Israeli Interrogator Warns of Continued Violence as Long as Hamas Leader Sinwar Lives

[rooster59]

Iran goes further in breaching nuclear deal, IAEA report shows

By Francois Murphy

 

The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2019. REUTERS/Lisi Niesner

 

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has gone further in breaching its nuclear deal with world powers, increasing its stock of enriched uranium and refining it to a greater purity than allowed, the U.N. atomic agency report said on Friday.

 

The quarterly report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is policing the 2015 deal, confirms Iran is progressively backing out of the deal in retaliation for Washington's withdrawal form the accord and renewal of sanctions that have hit Iranian oil sales.

 

Iran has said it will breach the deal's limits on its nuclear activities one by one, ratcheting up pressure on parties who still hope to save it.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump has offered to hold talks with Iran on a broader deal but Tehran says first it must get relief from U.S. sanctions.

 

In July, the IAEA said Iran exceeded both a 202.8-kg limit on its enriched uranium stock and its 3.67% cap on the fissile purity to which it is allowed to refine uranium. In a verbal update on July 10, the IAEA said Iran was enriching uranium to 4.5% purity and had stockpiled 213.5 kg of enriched uranium.

 

Friday's quarterly report to member states obtained by Reuters said Iran has accumulated 241.6 kg of enriched uranium and is enriching at around the same level as before, up to 4.5%.

 

Iran's enriched uranium stock is still a fraction of the tonnes it possessed before the deal. Its enrichment level is also well short of the 20% it reached before the deal and the roughly 90% that is considered weapons-grade.

 

Its breaches have therefore not yet made much difference to the time it would need to obtain enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb if it sought one. The deal - which set nuclear restrictions in exchange for sanctions relief - extended that time to roughly a year from a few months.

 

LOOMING DEADLINE

 

Iran has threatened to take further steps by Sept. 6, such as enriching to 20% or restarting mothballed centrifuges, machines that enrich uranium.

 

The report also hinted at less than ideal cooperation from Iran, saying: "Ongoing interactions between the Agency and Iran ... require full and timely cooperation by Iran. The Agency continues to pursue this objective with Iran."

 

A senior diplomat added, however, that Iran had not changed its level of cooperation and IAEA inspectors were able to visit all the locations in the country they needed to.

 

The message was an encouragement to do more to help answer outstanding questions rather than provide access, he added, without elaborating. Diplomats have often said Iran has dragged its feet while stopping short of crossing the IAEA's red lines.

 

(Reporting by Francois Murphy; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Andrew Heavens)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-31

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[pegman]

How is that plan of your's going Trump?

[Tayaout]

5 minutes ago, pegman said:

How is that plan of your's going Trump?

"Everything working as planned.": Netanyahu 

 

 

[Sujo]

I cant say i blame them. US pulls out and issues sanctions, Israel forever threatening them.

 

They have every right to do what is necessary to defend themselves. You dont normally see countries with nuclear arsenal get threatened.

[Youlike]

Wait ! Stop Donald.....we are still waiting for prove of the weapons of mass destruction from Sadam!!!

 

And untill then we are stuck with millions of refugee's here which we have to feed and employ....cheers George!

[Boon Mee]

 Iran, whose #1 export is Terror - think Hezbolla etc, anything that can be done to stop them from getting the Bomb ???? is acceptable. 

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

 Iran, whose #1 export is Terror - think Hezbolla etc, anything that can be done to stop them from getting the Bomb ???? is acceptable. 

Thats what the previous agreement was doing. Glad you are happy with Obama.

 

So now whats stopping them?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

I cant say i blame them. US pulls out and issues sanctions, Israel forever threatening them.

 

They have every right to do what is necessary to defend themselves. You dont normally see countries with nuclear arsenal get threatened.

 

Israel is not "forever" threatening them, and if it wasn't for Iran's own rhetoric, support of Hezbollah or trying to set up shop on Israel's border - there would have been no issues.

 

They do not have "every right to do what is necessary to defend themselves". Some of the things they can't do fall under the JCPOA (which, to date, wasn't scrapped), the NPT, and various other agreements and treaties.

 

Countries in possession of nuclear arsenal get threatened - the recent USA-NK standoff, India and Pakistan coming to blows, China's moves near India's borders, the Cuba missile crisis, or indeed Iran's own threats vs. both Israel and the USA.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Thats what the previous agreement was doing. Glad you are happy with Obama.

 

So now whats stopping them?

 

What's stopping them is that they are not completely daft.

 

If Iran would take serious steps to achieve nuclear military capability the remnants of international support it gets would evaporate, and there would probably some serious consequences.

 

I think it would have been more credible to worry about Iran trying to get such capability on the sly, while the agreement was on. Doing so while the inspections regime is still in place, international attention still focused on such efforts and USA surveillance targeting such efforts - a different story.

 

The agreement was way better than the current situation, yes - but it was not perfect.

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[jany123]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

 Iran, whose #1 export is Terror - think Hezbolla etc, anything that can be done to stop them from getting the Bomb ???? is acceptable. 

Remind me again; why is it that we need to do anything extra to “stop them” from getting the bomb? Would fulfilling hitherto agreed obligations to “stop them”, be acceptable? 

Edited August 31, 2019 by jany123

[puipuitom]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

I cant say i blame them. US pulls out and issues sanctions, Israel forever threatening them.

They have every right to do what is necessary to defend themselves. You dont normally see countries with nuclear arsenal get threatened.

It was IRAN who started to threat Israel.

And by the continuation to develop ICBM's.. and also Nuclear bombs, a matter of time, and those islam fanatics are able to theat the entire world.

[puipuitom]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Thats what the previous agreement was doing. Glad you are happy with Obama.

 

So now whats stopping them?

No, the previous agreement only stopped them till 2025. Aftyer theat, the Iranisan were free to do whatever they pleased. In the meantime, develop their ICBM's

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

No, the previous agreement only stopped them till 2025. Aftyer theat, the Iranisan were free to do whatever they pleased. In the meantime, develop their ICBM's

So now whats stopping them

[Sujo]

35 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

It was IRAN who started to threat Israel.

And by the continuation to develop ICBM's.. and also Nuclear bombs, a matter of time, and those islam fanatics are able to theat the entire world.

And Israel does not threaten Iran?

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What's stopping them is that they are not completely daft.

 

If Iran would take serious steps to achieve nuclear military capability the remnants of international support it gets would evaporate, and there would probably some serious consequences.

 

I think it would have been more credible to worry about Iran trying to get such capability on the sly, while the agreement was on. Doing so while the inspections regime is still in place, international attention still focused on such efforts and USA surveillance targeting such efforts - a different story.

 

The agreement was way better than the current situation, yes - but it was not perfect.

And with the previous agreement would be serious consequences with the addrd bonus that it could be argued and proved they were not genuine.

 

Now nothing and trumps credibility is shot

[Morch]

54 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

No, the previous agreement only stopped them till 2025. Aftyer theat, the Iranisan were free to do whatever they pleased. In the meantime, develop their ICBM's

 

That's not correct. They can't do whatever they please post 2025. They could try, but it would still run against agreements, and then there's monitoring.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And Israel does not threaten Iran?

 

Yes, it does. But ignoring the timeline or context of the threats is a choice. Israel would have no reason to threat Iran, if it wasn't for Iran's own threats, and Iran's involvement and action right across Israel's border - directed against Israel.

[Morch]

42 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And with the previous agreement would be serious consequences with the addrd bonus that it could be argued and proved they were not genuine.

 

Now nothing and trumps credibility is shot

 

Not quite sure what you were trying to say.

Trump had credibility? Who knew.

[Tug]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

 Iran, whose #1 export is Terror - think Hezbolla etc, anything that can be done to stop them from getting the Bomb ???? is acceptable. 

There was an agreement in place Donald broke cause Obama hurt his feelings that frees Iran do do what they want no agreement = I do as I please hell look at n Korea Donald is falling all over the guy it’s just another example of Donald beeing unfit to be potus 

[Dumbastheycome]

To all  intent and purpose Iran was complying with the agreement that the  us abandoned. Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development. Now that the us  has revoked it's involvement with the  agreement and has applied  various pressures  on the remaining  countries to bow to effectively  do the same the Iranians once again are being true to their word  by up scaling their nuclear development in line with  original stated purpose as they stated they would  if continued incremental ad hoc economic pressures were applied in contravention of  existing  agreement. Iran has demonstrated it is amenable to the affirmation of the  fact  by allowing  the confirmation by UN continued inspection.

Who the more  believable  now?

The us  argument is  one one  hand  about  nuclear weapons  capacity and/or  next  about  support  for regimes or  counter regimes  in other locations not in  favour  with  us  policy.

IMO it  has  no genuine legitimacy  on  either  hand. The us administration is  hampered by the  fact that the  ousting of the  Shah was due to a popular uprising  by the populace  which is still maintained to date. Thus there is  no mandate to  "save the people" . The oppression they are subject to is  by virtue  of the stricture of  sanctions  primarily on the  basis  of  "suspicion" about nuclear weapons  capacity.

On the alternative  criticisms of  aiding "terrorism" the us need contemplate it's  own involvement in dubious  historical and ongoing conflicts.

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

To all  intent and purpose Iran was complying with the agreement that the  us abandoned. Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development. Now that the us  has revoked it's involvement with the  agreement and has applied  various pressures  on the remaining  countries to bow to effectively  do the same the Iranians once again are being true to their word  by up scaling their nuclear development in line with  original stated purpose as they stated they would  if continued incremental ad hoc economic pressures were applied in contravention of  existing  agreement. Iran has demonstrated it is amenable to the affirmation of the  fact  by allowing  the confirmation by UN continued inspection.

Who the more  believable  now?

The us  argument is  one one  hand  about  nuclear weapons  capacity and/or  next  about  support  for regimes or  counter regimes  in other locations not in  favour  with  us  policy.

IMO it  has  no genuine legitimacy  on  either  hand. The us administration is  hampered by the  fact that the  ousting of the  Shah was due to a popular uprising  by the populace  which is still maintained to date. Thus there is  no mandate to  "save the people" . The oppression they are subject to is  by virtue  of the stricture of  sanctions  primarily on the  basis  of  "suspicion" about nuclear weapons  capacity.

On the alternative  criticisms of  aiding "terrorism" the us need contemplate it's  own involvement in dubious  historical and ongoing conflicts.

 

 

"Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development."

 

And yet, Iran's claims to this effect were rejected by relevant international organizations. Accepting Iran's claims at face value is a choice. The previous sanctions regime, and the JCPOA itself were a direct result of Iran's efforts to do other than claimed above.

 

"...the Iranians once again are being true to their word  by up scaling their nuclear development in line with  original stated purpose as they stated they would  if continued incremental ad hoc economic pressures were applied in contravention of  existing  agreement."

 

The Iranians are not "true to their word". The agreement doesn't make allowances for the sort of partial breaches Iran is currently engaged in. It also doesn't mandate much by way of specifics with regard to countries having to do business with Iran. 

 

"Iran has demonstrated it is amenable to the affirmation of the  fact  by allowing  the confirmation by UN continued inspection."

 

Not really. Iran is fully aware that scrapping the agreement and the inspections regime would imply the international sanctions being reapplied. Seeing it as goodwill is a choice.

 

 

The rest of your post is just the usual rant about supposed USA policies and goals, throwing in events dating 70 years back and whatnot.

 

[bristolboy]

23 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What's stopping them is that they are not completely daft.

 

If Iran would take serious steps to achieve nuclear military capability the remnants of international support it gets would evaporate, and there would probably some serious consequences.

 

I think it would have been more credible to worry about Iran trying to get such capability on the sly, while the agreement was on. Doing so while the inspections regime is still in place, international attention still focused on such efforts and USA surveillance targeting such efforts - a different story.

 

The agreement was way better than the current situation, yes - but it was not perfect.

If Iran's International support was now confined to remnants, surely at least one of the signatories to the agreement would already have taken the prescribed steps to decertify the Iranian regime. 

As for the agreement not being "perfect", what international agreement is? Something to do with negotiations. And perfect from whose point of view? The Israelis? The Saudis? John Bolton's?

Edited September 1, 2019 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

21 hours ago, puipuitom said:

No, the previous agreement only stopped them till 2025. Aftyer theat, the Iranisan were free to do whatever they pleased. In the meantime, develop their ICBM's

This is false.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2168438-trump-says-the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-bad-heres-why-hes-wrong/

[Morch]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

I'm sure the next president won't cancel very well working agreements.

 

One may hope. On the other hand, this might have set a precedent. What I think future presidents would seek to avoid is getting involved in the sort of legislation which requires frequent and regular presidential confirmation.

[OneMoreFarang]

On 8/31/2019 at 1:47 PM, Boon Mee said:

 Iran, whose #1 export is Terror - think Hezbolla etc, anything that can be done to stop them from getting the Bomb ???? is acceptable. 

How about making a deal to make sure they are not allowed to enrich uranium so that they can't build a bomb?

And then maybe let a 3rd party verify that they keep that agreement maybe with regular inspections.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

One may hope. On the other hand, this might have set a precedent. What I think future presidents would seek to avoid is getting involved in the sort of legislation which requires frequent and regular presidential confirmation.

This agreement did not require frequent and regular presidential confirmation. Trump chose to do so, And even if this were a treaty, the President has the power to withdraw from treaties as well without congressional approval. As did George W. Bush from the ABM treaty signed with the Soviet Union and to which Russia was the successor state.

[daveAustin]

On 8/31/2019 at 6:36 AM, Sujo said:

I cant say i blame them. US pulls out and issues sanctions, Israel forever threatening them.

Iran has consistently voiced the desire to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Iran has consistently voiced the desire to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth.

"Consistently?" Really? Got some evidence?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

This agreement did not require frequent and regular presidential confirmation. Trump chose to do so, And even if this were a treaty, the President has the power to withdraw from treaties as well without congressional approval. As did George W. Bush from the ABM treaty signed with the Soviet Union and to which Russia was the successor state.

Just to clarify. Congress did impose a requirement on the President to recertify. But if the President doesn't recertify, it changes nothing. It's not intrinsic to the deal and it doesn't require the US to renounce the deal.