwoe said:

JCPOA provisions permit Iran to increase uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes beyond levels agreed on if other signatories fail to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. 
That’s precisely what happened by Trump’s illegal withdrawal, along with breach of the agreement by Britain, France, Germany and the EU. 
Uranium enrichment beyond the JCPOA-permitted 300 kg/3.67 level is Iran’s legal right because of the Western breach as stipulated in Articles 26 and 36. 

 

"..... is Iran’s legal right because of the Western breach as stipulated in Articles 26 and 36."

 

That's not quite what these articles say. Nor have the actions and/or terms specified fully materialized.

 

Iran can claim that the agreement was breached, and either (a) proceed through the mechanisms included in the agreement's framework, or (b) withdraw from the agreement. The current state of things, wherein Iran both breaches the agreement and opts to keep it alive is not attainable for long.

 

It comes down to whether the agreement can hold in its original form without USA participation and with the USA active opposition to it. IMO, the chances for that are slim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[metisdead]

An off topic conspiracy deflection post has been reported and removed.