DIY Cheap Charlie

[rooster59]

Iran further breaches nuclear deal, says it can exceed 20% enrichment

By Parisa Hafezi

 

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

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran said on Saturday it was now capable of raising uranium enrichment past the 20% level and had launched advanced centrifuge machines in further breaches of commitments to limit its nuclear activity under a 2015 deal with world powers.

 

"We have started lifting limitations on our Research and Development imposed by the deal ... It will include development of more rapid and advanced centrifuges," Iranian nuclear agency spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi told a televised news conference.

 

The 2015 pact curbed Iran's disputed nuclear programme in exchange for relief from sanctions, but has unravelled since the United States pulled out of it last year and acted to strangle Iran's oil trade to push it into wider security concessions.

 

Since May, Iran has begun to exceed limits on its nuclear capacity set by the pact in retaliation for U.S. pressure on Iran to negotiate restrictions on its ballistic missile programme and support for proxy forces around the Middle East.

 

Iran says its measures are reversible if European signatories to the accord manage to restore its access to foreign trade promised under the nuclear deal but blocked by the reimposition of U.S. sanctions.

 

The deal capped the level of purity to which Iran can enrich uranium at 3.67 percent - suitable for civilian power generation and far below the 90% threshold of nuclear weapons grade.

 

U.N. nuclear inspectors reported in July that Iran had cranked up enrichment to 4.5% purity. Kamalvandi said Tehran could now exceed the 20% level, a significant leap towards the critical 90%, "but right now there is no need for that".

 

He added, however: "European parties to the deal should know that there is not much time left, and if there is some action to be taken (to rescue the pact), it should be done quickly."

 

CRANKING UP ADVANCED CENTRIFUGES

 

The deal capped the number of machines that enrich uranium installed in Iran at some 6,000, down from around 19,000 before 2015. It allowed Iran to refine uranium only with slow, first-generation IR-1 centrifuges and to use small numbers of more advanced centrifuges solely for research, but without stockpiling enriched uranium, for a period of 10 years.

 

But Kamalvandi said the Islamic Republic had started using an array of more advanced centrifuges as part of its gradual steps to downgrade its nuclear commitments.

 

"This includes IR-6 machines which have now been fed (uranium) gas. A chain of 20 IR-4 centrifuges has also been started. The IR-6 has also started as a chain of 20 since yesterday," he said. "We will soon test our IR-8 centrifuge cascade by injecting gas into 3 IR-8 machines."

 

So far, Iran's breaches of the deal's limits on the pace and purity of enrichment have made little difference to the time it would need to accumulate enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, if it sought one. By limiting Iran's enrichment capacity, the deal extended that time to roughly a year from a few months.

 

But advanced centrifuges can enrich at a much faster pace.

 

"Machines developed by our own research and development will help accumulate reserves. This was done yesterday and announced to the IAEA today," Kamalvandi said, referring to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. "Our stockpile is quickly increasing..."

 

Kamalvandi stressed that IAEA inspectors retained full and regular access to Iran's nuclear installations and again denied that Tehran seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

 

Acting IAEA chief Cornel Feruta was due in Tehran to meet Iranian officials on Sunday.

 

France, Germany and Britain have struggled to save the deal by setting up a barter trade mechanism with Iran but it has yet to get off the ground and Tehran on Wednesday set another 60-day deadline for the Europeans.

 

French Defence Minister Florence Parly said on Saturday that Paris would continue its efforts to bring Iran back into full compliance of the deal.

 

(Additional reporting by Dominique Vidalon in Paris; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-08

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[OneMoreFarang]

Maybe the rest of the world should make a deal with them so that they don't enrich uranium.

Maybe they could call it Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or something like that.

And then, if everybody works according such a deal, there would be peace.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

[pgrahmm]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe the rest of the world should make a deal with them so that they don't enrich uranium.

Maybe they could call it Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or something like that.

And then, if everybody works according such a deal, there would be peace.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

Yeah - worked well with North Korea.....

[kingdong]

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe the rest of the world should make a deal with them so that they don't enrich uranium.

Maybe they could call it Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or something like that.

And then, if everybody works according such a deal, there would be peace.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

Why bother,just bomb them into the stone age.

[OneMoreFarang]

13 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Why bother,just bomb them into the stone age.

The people who followed the deal or the people, or to be precise the moron president, who broke the deal?

[pgrahmm]

21 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The people who followed the deal or the people, or to be precise the moron president, who broke the deal?

Anybody really think Iran was intending to - & willingly curb their nuclear ambitions?

[pegman]

2 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

Anybody really think Iran was intending to - & willingly curb their nuclear ambitions?

All  evidence was that they were prior to Trump ripping up the agreement. I think we should take their word over the country that give us the Iraq WMD charade. 

[ezzra]

Back in 2012, according to a very reliable sources, Israel was a cat's whiskers  away from bombing Iran nuclear facilities with the blessing of Obama, there was a mock structure built in one of the neighbouring countries to practice on that have been successful  using USA's bunker buster GBU-57 MOP Massive Ordnance Penetrator,

But the order was not carried out after it met with strong opposition from two key security figures, the military chief of staff and head of the Mossad...

Edited September 8, 2019 by ezzra

[Tug]

What deal I seem to recall Donald tore it up so there is no deal to break

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, pgrahmm said:

Yeah - worked well with North Korea.....

As Trump had NO deal with North Korea, there's nothing to fail.

Not a good analogy.

Imagine that if POTUS Obama et al allies did have a denuclearization deal with North Korea, only to be broken by POTUS Trump. Would Kim Jung-On have reacted far more extreme that has Iran? Most likely with a couple ICBM nuclear missile tests downrange from North Korea into the ocean.

[brokenbone]

the deal is off, president trump ripped it up,

ergo iran arent breaching any deal,

as there is none.

USA did breach the deal tho

Edited September 8, 2019 by brokenbone

[pgrahmm]

21 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

As Trump had NO deal with North Korea, there's nothing to fail.

Not a good analogy.

Imagine that if POTUS Obama et al allies did have a denuclearization deal with North Korea, only to be broken by POTUS Trump. Would Kim Jung-On have reacted far more extreme that has Iran? Most likely with a couple ICBM nuclear missile tests downrange from North Korea into the ocean.

Not Trump - Clinton.....

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, pgrahmm said:

Yeah - worked well with North Korea.....

Iran and North Korea know they need nuclear weapons otherwise the USA would invade them

[MadMac]

This, then the story about the tanker in Syria, obviously to create enough momentum for the warmonger's next lie to invade Iran.

[OneMoreFarang]

30 minutes ago, MadMac said:

This, then the story about the tanker in Syria, obviously to create enough momentum for the warmonger's next lie to invade Iran.

He need a distraction from all his trouble at home and from his "character".

Wag the dog comes to my mind...

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe the rest of the world should make a deal with them so that they don't enrich uranium.

Maybe they could call it Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or something like that.

And then, if everybody works according such a deal, there would be peace.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

 

Maybe you ought to look up the timeline of events leading to the JCPOA before posting. The JCPOA was preceded by years of international sanctions on Iran. These were in place following Iran's breach of its NPT commitments.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the deal is off, president trump ripped it up,

ergo iran arent breaching any deal,

as there is none.

USA did breach the deal tho

 

That you announce the deal is off doesn't make it so. It doesn't even reflect Iran's position or that of the remaining signatories.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Iran and North Korea know they need nuclear weapons otherwise the USA would invade them

 

A major flow in this argument would be that to date, Iran wasn't invaded, despite not having nuclear arms. Same goes for NK - which only got its nuclear arms relatively recently.

 

2 hours ago, MadMac said:

This, then the story about the tanker in Syria, obviously to create enough momentum for the warmonger's next lie to invade Iran.

 

How does that story generate "momentum" for an imagined invasion?

 

There aren't even enough USA forces in place to mount such an invasion. Far more likely that there will, eventually, be a meeting between leaders. Maybe at the next UN session.

[Thaifriends]

Iranians never stopped enrichment. They will make nuclear bombs sooner or later. It is the sanctions thats more frustrating for them. Europeans are just in a thin lane and would do anything to get their Iranian investments start to give returns

 

Just look at the shameless Macron and the Iranian FM visited same day to meet him after G7 meeting. He seems more focused on Citreon and Total. 

 

Even if there is a new deal, still what is the solution:

1. US Sanctions

2. If they make after 5 or 10 years? In that region, there are already 3 nuclear powers bordering to each other and from a distance both Russia and Israel watching the show.

 

I think the regional countries should decide on this rather then the EU and the USA.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Thaifriends

[brokenbone]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That you announce the deal is off doesn't make it so. It doesn't even reflect Iran's position or that of the remaining signatories.

no, but president trump announced the deal is off,

and that made it so. US has already placed sanctions on

iran, and are begging EU to do so also

[brokenbone]

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A major flow in this argument would be that to date, Iran wasn't invaded, despite not having nuclear arms. Same goes for NK - which only got its nuclear arms relatively recently.

 

 

How does that story generate "momentum" for an imagined invasion?

 

There aren't even enough USA forces in place to mount such an invasion. Far more likely that there will, eventually, be a meeting between leaders. Maybe at the next UN session.

i firmly believe a nuclear deterrent is required to keep US & israel in check, history proves they are into bombing muslims

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no, but president trump announced the deal is off,

and that made it so. US has already placed sanctions on

iran, and are begging EU to do so also

 

Again, that's your version.

Neither Iran nor any other of the signatories proclaimed the deal is "off".

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i firmly believe a nuclear deterrent is required to keep US & israel in check, history proves they are into bombing muslims

 

This doesn't relate to your previous assertion, that nuclear arms are necessary to thwart an (imaginary) American invasion. That, despite the fact that Iran wasn't actually invaded up to now.

 

I don't think the USA exclusively bombs Muslims. Or that characterizing it as being "into bombing Muslims" is anywhere near a fair and objective comment. As for Israel, given that it's adversaries are pretty much all Muslims - your "point" is meaningless.

 

As far as I'm aware, Iran itself isn't being bombed. And it wasn't even seriously threatened prior to making threats of its own. The "keep in check" bit skips that part for obvious reasons.

 

Arguments for nuclear proliferation, in the name of some supposed justice or balance, are still stupid.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Thaifriends said:

Iranians never stopped enrichment. They will make nuclear bombs sooner or later. It is the sanctions thats more frustrating for them. Europeans are just in a thin lane and would do anything to get their Iranian investments start to give returns

 

Just look at the shameless Macron and the Iranian FM visited same day to meet him after G7 meeting. He seems more focused on Citreon and Total. 

 

Even if there is a new deal, still what is the solution:

1. US Sanctions

2. If they make after 5 or 10 years? In that region, there are already 3 nuclear powers bordering to each other and from a distance both Russia and Israel watching the show.

 

I think the regional countries should decide on this rather then the EU and the USA.

 

 

 

 

Shameless how? Do you imagine that the Trump administration wasn't informed and aware of the French moves? Do you imagine it would have happened if Trump was strongly opposed to it?

 

Trump's been seeking a meeting, or some political way out of the mess for some time now. I think that unless something dramatic happens, it will take place in the near future.

 

If there's a new deal, with the USA involved, then there will be at least a gradual/partial lifting of USA sanctions.

 

Not sure what three bordering nuclear powers you're referring to.

 

Regional countries "deciding this" is rich. How exactly is that supposed work out?

[brokenbone]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

This doesn't relate to your previous assertion, that nuclear arms are necessary to thwart an (imaginary) American invasion. That, despite the fact that Iran wasn't actually invaded up to now.

 

I don't think the USA exclusively bombs Muslims. Or that characterizing it as being "into bombing Muslims" is anywhere near a fair and objective comment. As for Israel, given that it's adversaries are pretty much all Muslims - your "point" is meaningless.

 

As far as I'm aware, Iran itself isn't being bombed. And it wasn't even seriously threatened prior to making threats of its own. The "keep in check" bit skips that part for obvious reasons.

 

Arguments for nuclear proliferation, in the name of some supposed justice or balance, are still stupid.

 

i think n korea so far deterred US due to arty next door

to s korea capital, and now nukes.

 

i think iran deterred by the sheer size of it,

but uav makes that area much less and a nuclear deterrent is required to meet future threats

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i think n korea so far deterred US due to arty next door

to s korea capital, and now nukes.

 

i think iran deterred by the sheer size of it,

but uav makes that area much less and a nuclear deterrent is required to meet future threats

 

So, NK did just fine with a conventional deterrent.

Your "arguments" with regard to Iran are even more flimsy - how does UAVs make a country smaller? What does it mean, even? And how does it follow that nuclear arms are a must?

 

It is interesting, though, that some of Iran's supporters on here claim Iran is not interested in having nuclear arms, while others proclaim Iran ought to have them.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Maybe you ought to look up the timeline of events leading to the JCPOA before posting. The JCPOA was preceded by years of international sanctions on Iran. These were in place following Iran's breach of its NPT commitments.

Iran maybe tried to build nuclear weapons. Response: Lots of sanctions and lots of hassle from the USA.

Israel has functioning but undeclared nuclear weapons. Response: The USA supports them with billions of military hardware every year.

Summary: Big double standards. And then some people pretend to be surprised that the world is f#$#% up the way it is.

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

So, NK did just fine with a conventional deterrent.

Your "arguments" with regard to Iran are even more flimsy - how does UAVs make a country smaller? What does it mean, even? And how does it follow that nuclear arms are a must?

 

It is interesting, though, that some of Iran's supporters on here claim Iran is not interested in having nuclear arms, while others proclaim Iran ought to have them.

 

it means that even such a large area can be surveilled

very well, and the entire army is reduced to light infantry/guerilla, just waiting to get sniped by a bomb.

 

you could say that the dominance of air power has created a scenario where the only deterrent is nukes with a dependable delivery system

Edited September 8, 2019 by brokenbone

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Iran maybe tried to build nuclear weapons. Response: Lots of sanctions and lots of hassle from the USA.

Israel has functioning but undeclared nuclear weapons. Response: The USA supports them with billions of military hardware every year.

Summary: Big double standards. And then some people pretend to be surprised that the world is f#$#% up the way it is.

 

Iran was under agreement not to develop such weapons or conduct research and efforts related to it. That would be the NPT. The sanctions which followed were international.

 

Israel, which isn't what the topic is about, was not party to the NPT agreement.

 

As said on many posts, some countries having nuclear arms is not a good argument for unchecked nuclear proliferation. Also, getting countries already in possession of nuclear arms to disarm is problematic. From a realistic point of view, focusing on prevention is where it's at.

 

The world is not perfect, and often, not fair. Welcome to reality.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

it means that even such a large area can be surveilled

very well, and the entire army is reduced to light infantry/guerilla, just waiting to get sniped by a bomb

 

It doesn't really mean that, though. And Iran seemed quite capable shooting down one of the USA's top UAVs. Even if that was the case - still not a good argument for support of nuclear proliferation.