Iran to resume enhanced nuclear program if Trump dishonors P5+1 agreement

[Erl]

Iran to resume enhanced nuclear program if Trump dishonors P5+1 agreement
Published time: 23 Jan, 2017 02:44
Get short URL

A general view of Bushehr nuclear power plant © Raheb Homavandi / Reuters
Iran tension
The head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Ali Akbar Salehi, said Tehran reserves the right to “act appropriately” if Washington reconsiders the so-called P5+1 deal on the Iranian nuclear program.

"We can very easily snap back and go back … not only to where we were, but a much higher position technologically speaking," Salehi said in an interview with Canada’s CBC News.


Follow
abbas torabi @abbastorabi60
Ali Akbar Salehi: "We'll have to wait and see what happens. Iran is a patient county, we will not react hastily."https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3946511 …

6:14 PM - 22 Jan 2017 · Islamic Republic of Iran

'We are prepared': Vice-president on Trump's attitude toward Iran
Iran says it is reserving judgment on new U.S. President Donald Trump. But if he does, as he’s vowed, “tear up” the international deal Tehran reached on curbing its nuclear program, it could quickly...

cbc.ca

• https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=823179647882039296
  
• 
  Retweets
  
• 
  likes

"I don't want to see that day. I don't want to make a decision in that course, but we are prepared,” Iran’s nuclear chief added.

According to the deal signed in July 2015 between Tehran and six major world powers (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France, and Germany), Iran agreed to reduce the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds.

Under the deal, governed by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran also agreed to cap its uranium enrichment below the level needed for bomb-grade material.

The Islamic Republic also vowed to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile from around 10,000kg to 300kg for 15 years and agreed to international inspections. In response, Western countries agreed to lift international sanctions.

Read more
‘Dismantle the disastrous deal’: Trump tells AIPAC Iran deal is 'number one priority'
Despite the breakthrough being hailed by former US President Barack Obama as a way to halt Iran's alleged drive to develop nuclear weapons – an accusation which Tehran consistently denies – Trump previously called the agreement a “disaster”.

During his campaign trail, the new president told an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in May that dismantling the deal was top of his agenda.

“My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,”Trump said at the time, speaking before AIPAC in Washington, DC. “I have been in business a long time…this deal is catastrophic for Israel – for America, for the whole of the Middle East… We have rewarded the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with $ 150 billion and we received absolutely nothing in return.”

In an interview with Iran’s IRIB news published on Sunday, Salehi noted that it’s too early to evaluate Trump's stance on Iran. Tehran is gauging the new administration's behavior in honoring its commitment to the deal.

Read more
What happens to oil if Trump tears up Iran nuclear deal
Salehi said Iran will not initiate a violation of the JCPOA, but warned that should Washington backtrack on the deal, Tehran will increase uranium enrichment capacity to 100,000 SWU in a year, the Tehran Times, reported.

Last week, ahead of Trump's inauguration, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that Washington could not unilaterally cancel the nuclear deal.

"The president-elect has shown he is not happy about the nuclear deal, calling it the worst deal ever signed. This is only empty talk," Rouhani said. "I don't think he can do much when he goes to the White House."

The UN Security Council which monitors progress reports on the implementation of Iran's nuclear deal, earlier this week heard that Iran is honoring its end of the bargain.

“[The UN] has not received any report, nor is aware of any open source information regarding the supply, sale or transfer to Iran of nuclear-related items undertaken contrary to the provisions of the resolution,” Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman told the UNSC.

Feltman also noted there’s no information on "Iranian ballistic missile activities or ballistic missile-related transfers to the country undertaken contrary to the relevant provisions of the resolution," the UN news service noted.

sweety Trump

 

[maximuswarrior]

Like I predicted from day one!

 

[T-Rex]

Trump is going to scrap the deal. I wasn't sure of it but after watching his tilt towards the zionist state I have no doubts left.

 

[Erl]

Like I predicted from day one!

Trump is going to scrap the deal. I wasn't sure of it but after watching his tilt towards the zionist state I have no doubts left.

In any case Trump is going to isolate USA more and more. He has put USA beside a child killer regime. European boycott on Israeli products is still working so USA-Israel will be pushed to a corner by someOfEUcountries-China-Iran-Russia.
I love Trump Go Trump

 

[Taimoor Khan]

In any case Trump is going to isolate USA more and more. He has put USA beside a child killer regime. European boycott on Israeli products is still working so USA-Israel will be pushed to a corner by someOfEUcountries-China-Iran-Russia.
I love Trump Go Trump

Time is of the essence. In Pakistan we always knew that this P5+1 is nothing but a lollypop to Iran to buy time. Just like they bought with Gaddafi in Libya. For the sake of Iran, I hope they havent stopped the enrichment and have enough in stockpile to scare Israel if needed be, because if Iran doesn't have, and wasted time during all this time, the consequences will be devastating.

 

[raptor22]

Time is of the essence. In Pakistan we always knew that this P5+1 is nothing but a lollypop to Iran to buy time. Just like they bought with Gaddafi in Libya. For the sake of Iran, I hope they havent stopped the enrichment and have enough in stockpile to scare Israel if needed be, because if Iran doesn't have, and wasted time during all this time, the consequences will be devastating.

None of Iranian centrifuges has got destroyed , and 6000 of them are working right now .. the point is Iran has been working on its new generation of centrifuges that could enrich much more than the previous generation and are ready to be used if it's needed ...we've bought enough uranium and once they want to do something crazy they only have themselves to blame...
And in that particular moment world would see who is the problem and who wants to solve the problems .. so far and base on P5+1 and the IAEA and the UN Iran has adhered to the deal completely ...

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Iran should have just built nukes to begin with, and then negotiated later.

That's how China was accepted as a full nuclear weapons-state by the NPT in 1992 (even though the NPT was first formed in 1968).

Possession is nine-tenths of the law, once you have it, you have it.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

None of Iranian centrifuges has got destroyed , and 6000 of them are working right now .. the point is Iran has been working on its new generation of centrifuges that could enrich much more than the previous generation and are ready to be used if it's needed ...we've bought enough uranium and once they want to do something crazy they only have themselves to blame...
And in that particular moment world would see who is the problem and who wants to solve the problems .. so far and base on P5+1 and the IAEA and the UN Iran has adhered to the deal completely ...

You need highly enriched uranium around 98% I think to be used in bombs. That requires a lot of time with centrifuges running on full capacity. I doubt Iran will be producing weapon grade uranium during the negotiating period and now as well. For Iran sake, I hope they have enough HEU prior to getting into this P5+1. Otherwise trouble is just around the corner.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Iran should have just built nukes to begin with, and then negotiated later.

That's how China was accepted as a full nuclear weapons-state by the NPT in 1992 (even though the NPT was first formed in 1968).

Possession is nine-tenths of the law, once you have it, you have it.

Very different circumstances for Iran and China prevented this.

IMHO possession of nukes is irresponsible as humans will have another world war and that will be humanity's last act. Global disarmament is what we need, what we are seeing is countries like the US and Israel keeping themselves in the nuclear club and keeping everyone else out.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

IMHO possession of nukes is irresponsible as humans will have another world war and that will be humanity's last act. Global disarmament is what we need, what we are seeing is countries like the US and Israel keeping themselves in the nuclear club and keeping everyone else out.

I have a slightly different view on this topic.

I think nukes have actually prevented wars between major powers. It raises the cost of such wars by hundreds of times. Today all the current wars are taking place between major powers, and non-nuclear smaller powers (such as US invasion of Iraq).

Also, nukes are the best available deterrent. During the Cold War, China was enemies with both the USA and the Soviet Union, having fought directly against both of them multiple times (we fought the Korean War against the USA and later fought against the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet split).

The only thing that allowed us some breathing room for our 1979 economic reforms (which cut millions of troops from the PLA), was the fact that we had thermonuclear weapons and ICBM's as a deterrent.

Otherwise there was no way we could have cut military spending for our economic reforms, with the Soviet Red Army sitting at our border and the US Navy at our Pacific coast. With two enemy superpowers surrounding us on all sides, the only possible deterrent we had were nuclear weapons.

Also, if those 3 countries that the USA invaded in the past decade (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) had thermonuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the American mainland, do you think they would have been invaded? Even North Korea's fission firecrackers were enough to prevent them from being invaded. The cost of a nuclear attack is just too high.

 

[Serpentine]

I have a slightly different view on this topic.

I think nukes have actually prevented wars between major powers. It raises the cost of such wars by hundreds of times. Today all the current wars are taking place between major powers, and non-nuclear smaller powers (such as US invasion of Iraq).

Also, nukes are the best available deterrent. During the Cold War, China was enemies with both the USA and the Soviet Union, having fought directly against both of them multiple times (we fought the Korean War against the USA and later fought against the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet split).

The only thing that allowed us some breathing room for our 1979 economic reforms (which cut millions of troops from the PLA), was the fact that we had thermonuclear weapons and ICBM's as a deterrent.

Otherwise there was no way we could have cut military spending for our economic reforms, with the Soviet Red Army sitting at our border and the US Navy at our Pacific coast. With two enemy superpowers surrounding us on all sides, the only possible deterrent we had were nuclear weapons.

Also, if those 3 countries that the USA invaded in the past decade (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) had thermonuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the American mainland, do you think they would have been invaded? Even North Korea's fission firecrackers were enough to prevent them from being invaded. The cost of a nuclear attack is just too high.

North Korea has nukes, but they are being sanctioned to death, it doesn't always work like that. I think China was a different case and it was already a member of UNSC, we are not. The world is run by rules of jungle, you have Israel having nukes (with help of France and US) while others can't. We just have to be powerful enough in non-nuclear warfare to make any adventures for U.S extremely expensive hence improbable.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

North Korea has nukes, but they are being sanctioned to death, it doesn't always work like that. I think China was a different case and it was already a member of UNSC, we are not. The world is run by rules of jungle, you have Israel having nukes (with help of France and US) while others can't. We just have to be powerful enough in non-nuclear warfare to make any adventures for U.S extremely expensive hence improbable.

Luckily it seems that Iran's conventional deterrent (which uses a similar strategy to China of assymetric warfare) is enough to prevent an invasion of Iran, as evidenced by the fact that an invasion never happened, despite all the warmongering statements from the opposite side of the world.

So yes, technically Iran can probably continue to provide enough of a deterrent using conventional means.

But think about it, they have been punishing you for something you have not done for a decade now. If you are already being punished for it, might as well have it anyway, is my thought. Having nuclear weapons is just such a powerful deterrent, especially in a world where the White House is turning into a lunatic asylum.

 

[Shotgunner51]

In Pakistan we always knew that this P5+1 is nothing but a lollypop to Iran to buy time. Just like they bought with Gaddafi in Libya.

Yes I share the same view. I have seen strong eagerness among Iranians to reach rapprochement with US-led west, trust them fully and want to be accepted by them. In Iran+P5+1 talks, effectively it's driven by Iran and US each on one side of the negotiation table, others were sidelined. China might as well back out from this "multilateral" framework now, if by any slightest chance there is future engagement, do it bilateral or pass.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Yes I share the same view. I have seen strong eagerness among Iranians to reach rapprochement with US-led west, and be accepted by them. In Iran+P5+1 talks, effectively it's driven by Iran and US each on one side of the negotiation table, others were sidelined. China might as well back out from this "multilateral" framework now, if by any slightest chance there is future engagement, do it bilateral or pass.

As we say, hope for the best and prepare for the worst, there is plenty of hope among the Persians but I dont think they are prepared to face the worse.

I could be wrong though. I hope I am. The last thing we want is another destabilization on our western border, if Afghanistan wasn't enough!

 

[Śakra]

Iran should tread carefully lest they want sanctions thrown on them again.