Khamenei says Iran may enrich uranium to 60% purity if needed

[webfact]

Khamenei says Iran may enrich uranium to 60% purity if needed

By Parisa Hafezi

 

FILE PHOTO: Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a televised speech in Tehran, Iran, January 8, 2021. Official Khamenei Website/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION/File Photo

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday Iran might enrich uranium up to 60% purity if the country needed it and would never yield to U.S. pressure over its nuclear programme, state television reported.

 

Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with six powers, which it has been breaching since the United States withdrew in 2018, caps the fissile purity to which Tehran can refine uranium at 3.67%, well under the 20% achieved before the agreement and far below the 90% suitable for a nuclear weapon.

 

"Iran's uranium enrichment level will not be limited to 20%. We will increase it to whatever level the country needs ... We may increase it to 60%," the TV quoted Khamenei as saying, upping the ante in a stand-off with U.S. President Joe Biden's administration over the future of the fraying deal.

 

"Americans and the European parties to the deal have used unjust language against Iran ... Iran will not yield to pressure. Our stance will not change," Khamenei said.

 

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said Khamenei's comments "sounds like a threat" and declined to respond to what he described as "hypotheticals" and "posturing".

 

He reiterated U.S. willingness to engage in talks with Iran about returning to the 2015 nuclear deal.

 

The Biden administration said last week it was ready to talk to Iran about both nations returning to the accord abandoned by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

Tehran said last week it was studying a European Union proposal for an informal meeting between current members of the deal and the United States, but has yet to respond to it.

 

Iran, which has resumed enriching to 20% in an apparent bid to heap pressure on the United States, has been at loggerheads with Washington over which side should take the initial step to revive the accord.

 

Although under domestic pressure to ease economic hardships worsened by sanctions, Iranian leaders insist Washington must end its punitive campaign first to restore the deal, while Washington says Tehran must first return to full compliance.

 

DIPLOMACY PATH

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday Washington intended to bolster and extend the 2015 pact, which aimed to limit Iran's enrichment potential - a possible pathway to atomic bombs - in exchange for a lifting of most sanctions.

 

Blinken, addressing the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, said in a pre-recorded speech: "The United States remains committed to ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. Diplomacy is the best path to achieve that goal."

 

Khamenei, in his televised remarks, repeated a denial of any Iranian intent to weaponise uranium enrichment.

 

He added: "That international Zionist clown (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) has said they won't allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. First of all, if we had any such intention, even those more powerful than him wouldn't be able to stop us."

 

To pressure the Biden administration to drop sanctions, Iran's hardline-dominated parliament passed a law last year obliging the government to end roving snap inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog from Tuesday if sanctions are not lifted.

 

Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Kazem Gharibabadi, said Iran had ended the implementation of the so-called Additional Protocol, which allows International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out short-notice inspections at midnight (2030 GMT).

 

To create room for diplomacy, the U.N. watchdog on Sunday reached a deal with Iran to cushion the blow of Iran's reduced cooperation and refusal to permit short-notice inspections.

 

Iranian lawmakers protested on Monday at Tehran's decision to permit "necessary" monitoring by U.N. inspectors for up to three months, saying this broke the new law.

 

(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva, Arshad Mohammed and Humeyra Pamuk in Washington; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Alison Williams)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-23

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

Don’t think you are in a good position to play brinkmanship with all due respect one push of the button could destroy your country personally I’d like to see the Iranian navy sunk that would stop a lot of their interference if it comes to that let’s hope it doesent a peaceful diplomatic solution is preferable yes?

[ezzra]

28 minutes ago, Tug said:

Don’t think you are in a good position to play brinkmanship with all due respect one push of the button could destroy your country personally I’d like to see the Iranian navy sunk that would stop a lot of their interference if it comes to that let’s hope it doesent a peaceful diplomatic solution is preferable yes?

Good post but expect to receive couple of negative comments from some of the members here who are thinks that Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only...

[PatOngo]

16 minutes ago, ezzra said:

some of the members here who are thinks that Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only...

....or want to defend themselves against outside aggressors!

[trainman34014]

Eventually they will enrich it enough for the Israelis to bomb their backsides off; even if the U.S. doesn't agree with what they are doing !

[Kwasaki]

One push of the button is crazy talk all that will do is get Iran to ordered the best missile defense system in the world today the S-400.

Take the economic sanctions away and let it be known it's being done for the Iranian people not the religious leaders.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Don’t think you are in a good position to play brinkmanship with all due respect one push of the button could destroy your country personally I’d like to see the Iranian navy sunk that would stop a lot of their interference if it comes to that let’s hope it doesent a peaceful diplomatic solution is preferable yes?

 

There's no finger on no button. No one's going to 'destroy' Iran. As far as negative consequences go there are basically only two scenarios, both unlikely to actually materialize - sanctions or a limited strike. Nothing more severe than that on the cards, actually making it a good time for Iran to play chicken. The Biden administration may not be a pushover, but is committed to diplomacy and negotiations, so wouldn't take steps to fan flames or such that are irrevocable.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

Eventually they will enrich it enough for the Israelis to bomb their backsides off; even if the U.S. doesn't agree with what they are doing !

 

If the Israelis could, they would. Too far, too dangerous, and would only represent a marginal setback for Iran's plans (while supplying them with ample PR ammunition). Anything involving non-conventional weapons would be seen (and rightly so) as crazy over the top thing, with the expected consequences.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

One push of the button is crazy talk all that will do is get Iran to ordered the best missile defense system in the world today the S-400.

Take the economic sanctions away and let it be known it's being done for the Iranian people not the religious leaders.

 

Don't know how you mean 'let it be known', or why do assume it would be seen as anything but the Iranian regime bending the USA's arm.

[billd766]

Iran says the USA must sign first.

 

The USA says Iran must sign first.

 

How about getting the senior administrators of both sides to meet in a neutral country, say Switzerland or Sweden to thrash out an agreement, and then both sides can sign at the same time.

 

That should stop all the arguments about who goes first or second. Additionally the neutral country can send representatives to check what is happening in real time.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Don't know how you mean 'let it be known', or why do assume it would be seen as anything but the Iranian regime bending the USA's arm.

Well there's ways and means of the Iranian people finding out but whatever something needs to be done about lifting sanctions IMHO and start some peace talks instead of both sides threatening one and other. 

Does the west and US want peace or esculation.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 basically only two scenarios, both unlikely to actually materialize - sanctions or a limited strike.

The Biden administration may not be a pushover, but is committed to diplomacy and negotiations, so wouldn't take steps to fan flames or such that are irrevocable.

Hope you're right about the Biden camp. 

A limited strike would be disasterous and ruin anyway forward the same if Israel make a strike it would just esculate out of control. 

[nobodysfriend]

Enriching uranium up to 20% s much more difficult to do than further enriching it even to weapon grade 90% .  That is about their only way to put in a bit of pressure in the political game .  They do not openly talk about it , but they know that everybody knows .  They know that they would not win a war against Israel and some western forces .

They pretend to be able to , but they are not idiot enough to really believe so .  They want the sanctions lifted , that is of utmost importance to them in the moment.  They are quite predictable , actually ... more than Kim Yong Un f.e.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, billd766 said:

Iran says the USA must sign first.

 

The USA says Iran must sign first.

 

How about getting the senior administrators of both sides to meet in a neutral country, say Switzerland or Sweden to thrash out an agreement, and then both sides can sign at the same time.

 

That should stop all the arguments about who goes first or second. Additionally the neutral country can send representatives to check what is happening in real time.

 

I think that, by now, both sides are held back by the build-up of their own rhetoric. More so, perhaps, as far as the Iranian regime goes. As far as I understand, they are exchanging messages, if indirectly. Might have been easier to do it face to face, but that would cost some face for both. If I remember correctly, the Swiss Embassy in Iran is indeed acting as the USA's official(?) representative in-country.

 

And no, it wouldn't stop all the argument, seeing as the who-agrees-to-it-first part. Each side thinking the other would leak/out them if they give an inch.

 

However, I'm rather sure they'll sort it out in the near future. Much of the "escalation" is chest-beating, playing for domestic consumption, and testing the waters.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Well there's ways and means of the Iranian people finding out but whatever something needs to be done about lifting sanctions IMHO and start some peace talks instead of both sides threatening one and other. 

Does the west and US want peace or esculation.

 

Alright, so I'm asking how is this to be achieved, and you say 'ways and means' which means little. And 'peace talks'? Not aware there's a state of war on between the two nations. Or did you mean regional peace talks? Don't think the Iranian regime is up for that (and the same goes for other relevant parties).

 

Your last line gives away the game, some - why is it only 'the west and US'? Does Iran have no part in it? Are both China and Russia not parties to this?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Hope you're right about the Biden camp. 

A limited strike would be disasterous and ruin anyway forward the same if Israel make a strike it would just esculate out of control. 

 

I don't think Biden is interested in a military adventure in the Middle East. Not in the middle of a pandemic, and not without international support. Some of his top appointments are among the architects of the JCOPA and/or earlier negotiations between the USA and Iran. I imagine they know the score, and are as much on top of things as anyone can be.

 

Israel does not have the means to conduct a sustained military campaign vs. Iran relying on conventional weapons, nor the capability to weather the expected retaliation at the same time. The two military options in its arsenal are either a limited strike - which risky by itself, cannot do more the slow down Iran's nuclear ambitions. The two logical reasons for such a limited strike would be making the threat more credible, or banking on this escalating with the US, regional players and the rest of the JCPOA signatories being sucked in. That's an even riskier option, given it's uncertain how parties will react and how things pan out. One think Netanyahu can be counted on is not taking super risky decisions. So given current political climate, doubtful.

 

There is this misspelling above though, 'esculate', bringing to mind a combo of escalation and ejaculation. Can't rule out things getting out of hand with machismo and jingoism thrown in.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Enriching uranium up to 20% s much more difficult to do than further enriching it even to weapon grade 90% .

That is about their only way to put in a bit of pressure in the political game .

They do not openly talk about it , but they know that everybody knows .

They know that they would not win a war against Israel and some western forces .

They pretend to be able to , but they are not idiot enough to really believe so .

They want the sanctions lifted , that is of utmost importance to them in the moment  .

They are quite predictable , actually ... more than Kim Yong Un f.e.

 

Some of them know. Some don't. Some get caught up in rhetoric. Some play a different game (who comes on top when the dust clears). Some may think the USA won't go all the way. Many variables.

 

And yes, Iran badly needs those sanctions taken off. But, Iran's leaders also know being seen as "weak" could be their political undoing, or even a bit more dangerous than that.

 

It's predictable up to a point. As with many crises, there's always something that could snap - not because the sides wish it, but because that's how tense episodes are. Someone presses the wrong button, someone flies too close, sails too near, says the wrong thing and there we go.

[Kwasaki]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Alright, so I'm asking and you say 'ways and means' which means little. And 'peace talks'? Not aware there's a state of war on between the two nations. Or did you mean regional peace talks? Don't think the Iranian regime is up for that (and the same goes for other relevant parties).

 

Your last line gives away the game, some - why is it only 'the west and US'? Does Iran have no part in it? Are both China and Russia not parties to this?

How is this to be achieved, by talking peace instead of threats coming from both sides is that so hard to achieve, and it should be done by those who have the upper hand.

 

I have my thoughts into what's going on and as I see it Iran is being treated unfairly.

I believe Iran doesn't want to go the route of Nth.Korea but will continue in that direction if the sanctions are not lifted.

 

All countries opposed to Iran are party to this, Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim and that's OK so why because Iran is 90% Shia Muslim is that it seemed to be a problem.

 

The West support of US is Iran's problem as I see it along with Israel, Russia will support them, I guess China will too.  

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

How is this to be achieved, by talking peace instead of threats coming from both sides is that so hard to achieve, and it should be done by those who have the upper hand.

 

I have my thoughts into what's going on and as I see it Iran is being treated unfairly.

I believe Iran doesn't want to go the route of Nth.Korea but will continue in that direction if the sanctions are not lifted.

 

All countries opposed to Iran are party to this, Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim and that's OK so why because Iran is 90% Shia Muslim is that it seemed to be a problem.

 

The West support of US is Iran's problem as I see it along with Israel, Russia will support them, I guess China will too.  

 

My point was, and still is, with regard to your original comment, about the USA lifting sanctions while making it known it's for the Iranian people, not their leaders. No explanation on how this would be seen as anything but Iran's leaders' achievement and victory, or spun as such.

 

Iran is being treated unfairly how? Iran breached the NPT, which led to this whole saga in the first place. Iran lied about it, engaged in a lengthy series of obfuscations, denials and delays resulting in years of sanctions and ongoing hostility. As for not wishing to be like NK, well no...But maybe like Pakistan, India or Israel (as in countries who managed to get into the nuclear 'club' and get away with it). That they had such ambitions is a fact, that they have such ambitions today may be debated. Obviously, no one is willing to take their word for it. Hence the strict, invasive inspections regime being part of the JCPOA.

 

Not sure I got your point about Shi'a and Sunni, and even the last comment wasn't too clear. Why place the onus on Western countries and the USA?

[nobodysfriend]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

and as I see it Iran is being treated unfairly.

Many feel that .

But what is " Iran " exactly ?

The Mullah regime or the people of Iran ?

Quite a few of these people have a different opinion than the Mullahs , and are , let's say it nicely , are not treated very nice by the Iranian regime .

And what about freedom of press and speech in Iran ?

Getting rid of the Mullahs in a legal election would be a great step in the right direction .

As long as there is no basic right for the people to express themselves without having to fear repressions , Iran can , in some way , be considered as an totalitarian regime .

They may be peaceful , they may very well having been treated unfair with the sanctions , but if they would just include some more ' democratic values ' in the way they think , that would help them a lot , at least in the eyes of the ' rest of the world '

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Many feel that .

But what is " Iran " exactly ?

The Mullah regime or the people of Iran ?

Quite a few of these people have a different opinion than the Mullahs , and are , let's say it nicely , are not treated very nice by the Iranian regime .

And what about freedom of press and speech in Iran ?

Getting rid of the Mullahs in a legal election would be a great step in the right direction .

As long as there is no basic right for the people to express themselves without having to fear repressions , Iran can , in some way , be considered as an totalitarian regime .

They may be peaceful , they may very well having been treated unfair with the sanctions , but if they would just include some more ' democratic values ' in the way they think , that would help them a lot , at least in the eyes of the ' rest of the world '

 

In the eyes of the "West", perhaps. Doubt China, Russia and regional parties place that high a value on such things. Also, if we're not exactly clear on what "Iran" is, exactly, than the same could be even more easily applied to the "World"...

[sirineou]

12 hours ago, ezzra said:

Good post but expect to receive couple of negative comments from some of the members here who are thinks that Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only...

_{Iran might not be, but neither  are all of it's enemies. . Who is peace loving,? The US? Israel? Who? Persian has faced  ambitious upstarts for thee thousand years ,if you or anyone else think they are about lay down and play dead  now you are all sadly  mistaken.}

[Kwasaki]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think Biden is interested in a military adventure in the Middle East.Not in the middle of a pandemic, and not without international support. Some of his top appointments are among the architects of the JCOPA and/or earlier negotiations between the USA and Iran. I imagine they know the score, and are as much on top of things as anyone can be.

 

Israel does not have the means to conduct a sustained military campaign vs. Iran relying on conventional weapons, nor the capability to weather the expected retaliation at the same time. The two military options in its arsenal are either a limited strike - which risky by itself, cannot do more the slow down Iran's nuclear ambitions. The two logical reasons for such a limited strike would be making the threat more credible, or banking on this escalating with the US, regional players and the rest of the JCPOA signatories being sucked in. That's an even riskier option, given it's uncertain how parties will react and how things pan out. One think Netanyahu can be counted on is not taking super risky decisions. So given current political climate, doubtful.

 

There is this misspelling above though, 'esculate', bringing to mind a combo of escalation and ejaculation. Can't rule out things getting out of hand with machismo and jingoism thrown in.

Nice to discuss with you. 

Well Biden wouldn't attack Iran anyway that would not be acceptable, they have already made many mistakes already by attacking countries the American people would not stand for anymore humiliation.

 

With respect that's a laugh saying the US not doing anything without international support.

 

Earlier negotiations between the USA and Iran were thrown out by Trump so why should Iran trust Biden's rhetoric.

 

Israel is a disgrace and would like US support to attack and bomb sites in Iran.

 

Military options like limited strikes again would only result in retaliation and very much more than risky, Iran have many S-300 missiles at there disposal, and Russia would only be to happy to supply them as they did Turkey with S-400's.

 

 As for Netanyahu he should shut up and back off.

 

.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

_{Iran might not be, but neither  are all of it's enemies. . Who is peace loving,? The US? Israel? Who? Persian has faced  ambitious upstarts for thee thousand years ,if you or anyone else think they are about lay down and play dead  now you are all sadly  mistaken.}

 

All countries, governments, leaders, politicians and regimes are peace-loving. The problem is that they usually mean peace on their respective terms. I doubt the seriousness of the suggested continuity regarding the "Persian". Don't think they actually fully embrace their "heretic' past these days.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

All countries, governments, leaders, politicians and regimes are peace-loving. The problem is that they usually mean peace on their respective terms. I doubt the seriousness of the suggested continuity regarding the "Persian". Don't think they actually fully embrace their "heretic' past these days.

So it is not peace that they love but the  status quo , and only as long as such status quo is beneficial to them . So where do you come up with the "Iran is not a peace loving nation" ? Who is?

As far as the " heretic past" comment is concerned . I don't know what to even say about that? 

Only that " Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes the delusions of religion to make good people do bad things" and that applies to all people not only Persians. 

[Kwasaki]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

My point was, and still is, with regard to your original comment, about the USA lifting sanctions while making it known it's for the Iranian people, not their leaders. No explanation on how this would be seen as anything but Iran's leaders' achievement and victory, or spun as such.

 

Iran is being treated unfairly how? Iran breached the NPT, which led to this whole saga in the first place. Iran lied about it, engaged in a lengthy series of obfuscations, denials and delays resulting in years of sanctions and ongoing hostility. As for not wishing to be like NK, well no...But maybe like Pakistan, India or Israel (as in countries who managed to get into the nuclear 'club' and get away with it). That they had such ambitions is a fact, that they have such ambitions today may be debated. Obviously, no one is willing to take their word for it. Hence the strict, invasive inspections regime being part of the JCPOA.

 

Not sure I got your point about Shi'a and Sunni, and even the last comment wasn't too clear. Why place the onus on Western countries and the USA?

I don't see why the Iranian people should suffer who cares who thinks who's won or is winning , sanctions affect Iranian people not there leaders.

We will have to agree to disagree we obviously do not see this problem the same.

All I would like to see found is world peace instead of hypocritical world police.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Nice to discuss with you. 

Well Biden wouldn't attack Iran anyway that would not be acceptable, they have already made many mistakes already by attacking countries the American people would not stand for anymore humiliation.

 

With respect that's a laugh saying the US not doing anything without international support.

 

Earlier negotiations between the USA and Iran were thrown out by Trump so why should Iran trust Biden's rhetoric.

 

Israel is a disgrace and would like US support to attack and bomb sites in Iran.

 

Military options like limited strikes again would only result in retaliation and very much more than risky, Iran have many S-300 missiles at there disposal, and Russia would only be to happy to supply them as they did Turkey with S-400's.

 

 As for Netanyahu he should shut up and back off.

 

.

 

 

I haven't claimed that the USA does nothing without international support. But in the context of military adventures abroad, they do try for the appearance of international support, solidarity and cooperation - most of the serious operations were, indeed, "joint ventures", where the US supplied the muscle and the drive, and others the legitimacy. Trump's term was marked by a (partial) departure from this, no doubt in mind that Biden will go back to the old routine.

 

Both Iran and the USA have valid reasons to distrust each other. That you, and others, choose to focus solely on Trump, while ignoring Iran's contribution to the state of things - that's a choice. Iran can choose to go on and not trust the USA - maybe the Biden administration will cave in, maybe it will be more open to concede ground, or maybe things will pan out differently and international sanctions would be reintroduced. Iran is playing a rather dangerous, high-stakes game. Sure, other parties could "lose" as well, but not quite as badly.

 

Israel got it's own national interests to protect, regardless of your personal outstanding dislike for the country. Same as Iran. Same as the USA. Same as KSA.

 

I don't think the Russians would be in any hurry to supply advanced military systems on credit, and clash head on with the Biden administration. They too, have enough on their plate right now. No one really wants a fight.

[Kwasaki]

37 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Many feel that .

But what is " Iran " exactly ?

The Mullah regime or the people of Iran ?

Quite a few of these people have a different opinion than the Mullahs , and are , let's say it nicely , are not treated very nice by the Iranian regime .

And what about freedom of press and speech in Iran ?

Getting rid of the Mullahs in a legal election would be a great step in the right direction .

As long as there is no basic right for the people to express themselves without having to fear repressions , Iran can , in some way , be considered as an totalitarian regime .

They may be peaceful , they may very well having been treated unfair with the sanctions , but if they would just include some more ' democratic values ' in the way they think , that would help them a lot , at least in the eyes of the ' rest of the world '

Yeah well we will have to wait and see.

The way I see it is sanctions play into the hands of the Mullah leaders and make the Iranian population hate the west.

 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, sirineou said:

So it is not peace that they love but the  status quo , and only as long as such status quo is beneficial to them . So where do you come up with the "Iran is not a peace loving nation" ? Who is?

As far as the " heretic past" comment is concerned . I don't know what to even say about that? 

Only that " Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes the delusions of religion to make good people do bad things" and that applies to all people not only Persians. 

 

Where do you come with me coming with the "Iran is not a peace loving nation"? I don't think I've actually said that. Iran's people, as a nation, are like all people. Iran's leadership does tend to hold belligerent aspirations and views as far as the region goes.

 

The 'heretic past' comment was a reference to your own reliance on a supposedly 3000 thousand continuous political line applied to 'Persian'. The current regime in Iran does not, I think, embrace the heritage of pre-Muslims times quite as strongly. Nothing to do with the quote presented above.

 

Edit - Figured it out, you confused my post with @ezzra's.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Morch

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I don't see why the Iranian people should suffer who cares who thinks who's won or is winning , sanctions affect Iranian people not there leaders.

We will have to agree to disagree we obviously do not see this problem the same.

All I would like to see found is world peace instead of hypocritical world police.

 

Decide which argument you're making then. I replied to your original comment, which included communicating the message that concessions were made for the benefit of the Iranian people, rather than a gesture to their leadership. Since the negotiations and relations between the countries are conducted through governments and leaderships it does matter.

 

Slogans are not an argument.