Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 June 2019 01:04
webfact

Iran has accelerated enrichment of uranium, IAEA says

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by Morch
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...