Iran has accelerated enrichment of uranium, IAEA says

[webfact]

Iran has accelerated enrichment of uranium, IAEA says
By Sabine Siebold and Francois Murphy

 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano addresses a news conference during a board of governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria March 4, 2019. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

 

TEHRAN/VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has followed through on a threat to accelerate its production of enriched uranium, the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog said on Monday, departing from his usual guarded language to say he was worried about increasing tension.

 

The assessment comes at a time of sharply increased U.S.-Iranian confrontation in recent weeks, a year after Washington abandoned an agreement between Iran and world powers to curb Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international financial sanctions.

 

Washington tightened sanctions from the start of 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.

 

Iran has responded with a threat to increase its enrichment of uranium, saying it is up to Europeans who still support the nuclear deal to save it by finding ways to ensure Tehran gets the economic benefits it was promised.

 

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, whose agency is responsible for monitoring Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, said Iran was now producing more enriched uranium than before, but it was not clear when it might reach stockpile limits set in the pact.

 

"Yes, (the) production rate is increasing," he told a news conference when asked if enriched uranium production had accelerated since the agency's last quarterly report, which found Iran compliant with the nuclear deal as of May 20. He declined to quantify the increase.

 

Iran said last month it was still abiding by the deal but would quadruple its production of enriched uranium - a move that could take it out of compliance if stockpiles rise too far. It demanded European countries do more to shield it from sanctions.

 

On Monday, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas became the most senior Western official to visit Iran since the new war of words erupted last month between Washington and Tehran.

 

"The situation in the region here is highly explosive and extremely serious," Maas told a news conference alongside Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif. "A dangerous escalation of existing tensions can also lead to a military escalation."

 

In his meeting with Maas, President Hassan Rouhani blamed the United States for the soaring tension and called on the European signatories of the deal to "resist the economic war on Iran imposed by America".

 

"This war ... will never be beneficial for any country and the Iranian people will resist these pressures and bullying behaviours," Iran's state TV quoted Rouhani as saying.

 

Zarif said Iran would cooperate with the European Union to save the deal. "Reducing tension is only possible through stopping the economic war by America," he said. "Those who wage such wars cannot expect to remain safe."

 

Maas called on Iran to avoid an escalation and stick to its commitments from the nuclear deal. Otherwise, Tehran would risk further isolation on the international stage and more instability in the region, Maas warned in an interview with ZDF television, broadcast shortly after his return to Berlin on Monday evening.

 

REDUCE TENSIONS THROUGH DIALOGUE

Amano said he was worried about increasing tensions over the nuclear issue. He added he hoped "that ways can be found to reduce the current tensions through dialogue. It is essential that Iran fully implements its nuclear-related commitments" under the deal.

 

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said the IAEA findings showed "that Iran is going in the wrong direction and it underscores the continuing challenge Iran poses to international peace and security."

 

Washington's European allies opposed its decision last year to abandon the nuclear deal, reached in 2015 between Iran and the United States, Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China. They have promised to help Iran find other ways to trade, although with no success so far. All major European companies that had announced plans to invest in Iran have since called them off for fear of U.S. punishment.

 

Iran says the Europeans have not done enough to provide it with alternative ways to trade.

 

"We have not seen any serious measures taken by the Europeans in the past year despite their fairly good political stance," Rouhani said.

 

Maas said there were limits to how much help the European countries could provide.

 

"We want to fulfil our obligations," Maas said during his news conference with Zarif. "We cannot work miracles, but we will try to avert a failure" of the nuclear deal.

 

France, Britain and Germany have set up a special-purpose vehicle called Instex, designed to allow payments to Iran that would legally bypass sanctions. It has yet to be launched.

 

It is a new instrument and not straightforward to put into effect, Maas told reporters, adding: "But all the formal requirements are in place now, and so I'm assuming we'll be ready to use it in the foreseeable future."

 

Washington has denounced the European plans. Diplomats say the system is unlikely to have much impact on commercial business with Iran but could be used for humanitarian transactions that are permitted under U.S. sanctions.

 

The State Department's Ortagus said the United States would not support any payment mechanism that allowed countries or businesses to conduct transactions with sanctioned Iranian entities.

 

Washington says the nuclear deal should be expanded to cover other issues including Iran's missile programme and its role in wars in the region.

 

European countries argue that while they share those concerns, it would be harder to address them without the nuclear deal in place.

 

Iran has ruled out any negotiation over its ballistic missile programme and its activities in the Middle East, where Tehran has been involved in proxy wars with Saudi Arabia for decades.

 

(Additional reporting by Tuqa Khalid in Dubai and Michael Nienaber in Berlin; Writing by Parisa Hafezi in Dubai and Lesley Wroughton in Washington.; Editing by Peter Graff, Frances Kerry and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-11

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Thanks Donald 

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Thanks Donald 

"Donald" has nothing to do with it, Iran has for long time now, a fully developed programs to enrich and weaponize uranium to bully and if need be, use against countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia al-la N. Korea, 

what trump did is to unmask those plans and call their bluff, this world absolutely doesn't need another rouge country with nukes...

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, ezzra said:

"Donald" has nothing to do with it, Iran has for long time now, a fully developed programs to enrich and weaponize uranium to bully and if need be, use against countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia al-la N. Korea, 

what trump did is to unmask those plans and call their bluff, this world absolutely doesn't need another rouge country with nukes...

Nonsense. No one doubted Iran's capability. The question is whether they had stuck to their agreement to produce enriched uranium at a low rate. Even Israeli intelligence officials conceded that Iran was sticking to its agreement.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, ezzra said:

"Donald" has nothing to do with it, Iran has for long time now, a fully developed programs to enrich and weaponize uranium to bully and if need be, use against countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia al-la N. Korea, 

what trump did is to unmask those plans and call their bluff, this world absolutely doesn't need another rouge country with nukes...

What trump did was clear the way for Iran to start enrichment again.

[welovesundaysatspace]

Donald Dumb strikes again. 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

What trump did was clear the way for Iran to start enrichment again.

In effect,  yes. And exacerbating the claim of threats to US personnel by placing thousands more in the vicinity then claiming the resulting increase in tensions as a retrospective justification.

The provocation is undeniably obvious and dangerous.

 

 

[sammieuk1]

Fear not big Don will tweet them to death with a thumb workout any time now????

[Morch]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

What trump did was clear the way for Iran to start enrichment again.

 

Clear the way how? Read the OP. Iran increased the enrichment of Uranium, but apparently still within the limits specified by the agreement. And note European signatories responses, none of which imply that Iran is "clear" to "start enrichment again".

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Clear the way how? Read the OP. Iran increased the enrichment of Uranium, but apparently still within the limits specified by the agreement. And note European signatories responses, none of which imply that Iran is "clear" to "start enrichment again".

"Cleared the way" because the actions by the USA have forced Europeans to renege on their part of the deal. Should only Iran be bound by the terms of the agreement? And while Iran may be "apparently still within the limits specified by the agreement", the obvious concern, clearly laid out in the article, is that if Iran continues on its present track, soon it won't be within those limits. 

Nitpicking much?

[Pedrogaz]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

"Donald" has nothing to do with it, Iran has for long time now, a fully developed programs to enrich and weaponize uranium to bully and if need be, use against countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia al-la N. Korea, 

what trump did is to unmask those plans and call their bluff, this world absolutely doesn't need another rouge country with nukes...

How on earth do you know....are you past of the IAEA? Have you undertaken inspections? Now who to believe, the experts at the IAEA or someone expressing a silly opinion on TV?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Pedrogaz said:

How on earth do you know....are you past of the IAEA? Have you undertaken inspections? Now who to believe, the experts at the IAEA or someone expressing a silly opinion on TV?

As I pointed out above, even Israeli intelligence says Iran has been abiding by the agreement.

[Pedrogaz]

What has happened since the US reneged (yet again) on their agreement (at the behest of Netanyahu, who somehow seems to run US foreign policy), is that the slimy EU has failed to keep its end of the bargain. The US is ordering them around, you must buy this for America or else, you must not deal with Iran etc etc.

Anyone with a whit of self-respect would tell the US to sling their hook...but the spineless leadership of the spineless EU falls in line but expects Iran to continue to abide by the terms of the agreement.

[jany123]

Goliath strode forth in battle splendor, rattling saber and banging shield, screaming his war challenge across the plain, but from the serried ranks of his cowering enemies, one man stepped forward, sling in hand, intently searching the ground around, with hooded eyes.

 

David calmly bent and retrieved a stone. Not any stone, but a perfectly rounded orb of hardest quartz. Straightening slowly he seated it securely in the worn leather saddle of his sling and started spinning it above his head

[utalkin2me]

Try to honestly answer this question: why wouldn't Iran attempt to enrich uranium? 

 

You have an extremely devious force in the world who now has a growing history of toppling regimes for their own economic gain. What other weapon do they have to fight against such an invasion? 

 

I think Iran would be incompetent not to pursue nuclear weapons given the US penchant for going out of their way to topple regimes for their own gain. 

 

There is also that little inconvenient fact that the US has nuclear weapons, and tells other nations not to develop them. 

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"Cleared the way" because the actions by the USA have forced Europeans to renege on their part of the deal. Should only Iran be bound by the terms of the agreement? And while Iran may be "apparently still within the limits specified by the agreement", the obvious concern, clearly laid out in the article, is that if Iran continues on its present track, soon it won't be within those limits. 

Nitpicking much?

 

No, the nitpicking is yours. Choosing to advertise increased uranium enrichment, but not overstepping the mark is a negotiation tool. It is a choice made by Iran's government. The way wasn't "cleared", other than in some posters mind.

 

As for the "should only Iran" bit - playground justice concepts aside, Iran can choose whether it sticks with the agreement's terms or not. So long as the agreement is in place, remaining signatories are compelled to abide by terms. I don't know that there's a provision forcing European signatories to do business with Iran, or to force companies that way. There are, however, terms regarding Iran's commitments with regard to the enrichment or uranium and such.

 

If Iran goes over the stockpile limit (or any other infraction), or if action/inaction by European signatories is deemed to breach terms (actual ones, that is), then the agreement might be nullified and scrapped. I think that neither Iran nor the EU signatories are interested in that. More like that's what USA pressure is aimed at - making the agreement collapse first, sort things out (one way or another) later.

[Morch]

42 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

What has happened since the US reneged (yet again) on their agreement (at the behest of Netanyahu, who somehow seems to run US foreign policy), is that the slimy EU has failed to keep its end of the bargain. The US is ordering them around, you must buy this for America or else, you must not deal with Iran etc etc.

Anyone with a whit of self-respect would tell the US to sling their hook...but the spineless leadership of the spineless EU falls in line but expects Iran to continue to abide by the terms of the agreement.

 

Beat that drum.

 

If you think that risking an economic war with the USA, on behalf of Iran, exemplifies responsible leadership guess we'll have to disagree. Govrnments of European signatories aren't there to fulfill the agendas and the fantasies of opinionated posters. 

 

 

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Try to honestly answer this question: why wouldn't Iran attempt to enrich uranium? 

 

You have an extremely devious force in the world who now has a growing history of toppling regimes for their own economic gain. What other weapon do they have to fight against such an invasion? 

 

I think Iran would be incompetent not to pursue nuclear weapons given the US penchant for going out of their way to topple regimes for their own gain. 

 

There is also that little inconvenient fact that the US has nuclear weapons, and tells other nations not to develop them. 

 

Here's one reason for you. Going down this road (developing nuclear weapons), while still under inspections regime, is unlikely to remain unnoticed. If found out, it would serve as justification for action against Iran - and probably not solely by the USA. Because regardless of how some posters frame or imagine things to be, most involved countries have no wish to see Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

 

As for that little inconvenient fact - may want to look up the such things as the NPT, or indeed, the Iran Deal itself. Neither is a solely USA venture.

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[utalkin2me]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Here's one reason for you. Going down this road (developing nuclear weapons), while still under inspections regime, is unlikely to remain unnoticed. If found out, it would serve as justification for action against Iran - and probably not solely by the USA. Because regardless of how some posters frame or imagine things to be, most involved countries have no wish to see Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

 

As for that little inconvenient fact - may want to look up the such things as the NPT, or indeed, the Iran Deal itself. Neither is a solely USA venture.

No nukes they turn into a Venezuela. It is happening right before everyone's eyes. What on earth is stopping US from turning Iran into Venezuela with a puppet inserted leader if they do not have nukes?

 

You see, the US's foreign policy breeds the need for nuclear weapons. If there are no US tentacles, or they are withdrawn, the need for countries to have nukes goes away and it is easier to talk about things like peace, which the powers that be in the US desperately do not want of course. Too many profitable military contracts at stake. 

 

You are basically stating a nation should just sit there and wait to be swallowed up and destroyed by the US. Everything we see (and they see) in the world is evidence that this is going to happen. The only defense, and the only bargaining leverage countries have is nuclear weapons. I would say people like you are the ones who need to look stuff up, like who is the only country on earth to have ever actually dropped a nuke. 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

this world absolutely doesn't need another rouge country with nukes...

As in Saudi Arabia that is getting nuclear ICBM technology from the U.S. and China?

While I wouldn't label Israel as a rouge country, it is certainly unaccountable for its alleged nuclear arsenal and no nation such as the U.S. is insisting on any accountability for any nuclear weapons production.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Iran increased the enrichment of Uranium, but apparently still within the limits specified by the agreement. And note European signatories responses, none of which imply that Iran is "clear" to "start enrichment again".

Readers need to think about what it means that Iran increased uranium enrichment.

Iran imports yellow cake that is enriched by Iran into 3-4% uranium for use in its nuclear electrical production. What excess it produces has been sold to Russia. Perhaps other countries less publicly.

 

So Iran is increasing its supply of power plant uranium fuel.

• "The fuel in question is low-enriched uranium, used in nuclear power plants. It would have to be further enriched to be used in a weapon."  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/politics/iran-iaea-nuclear-fuel.html

Maybe Russia placed a new order as Trump is pushing Russia for a nuclear arms race (Trump "killed SALT"). Russia is capable of further enriching Iran's uranium to weapon grade.

 

There's no indication that Iran is producing any 15-20% enriched weapon grade uranium. If was, the IAEA would be the first to know and declare Iran out of compliance with the nuclear deal. But I expect the Trump administration to cry "The sky is falling" to arouse military action against Iran.

[IAMHERE]

I don't understand why Iran hasn't already built a Nuclear Bomb. The Persians are just as intelligent as the North Koreans and the Pakistanis and Indians. Heck, I think Libya and Syria and Iraq would have the bomb by now if there wasn't interference by outside states.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

No nukes they turn into a Venezuela. It is happening right before everyone's eyes. What on earth is stopping US from turning Iran into Venezuela with a puppet inserted leader if they do not have nukes?

 

You see, the US's foreign policy breeds the need for nuclear weapons. If there are no US tentacles, or they are withdrawn, the need for countries to have nukes goes away and it is easier to talk about things like peace, which the powers that be in the US desperately do not want of course. Too many profitable military contracts at stake. 

 

You are basically stating a nation should just sit there and wait to be swallowed up and destroyed by the US. Everything we see (and they see) in the world is evidence that this is going to happen. The only defense, and the only bargaining leverage countries have is nuclear weapons. I would say people like you are the ones who need to look stuff up, like who is the only country on earth to have ever actually dropped a nuke. 

 

What your global vision amounts to is allowing rampant nuclear proliferation, under the mantle of "Resist the USA". I would prefer a less than perfect world, with less chances of annihilation (or major disaster and incidents). As they say here - up to you.

 

As for your "take" on USA foreign policy - I get it that some people have a hard time registering that the USA isn't the sole nuclear capable country, or that international agreements related to such matters are upheld and supported by most nations.

 

Nothing concrete on offer to support the nonsense bit about "easier to talk about things like peace", or for that matter, the comment on "profitable military contracts" (as far as I recall, military exports don't make it into the USA's top 10 list).

 

And no, I am not "basically stating" anything as you posted. That would require subscribing to your world view and accepting the premises involved. And "people like me" are aware that conflicts have more than one side, that the world got more countries than the USA, and that international agreements are a fact.

 

[Morch]

18 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Readers need to think about what it means that Iran increased uranium enrichment.

Iran imports yellow cake that is enriched by Iran into 3-4% uranium for use in its nuclear electrical production. What excess it produces has been sold to Russia. Perhaps other countries less publicly.

 

So Iran is increasing its supply of power plant uranium fuel.

• "The fuel in question is low-enriched uranium, used in nuclear power plants. It would have to be further enriched to be used in a weapon."  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/politics/iran-iaea-nuclear-fuel.html

Maybe Russia placed a new order as Trump is pushing Russia for a nuclear arms race (Trump "killed SALT"). Russia is capable of further enriching Iran's uranium to weapon grade.

 

There's no indication that Iran is producing any 15-20% enriched weapon grade uranium. If was, the IAEA would be the first to know and declare Iran out of compliance with the nuclear deal. But I expect the Trump administration to cry "The sky is falling" to arouse military action against Iran.

 

Readers should probably be advised to read the article linked rather than relying on it's presentation and role in the post above. It doesn't paint a one sided picture as implied.

 

Spins aside, the agreement includes a mechanism for airing and reviewing issues related to compliance with terms. Iran's advertised intentions (detailed in the link provided) aren't even close to the procedure outlined in the agreement.

 

What it boils down to is whether the Iran Deal is considered a legitimate proposition with one of the signatories withdrawing. Are remaining sides beholden to previous terms? Can these terms be applied? And whether upholding the agreement trumps (no pun intended) all other considerations and national interests.

 

I don't think that there are good answers for these questions. As with many international agreements, the pressure to produce an accord resulted in something that is too reliant on optimism, goodwill or favorable interpretations. All very commendable, but maybe not very realistic.

[utalkin2me]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What your global vision amounts to is allowing rampant nuclear proliferation, under the mantle of "Resist the USA". I would prefer a less than perfect world, with less chances of annihilation (or major disaster and incidents). As they say here - up to you.

 

As for your "take" on USA foreign policy - I get it that some people have a hard time registering that the USA isn't the sole nuclear capable country, or that international agreements related to such matters are upheld and supported by most nations.

 

Nothing concrete on offer to support the nonsense bit about "easier to talk about things like peace", or for that matter, the comment on "profitable military contracts" (as far as I recall, military exports don't make it into the USA's top 10 list).

 

And no, I am not "basically stating" anything as you posted. That would require subscribing to your world view and accepting the premises involved. And "people like me" are aware that conflicts have more than one side, that the world got more countries than the USA, and that international agreements are a fact.

 

These are fabricated conflicts that do nothing but make people hate us more (ie increase terrorism), make the military industrial complex richer and more powerful, and make the people within the countries we are "saving" suffer more as well. All at the great expense of the US taxpayer. 

 

Quite frankly, if you can say with a straight face that it is ok for the only nation to have ever used a nuclear weapon to have such weapons, and that they can preclude smaller nations from having them, you are too naive and uninformed to even discuss this in any profitable manner. 

 

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

These are fabricated conflicts that do nothing but make people hate us more (ie increase terrorism), make the military industrial complex richer and more powerful, and make the people within the countries we are "saving" suffer more as well. All at the great expense of the US taxpayer. 

 

Quite frankly, if you can say with a straight face that it is ok for the only nation to have ever used a nuclear weapon to have such weapons, and that they can preclude smaller nations from having them, you are too naive and uninformed to even discuss this in any profitable manner. 

 

 

 

That's the best you can come up with? Conspiracy theories? The elusive, but ever-useful MIC? Notably, no support offer for these wild claims.

 

Quite frankly, I never said what you implied. That would be you twisting my words again. It would require some serious tunnel vision to ignore the fact that the NPT or JCPOA (the so-called Iran Deal) are not a solely USA thing, but rather intentional efforts. I'm also not in favor of rampant nuclear proliferation, which seems to be something you favor.

[Sujo]

The clue is in the OP. Iran has accelerated its enrichment program since the US scrapped the deal.

 

So Trump pulling out of the deal has caused problems instead of easing problems.

[Longcut]

On 6/11/2019 at 7:33 AM, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. No one doubted Iran's capability. The question is whether they had stuck to their agreement to produce enriched uranium at a low rate. Even Israeli intelligence officials conceded that Iran was sticking to its agreement.

You're wrong. It was Israel that blew the whistle on them. Netanyahu went before Congress and pointed out what Israeli intelligence had found out Iran was actually doing.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Sujo said:

The clue is in the OP. Iran has accelerated its enrichment program since the US scrapped the deal.

 

So Trump pulling out of the deal has caused problems instead of easing problems.

 

Iran's leadership chose to accelerate uranium enrichment. It's not as if this is a mandatory step, and not the necessarily only (or even best) response that could have been decided on.

 

I don't think there was any association between the USA's withdrawal from the agreement and "easing problems", so not sure how "instead" applies. It was obvious, even for those supporting the move, that it would not yield meaningful results in the short term, and that it's likely tensions would rise.