What's new

The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

Iran hiding scale of nuclear program: Western intelligence agencies

LONDON: Iran is concealing the true scale of its nuclear program from the international community, Western intelligence agencies have warned.

Officials say satellite images show that Tehran has hidden equipment and resources from the UN, including components for centrifuges needed to enrich uranium.

They add that the parts are being housed in 75 containers that are frequently moved around the country to compounds run by the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“The new revelations that Iran is trying to conceal vital elements of its nuclear program from the outside world shows that Tehran has no intention of complying with its international obligations under the terms of the nuclear deal,” a senior official from a Western intelligence agency told the Daily Telegraph.

“It is yet another indication that the regime remains committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Under the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran is required to reveal inventories of all equipment and records of activities in relation to its nuclear program, as well as provide open access to UN inspectors.

Last year, however, Iran blocked access to two sites suspected of holding materials needed for uranium enrichment.

Its Parliament subsequently passed a motion banning all UN inspections of Iranian sites, and increasing uranium enrichment rates to five times the limit agreed in the JCPOA, drawing condemnation from the UN, the US, the UK, France and Germany.

Intelligence sources believe that some of the equipment being concealed by Tehran has come into its possession post-2015, contradicting the terms of the JCPOA, from which the US withdrew in 2018 following repeated Iranian violations.

 
They are back to their old scare tactics to make Iran give up its rights.

One time they say they have found Uranium residue and another that Iran is hiding its nuclear facilities.

This is post Ain Al Assad era, Iran went to war with America and won that war at least at the technological level.

So Iran is not afraid of anyone and force will be met with force.

The supreme leader said that there will be no new deal, and no going back to the old one unless all sanctions are lifted and Iran made sure that it is done in reality and not on paper like during the Obama administration.

Moreover Iran will be asking for more than 100 billion dollars for the damages caused by the sanctions, and the US and its European lapdogs will pay it.

So all this nonsense is useless, Iran is a superpower and won't be pushed around like in the past.

They better wake up because the clock is ticking.
 
They are back to their old scare tactics to make Iran give up its rights.

One time they say they have found Uranium residue and another that Iran is hiding its nuclear facilities.

This is post Ain Al Assad era, Iran went to war with America and won that war at least at the technological level.

So Iran is not afraid of anyone and force will be met with force.

The supreme leader said that there will be no new deal, and no going back to the old one unless all sanctions are lifted and Iran made sure that it is done in reality and not on paper like during the Obama administration.

Moreover Iran will be asking for more than 100 billion dollars for the damages caused by the sanctions, and the US and its European lapdogs will pay it.

So all this nonsense is useless, Iran is a superpower and won't be pushed around like in the past.

They better wake up because the clock is ticking.
Khamenei seems consistent this time with demand of removal of all sanctions. We will see if the West will bow down and make concessions.
 
Khamenei seems consistent this time with demand of removal of all sanctions. We will see if the West will bow down and make concessions.

They will because the traitor Hassan Rouhani and his side kick zarif have been put on notice by the supreme leader and IRGC which means that they can't do anything.
 
Has Netanyahu’s Iran gamble backfired?

Israelis will go to the polls on Tuesday for the fourth time in two years, with the future of their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, hanging in the balance. Public opposition to Netanyahu has only intensified in the past year because of his divisive politics and poor management of the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet his political survival owes much to the public perception that only he can be trusted when it comes to Israel’s security.

Netanyahu’s no-holds-barred opposition to Iran’s nuclear program and regional entrenchment has won him much support in Israel. Opinion polls over recent years demonstrate a broad consensus among Israelis against the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. Although the agreement was flawed in its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment and the temporary nature of the constraints it imposed, it still had the benefit of distancing Iran from a bomb for 10 to 15 years and included unprecedented verification and monitoring of nuclear sites.

Yet Israel’s prime minister believes that the agreement emboldened Iran by lifting sanctions that discouraged its regional malfeasance. Netanyahu’s deeply controversial appearance before the US Congress in March 2015 in which he attacked the planned nuclear deal with Iran was without precedent. His government is now continuing the same line of attack as the new US administration explores the possibility of rejoining the nuclear deal with Iran.

According to the outgoing deputy head of the Mossad, identified only as ‘A’, Netanyahu’s exposure of a nuclear archive captured in Iran was a key factor in persuading US President Donald Trump administration to withdraw from the nuclear deal in May 2018. The revelation of the archive confirmed suspicions that the Iranians had been working on a military nuclear program up until 2003. However, it didn’t provide evidence that the Iranians were violating the JCPOA.

With the US out of the deal and a new raft of sanctions imposed against Iran, a strong consensus emerged in Israel supporting the Trump administration’s action. Following the US assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, there was a widespread perception that Iran’s credibility and deterrent power had suffered. As internal opposition to the Iranian regime increased amid the growing pain of sanctions, criticism within Israel of Netanyahu’s decision to derail the Iran nuclear deal was muted.

However, the warning signs were there. The late Meir Dagan, a former Mossad chief, argued in 2015 that Netanyahu was causing Israel strategic harm by treating the Iran nuclear threat as an Israeli problem when the danger posed by Tehran was clearly a global one that required Israel to keep a low profile. Previous Israeli prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert had understood this. Indeed, it was Netanyahu’s threats to bomb Iran that accelerated the efforts of the US and European countries to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran in the first place.

In 2015, many in the Israeli defence establishment welcomed the JCPOA. Lieutenant-General Gadi Eisenkot, then chief of the general staff of the Israel Defense Forces, described the nuclear agreement as a ‘strategic turning point’ that brought risks but also opportunities for Israel. Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, the body advising the government on nuclear issues, maintained that the agreement’s inspection measures and restrictions on Iranian plutonium and uranium enrichment were sufficient to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear bomb. At the time, the IDF top brass were sanguine enough about the agreement to take the view that a delayed nuclear threat now provided Israel with space to switch its attention to Iran’s heightened presence in Syria and the threat from Hezbollah.

When the Trump administration threatened to withdraw from the deal, significant concerns were raised in Israel over the dangers that would bring. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, a critic of the agreement, maintained that it would be preferable for the US to stay in it and negotiate changes to its provisions. In January 2018, even fierce critics of the deal, such as the hawkish former defence minister Moshe Yaalon, warned that the costs of a US withdrawal would be greater than the benefits. Throughout, Israel’s defence establishment agreed that Iran had strictly adhered to the JCPOA during the period when the US was a party to it.

Yet Netanyahu chose to ignore the warnings and moved ahead in tandem with the Trump administration to incapacitate the deal. He has surrounded himself by yes men who support his position on Iran, such as Mossad director Yossi Cohen, a Netanyahu confidant and former national security adviser. As a result, critics of Netanyahu’s Iran policy have been marginalised. In the meantime, the unravelling of the nuclear agreement has resulted in the erosion of the restrictions that had shackled Iran’s nuclear activity.

In an explosive interview in Israel’s Yediot Ahronoth newspaper on 5 March, the outgoing deputy head of Mossad claimed that the situation now was worse than it was when the nuclear agreement was reached in 2015. Iran has stockpiled large amounts of enriched uranium, is rebuilding its nuclear facilities and blocking access to international inspectors, and has not stopped its regional expansion.

In the same interview, it was pointed out that Netanyahu made the mistake of trying to include Iran’s missiles, regional entrenchment and terrorism as part of any negotiations with Tehran, which in turn made the existential nuclear threat a lower priority. As a result, just as Israelis are about to go to the polls, Iran is closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu has acquired a global reputation as the leading opponent of Iran’s nuclear program, yet a major part of his legacy could become associated in time with Tehran’s possible emergence as a nuclear-armed state.

 
روسی دبه کرد؛ آینده برجام این بار به شفاف‌سازی ایران گره زده شد

 
Iran Spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization Behrouz Kamalvandi: The Cold Test of the heavy water Arak reactor in mid 2021

So will it be a light water reactor or heavy water? Parliament recently ordered it to be heavy water. What physical changes would one have to make to the core to convert from one type to the other?
 
So will it be a light water reactor or heavy water? Parliament recently ordered it to be heavy water. What physical changes would one have to make to the core to convert from one type to the other?
Light water reactors are located near a river or a sea. The IR-40 is not near any river. It's most probably going to remain a heavy water reactor. As for your question, no information was released about the conversion of the IR-40 to a light water reactor after the JCPOA. They said they had come up with a solution, but Salehi never explained it in the media. The IR-40 is a CANDU reactor. If it has to be converted to a pressurized water reactor like Bushehr, the changes will be substantial and basically it will become a new reactor. It will take years to design and build a new reactor. Hence, one more reason to believe that the IR-40 will remain a heavy water reactor, assuming the government will execute the law.
 
With how long Arak has been in construction (pre-2005), you could have had nuclear reactors like Bushehr built.

Arak is a symbol of Republics foolishness in negotiating it away. 20 years and the plant still
Isn’t ready.
 
How the Biden administration played hard-to-get during the first weeks of his administration, only to see Iran bolstering its position ever since. Another blowback for the US on their long list of f*ck-ups vis-a-vis Iran:

Europeans Fear Iran Nuclear Window Closing

In the weeks after U.S. President Joe Biden’s inauguration in January, British, French, and German diplomats approached the new administration with a plan to revive the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal. They proposed lifting some of the sanctions that had been removed by President Barack Obama and then reimposed by President Donald Trump. The idea was to bring the United States closer to compliance with the nuclear accord it had walked away from, and to put the onus on Iran to reciprocate, according to two European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of negotiations.

Europe figured Biden could keep a raft of additional measures Trump had levied, to maintain some leverage over Iran and make progress on issues of concern to all sides, especially Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for a host of regional militias.

“The advice of the Europeans to the Americans was do it quickly and immediately, because all the signals they had from the Iranian side was as soon as the Americans come back, we will come back,” said Gérard Araud, a former French ambassador to the United States and the United Nations who previously led France’s nuclear negotiations with Iran and other key powers. “The best way forward would have been to immediately come back to the [nuclear pact] with an executive order, and they didn’t do it.”

The challenge of striking a deal, Araud added, may prove insurmountable, given the growing domestic U.S. opposition to a pact that would leave Iran with more money and no new constraints on its ballistic missile program and its support for regional militia. “It will be complicated, it will take months and it may fail,” he said.

Biden instead insisted that Iran would have to take the first step by reversing a set of nuclear activities it restarted in response to Trump’s rejection of the deal. The Europeans, according to Ali Vaez, an expert on Iran with the International Crisis Group, “were told from the get-go that the president doesn’t want to make any unilateral gestures toward Iran.”

The exchange provided an early sign to Europeans that Biden wasn’t going to move as fast as he had signaled during the campaign. It also raised concern among European diplomats that after they struggled to save the landmark nuclear deal from Trump’s attempts to kill it, the new U.S. administration might be risking the agreement’s future through caution, delay, and inaction.

“There is a degree of concern and anxiousness that both the U.S. and Iran have missed a window of opportunity in the early days of the Biden administration to make some swift moves toward compliance,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“After four years of trying to keep this agreement together under the Trump administration, the Europeans are hoping that it doesn’t fall apart under a Biden administration,” she said. “There would be a real tragic irony in that happening.”

In recent months, the White House has resisted additional European entreaties to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods and to release Iranian funds in foreign banks as confidence-building measures, insisting that Tehran move first to scale back a range of activities it has taken in violation of the 2015 pact, including enriching more uranium than permitted and to higher concentrations. Europeans have also been pressing Washington to reinstate waivers that permit foreign governments to participate in civil nuclear programs with Iran. The arrangement, a cornerstone of the 2015 pact, was meant to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, including by redesigning the Arak heavy water reactor to ensure that it can’t be used to produce plutonium.

For its part, Iran has also refused to engage in talks with signatories of the nuclear deal until the United States agrees to lift sanctions, leaving the two sides deadlocked.

A senior Biden administration official said that the Europeans never proposed that the United States meet all its obligations under the nuclear treaty without Iran taking mutual steps; even China and Russia, also signatories, envisioned some sort of synchronized return to compliance with the pact, the official said.

But it is “accurate that some Europeans felt we should take the first early steps. The Europeans, Russians, and Chinese all felt the U.S. withdrew from the deal first, the U.S. should take the first step. I think it’s fair to say some Europeans thought an early gesture by us might have set a different tone. It might have helped, it might not,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity given the confidential nature of nuclear negotiations.

“What we conveyed to the Europeans was that we were prepared to take some steps, but not unilaterally,” the official said.

If Europe was expecting quick action on sanctions, it’s because that’s what Biden promised on the campaign trail.

But Europeans underestimated the widespread domestic political opposition to the deal, which has been led by powerful Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bob Menendez, the Democratic chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham. In a March 8 letter to the president, the two lawmakers urged Biden to work with key allies, including critics of the nuclear pact in Israel and the Gulf States, to forge a new agreement that not only constrains Iran’s prospects for acquiring a nuclear bomb but also checks its ability to destabilize the region and advance its ballistic missile program.

“[W]e must confront the reality that Iran has accelerated its nuclear activity in alarming ways including increasing its centrifuge research and production and enriching uranium up to 20 percent,” they wrote in the letter, which was forwarded to the president on Thursday with the signatures of 41 additional Democratic and Republican senators. “Iran continues to pose a threat to U.S. and international security through exporting arms, including highly accurate missiles, supporting Shia militias that target U.S. service members, and supporting terrorist organizations and other malign actors throughout the region.”

Supporters of the Iran nuclear pact say aiming for a huge deal, which mirrors the Trump administration’s demands for greater Iranian concessions for sanctions relief, would undermine any prospects for reviving the limited deal. “The nuclear pact is not a domestic political issue in Europe; they didn’t understand how much of an obstacle domestic political opposition to progress it would be,” Vaez said.

The debate over reengaging with Iran has opened fissures within the Democratic Party. Progressives worry that the White House is yielding to political pressure from Menendez, even though “his hawkish views are out of step with his caucus, and out of step with the vast majority of voters who support diplomacy over war,” said one congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “This is a political calculation,” the aide added. “It’s worse. It’s a bad political calculation.

The congressional aide expressed concern that Biden may already have botched an opportunity to make good on a promise to rejoin the nuclear agreement. “This is one of President Biden’s clearest commitments. As a candidate, Biden stated the ‘urgent’ need to rejoin the JCPOA. I am not feeling the fucking urgency,” the congressional aide said, referring to the deal by an abbreviation of its formal name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. “They should have done this on day two. Instead, we’re watching the opportunity for diplomacy slip away, and the likelihood of greater conflict increase.”

For its part, Iran has refused to scale back its prohibited nuclear activities until Washington lifts sanctions as required by the 2015 nuclear pact. A year after Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, Iran gradually stopped abiding by certain aspects of the agreement. Tehran ramped up its centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, increased both the size and purity of its uranium stockpile, and has shortened its breakout time toward a bomb. More recently, Iran has taken steps to escalate the crisis, announcing plans in February to scale back international nuclear inspections.

In a statement marking the Iranian New Year, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said his country was in “no hurry” to revive the nuclear pact, and that Tehran would recommit to the accord once the United States has verifiably lifted sanctions. “It’s not a matter of who should be the first. The issue is that we trusted the Americans and fulfilled our commitments in the nuclear deal, but they didn’t,” he said.

Some observers say it’s naive to think Tehran will meet Washington halfway. The United States has already taken steps toward accommodating Iran: reversing Trump’s effort to reimpose U.N. sanctions, ending travel restrictions on Iranian diplomats in New York, and asking Iran to come to a meeting of signatories of the agreement. (Tehran refused.)

The senior U.S. official noted that Iran decided to restrict access of international nuclear inspectors in the country after the United States announced plans to withdraw some Trump-era sanctions.

“I don’t buy the idea that if only Biden would have moved quicker, this would have happened, regardless of what the Biden administration did or did not do in its first months in office,” said Henry Rome, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group. “The conservatives in the Iranian government were going to very be strongly opposed to reentry into this deal.” Rome said that he expects that while the United States and Iran are unlikely to strike any nuclear deal before Iran’s June elections, he believes Washington and Tehran will return to compliance before the end of the year.

The push to salvage the deal has also been complicated on the ground. On Feb. 15, an Iran-backed militia allegedly fired rockets at the Erbil airport in northern Iraq, killing a Filipino contractor who worked for the U.S.-led military coalition and wounding several others, including a U.S. service member and an Iraqi civilian who died a week later. Ten days later, Biden ordered a limited rocket strike against Iran-backed militants in eastern Syria.

“It’s not really helping the climate in the U.S. to have Iranian allies take shots at Americans in Iraq or elsewhere, and the U.S. will respond as it has responded and it will continue to respond,” Robert Malley, the U.S. special envoy for Iran, said in March.

The United Kingdom, France, and Germany have pursued a nuclear pact with Iran since 2003, after revelations emerged that Tehran had secretly begun developing a heavy water reactor that Western governments feared could be used for the production of plutonium, as well as an underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. It was the first of a series of on-again off-again diplomatic initiatives aimed at containing Iran’s nuclear program. The United States, which was preoccupied seeking to pacify Iraq, did not take part in those early talks.

A decade later, Obama dispatched Bill Burns, a veteran U.S. diplomat who was recently sworn in as Biden’s director of the CIA, to Oman to begin secret talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Those initial talks culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was endorsed by Britain, China, France, Germany, Iran, Russia, the United States, and the European Union, and which placed a series of verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions.

The nuclear pact faced fierce opposition from allies in the region, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, and pro-Israeli lawmakers in the United States, who feared it would provide Tehran with the financial resources to threaten its neighbors. They argued that Iran could not be trusted to live up to its obligations.

“It was never going to be easy,” said Mark Lyall Grant, who served previously as Britain’s national security advisor and led its Iran nuclear negotiations. “It’s true that the opposition has had time to mobilize, but the opposition has always been there. If the Americans are persuaded there is a deal to be done, I don’t think opposition from others in the region is a problem. It’s a challenge, but it’s not an insuperable one.”

Grant noted the efforts Europeans have made to keep the deal alive, even as Washington walked and Tehran balked.

“The Europeans have done well to keep the JCPOA on thin life support during the Trump administration, even though the Iranians have gone off the tracks,” he said. But, he added, all the Iranian increases in centrifuges and uranium enrichment are reversible.

Iran was largely in compliance with the Iran nuclear deal until Trump pulled out of the agreement and dialed up a so-called maximum pressure campaign, replete with sanctions on every corner of the Iranian economy. Even humanitarian aid was affected.

In an interview with the BBC’s Persian-language network, the U.S. envoy Malley said, “The maximum pressure has failed. … It’s been bad for the U.S., for Iran, for the region.”

“What we want to do is get into a position where the U.S. can lift sanctions again, and Iran can come back into compliance with its nuclear commitments under the deal,” he added.

But many supporters of the nuclear pact, including some European officials, believe that the Biden administration needs to own up to America’s role in undermining the deal—even if the damage was inflicted by the previous administration.

“I think there was a need for a mea culpa from the Biden administration,” Vaez said. “The maximum pressure campaign inflicted not only economic damage on the country but also cost Iranian lives in the middle of a deadly pandemic. The Biden administration acted as if all this harm inflicted on Iran was done by a different country. It didn’t take any responsibility for the mistakes committed by its predecessor. That is going to have long-term implications for Iranian-U.S. relations.”

 
So will it be a light water reactor or heavy water? Parliament recently ordered it to be heavy water. What physical changes would one have to make to the core to convert from one type to the other?
You are asking the wrong question, it doesn't matter whether it's light or heavy water, cause traitors accepted in JCPOA to turn Arak reactor into a heavy water ractor which still needs enriched uranium (as if it's a light water reactor); or better to say it this way: it's a light water reactor, which will use heavy water!!!

So in answer to the right question I should say, this new reactor is the same shit which west wanted.
 
You are asking the wrong question, it doesn't matter whether it's light or heavy water, cause traitors accepted in JCPOA to turn Arak reactor into a heavy water ractor which still needs enriched uranium (as if it's a light water reactor); or better to say it this way: it's a light water reactor, which will use heavy water!!!

So in answer to the right question I should say, this new reactor is the same shit which west wanted.

Irans path to fissle material is enabled via its centrifuges.
Arak was an important step, yes but it seems that giving up on the small amount of Plutonium it produces as a concession to the west was worth it for future unlimited enrichment.
Now add to this, that the west agreed to transfer technology and standards as well as cooperation on reactors.
One of Irans weakspots was being behind by decades in reactor technology.
This probably was not significantly solved by Barjam and new Arak, but it was the idea of the learning benefit by cooperating with worlds leading reactor specialists.

Other than other technologies reactor design heavily relies on lastest standards and data.

So Iran gave the west the concession of Arak but hoped to get some benefits on reactor design and still maintain the same medical radioisotope properties of the "civilian" Arak research reactor.

The downside is: Due to lack of cooperation, it is questionable how much Iran could learn on reactor design via the Arak re-design.

Iran could have been further along on reactors but the decision in the 90's was for a centrifuge-centric nuclear program. Quite a few nations had mastered reactor technology back then, but only two had mastered centrifuges (EU (Germany/Netherlands) and Russia). In that sense, Arak was the somewhat primitive stepchild of the nuclear program.
 
They are back to their old scare tactics to make Iran give up its rights.

چرا خامنه ای دستور ساخت بمب رو نمی ده و حرام اعلامش کرده ؟
شما توی خوزستان برو ، می بینی همینطور هست که مشعل های بزرگ روشن هستند و دارند گاز کشور رو الکی می سوزونند ،
چندتا آشنا دارم ، می گند در بدترین شرایط هم اینها در حد یک شعله ی نیم متری باید باشند نه یک شعله ی 5 تا ده متری ...

پس مسلما جمهوری اسلامی ، انرژی هسته ای رو برای محیط زیست نمی خواد ، مردم ایران رو هم جزء « موالی » و « برده » خودشون حساب می کنند و اهمیتی نمی دهند

پس این انرژی هسته ای برای چی شون هست ؟

این 20 ساله داریم تحریم می شیم ، تا به خاطر تحریم ها تمام اقتصاد ایران انحصاری در دست آقایون باشه تا از سفره ی انقلاب و پس غذای « تحریم » جیب ها رو پر پول کنند و ملت ایران رو روز به روز فقیر تر کنند تا راحت تر بر ملت ایران حکومت کنند ...

اگر بمب اتم هم می ساختیم ، اینقدر تحریم نمی شدیم ...


آمریکا و انگلیس و غربی ها و شرقی ها به فکر منافع خودشون هستند و آدم درکشون می کنه

جمهوری اسلامی دنبال چی هست ؟
 
Back
Top Bottom