UN Security Council to Vote Monday Morning on Iran Deal

[Siavash]

God helped Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to expand Islam between 90% idol worshippers to East and the West.
Despite all of the hardnesses and dozens wars against him.
God helped all of his prophets from the beginning.
If imam Hussain (PBUH) became martyred it was because to show to the Muslims to not go under oppression and abjection.
Arabs sieged him in Karbala and fought against him despite he had only 72 fellows in Karbala.

God asked Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH), Will you donate your most beloved son in adha day? Both of Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) and Prophet Ismael (PBUH) were completely satisfied, but God did not agree and told Ibrahim, there will be a prophet from your children who will endure all of hardnesses and even will give his sons lives in my way.

Clearly this is the view shared by many in Iran and elsewhere and as a view respectable. I don't think God does anything to favor anyone out of the rules of the world unless probabilistically weighs in which in average will favor "Mottaghin" but that is not the rule. You ought to parse the tree of outcomes as much as possible to your favor with right choices. But that is my ideology.

The important fact is to satisfy or contain such views what should be done. Obviously it can not be ignored and it is dangerous to be left alone unexplained and unsatisfied.

Regarding Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) there is reasonable explanation why he succeeded and regarding Imam Hosein it is in my opinion explanation Shia made to justify his murder for themselves and the fact that there was no miracle to save him. Ima m Hosein didn't move to Koofeh to lose, he tried to change the outcome but couldn't. yes there is narratives form Prophet regarding his martyrdom ... and we can discuss this for ever with both our ideologies and never reach conclusive end. I just accept both views as is in this thread and move on.

Regarding Ismael, I don't see it relevant but that is just me perhaps. You are saying we ought to suffer for Gods cause and I say we are not the ones defining his cause and suffering should be equivalent to hard work and sacrifice that accompanies it, but that is perhaps me thinking this way not necessarily different but different if you put the rest of the ideology together. I leave it there as is. But I understand what you are saying I suppose.

cheers

I can not post a new thread till I reach 29 post old. Here is Zarif talk in PArliament:
Zarif talk in parliament:
سخنان ظریف در مجلس شورای اسلامی - سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و جهان|TABNAK

Salehi talk is in same place and also Q and A. It is all in Farsi

Clearly this is the view shared by many in Iran and elsewhere and as a view respectable. I don't think God does anything to favor anyone out of the rules of the world unless probabilistically weighs in which in average will favor "Mottaghin" but that is not the rule. You ought to parse the tree of outcomes as much as possible to your favor with right choices. But that is my ideology.

The important fact is to satisfy or contain such views what should be done. Obviously it can not be ignored and it is dangerous to be left alone unexplained and unsatisfied.

Regarding Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) there is reasonable explanation why he succeeded and regarding Imam Hosein it is in my opinion explanation Shia made to justify his murder for themselves and the fact that there was no miracle to save him. Ima m Hosein didn't move to Koofeh to lose, he tried to change the outcome but couldn't. yes there is narratives form Prophet regarding his martyrdom ... and we can discuss this for ever with both our ideologies and never reach conclusive end. I just accept both views as is in this thread and move on.

Regarding Ismael, I don't see it relevant but that is just me perhaps. You are saying we ought to suffer for Gods cause and I say we are not the ones defining his cause and suffering should be equivalent to hard work and sacrifice that accompanies it, but that is perhaps me thinking this way not necessarily different but different if you put the rest of the ideology together. I leave it there as is. But I understand what you are saying I suppose.

cheers

I can not post a new thread till I reach 29 post old. Here is Zarif talk in PArliament:
Zarif talk in parliament:
سخنان ظریف در مجلس شورای اسلامی - سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و جهان|TABNAK

Salehi talk is in same place and also Q and A. It is all in Farsi

Listen minute 24:00 and it explains the missile ban. Also a minuet before other bans which is replaced. It may answer your questions

 

[Aramagedon]

Clearly this is the view shared by many in Iran and elsewhere and as a view respectable. I don't think God does anything to favor anyone out of the rules of the world unless probabilistically weighs in which in average will favor "Mottaghin" but that is not the rule. You ought to parse the tree of outcomes as much as possible to your favor with right choices. But that is my ideology.

The important fact is to satisfy or contain such views what should be done. Obviously it can not be ignored and it is dangerous to be left alone unexplained and unsatisfied.

Regarding Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) there is reasonable explanation why he succeeded and regarding Imam Hosein it is in my opinion explanation Shia made to justify his murder for themselves and the fact that there was no miracle to save him. Ima m Hosein didn't move to Koofeh to lose, he tried to change the outcome but couldn't. yes there is narratives form Prophet regarding his martyrdom ... and we can discuss this for ever with both our ideologies and never reach conclusive end. I just accept both views as is in this thread and move on.

Regarding Ismael, I don't see it relevant but that is just me perhaps. You are saying we ought to suffer for Gods cause and I say we are not the ones defining his cause and suffering should be equivalent to hard work and sacrifice that accompanies it, but that is perhaps me thinking this way not necessarily different but different if you put the rest of the ideology together. I leave it there as is. But I understand what you are saying I suppose.

cheers

I can not post a new thread till I reach 29 post old. Here is Zarif talk in PArliament:
Zarif talk in parliament:
سخنان ظریف در مجلس شورای اسلامی - سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و جهان|TABNAK

Salehi talk is in same place and also Q and A. It is all in Farsi

Imam Ali (PBUH) and Hussain (PBUH) knew when and how they will become martyred but this awareness did not make them to be coward men [astaghfirullah...] and run away from their enemies or be under their mandated. Certainly Imam Hussain (PBUH) knew that he is going to become martyr but this notice did not let him to cancel his duty, if he did so he did not do his jihad against Yazid .....
Being just "Mottaghi" is not enough and certainly action is needed too. Shah soltan Hussain was the last king of Safavid empire. When the enemy was some miles further to his palace he said I will pray for God and he will deafet the enemy, therefore he lost his empire.

Cheers new mate.

 

[rahi2357]

Rofagha, zaheran gharar nist hich mahdoodiati dar barname mooshaki vojood daashte bashe.
emrooz :

ظریف خاطرنشان کرد: با مقاومت بسیار شدید تیم مذاکره‌کننده، طرف مقابل خواسته‌های اولیه خود برای نظارت و راستی‌آزمایی بر برنامه موشکی و تست‌های موشکی را به طور کامل کنار گذاشت. در قطعنامه 2231 ممنوعیت شدید هر گونه برنامه موشکی ایران از یک اقدام اجباری قابل پیگرد و حتی قابل پیشگیری با اقدامات قهرآمیز ذیل فصل هفتم منشور ملل متحد در قطعنامه 1929 خارج شد و به یک محدودیت غیرالزام‌آور تبدیل شده و کلیه ساز و کارهای نظارتی که تا روز قبل از توافق برجام بر حفظ آنها اصرار داشتند حذف شده است.

وزیر امور خارجه اظهار داشت: همچنین نحوه اشاره به موشک‌های بالستیک به صورت محتوایی دگرگون شده و به جای عبارت «موشک‌های بالستیک دارای قابلیت حمل سلاح هسته‌ای» که در همه قطعنامه‌های قبلی و حتی قطعنامه‌های کلی شورای امنیت مثل قطعنامه 1540 و 1887 ذکر شده‌اند در چند روز آخر با تلاش خدمت‌گزاران شما به عبارت «موشک‌های بالستیک که برای قابلیت حمل سلاح هسته‌ای» طراحی شده‌اند، تبدیل شده است.

سردار دهقان: برنامه‌های موشکی خود را با قاطعیت اجرا می‌کنیم/ اجازه دسترسی به اسرار نظامی را به هیچ مرجعی نخواهیم داد

صالحی در صحن علنی مجلس: مسئولیت هر آنچه را در بُعد فنی مذاکرات به دست آوردیم می‌پذیرم/ با دسترسی به ماشین IR8 در 8 سال آینده می‌توان یک میلیون سو تولید کرد
*ایران اگر در 8 سال آینده به ماشین IR8 با ظرفیت 20 سو دسترسی پیدا کند می‌تواند یک میلیون سو را تولید کند

 

[mohsen]

Rofagha, zaheran gharar nist hich mahdoodiati dar barname mooshaki vojood daashte bashe.
emrooz :

ظریف خاطرنشان کرد: با مقاومت بسیار شدید تیم مذاکره‌کننده، طرف مقابل خواسته‌های اولیه خود برای نظارت و راستی‌آزمایی بر برنامه موشکی و تست‌های موشکی را به طور کامل کنار گذاشت. در قطعنامه 2231 ممنوعیت شدید هر گونه برنامه موشکی ایران از یک اقدام اجباری قابل پیگرد و حتی قابل پیشگیری با اقدامات قهرآمیز ذیل فصل هفتم منشور ملل متحد در قطعنامه 1929 خارج شد و به یک محدودیت غیرالزام‌آور تبدیل شده و کلیه ساز و کارهای نظارتی که تا روز قبل از توافق برجام بر حفظ آنها اصرار داشتند حذف شده است.

وزیر امور خارجه اظهار داشت: همچنین نحوه اشاره به موشک‌های بالستیک به صورت محتوایی دگرگون شده و به جای عبارت «موشک‌های بالستیک دارای قابلیت حمل سلاح هسته‌ای» که در همه قطعنامه‌های قبلی و حتی قطعنامه‌های کلی شورای امنیت مثل قطعنامه 1540 و 1887 ذکر شده‌اند در چند روز آخر با تلاش خدمت‌گزاران شما به عبارت «موشک‌های بالستیک که برای قابلیت حمل سلاح هسته‌ای» طراحی شده‌اند، تبدیل شده است.

سردار دهقان: برنامه‌های موشکی خود را با قاطعیت اجرا می‌کنیم/ اجازه دسترسی به اسرار نظامی را به هیچ مرجعی نخواهیم داد

he addressed a wrong line intentionally to skip this one!:
از جمله شلیک هرگونه موشک با استفاده از چنین فناوری‌های مربوط به موشک‌های بالستیک
The question is whether Iran accepts this resolution or not? That's the question which again he didn't answered.

صالحی در صحن علنی مجلس: مسئولیت هر آنچه را در بُعد فنی مذاکرات به دست آوردیم می‌پذیرم/ با دسترسی به ماشین IR8 در 8 سال آینده می‌توان یک میلیون سو تولید کرد
*ایران اگر در 8 سال آینده به ماشین IR8 با ظرفیت 20 سو دسترسی پیدا کند می‌تواند یک میلیون سو را تولید کند

بازی با کلمات، وعده سر خرمن، بزک نمیر بهار میاد کمبیزه با خیار میاد
how can we access to IR-8 during next 8 years, while during the next 8.5 years we can't even test them? Ultimate hypocrisy.

 

[mohsen]

ظریف در مجلس: در متن نهایی توافق اصلا کلمه تعلیق نیامده است!/ تصاویر: به کار رفتن ۴ بار کلمه

Did he even read this deal? 4 "suspend", 11 "cease" and the rest "termination of implementation= پایان اجرا = تعلیق"
and yet some people want to trust such a person?!
-------
مشروعيت جنگ بين المللي ؛ راز خوشحالي آمريکا از صدور قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱
قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱ چطور راه را براي صدور مجوز جنگ عليه ايران هموار کرده است/ ۹ نکته کليدي درباره قطعنامه شوراي امنيت که تيم مذاکره کننده آن را کتمان مي کند!

مذاکره کننده ارشد ايران به صراحت اعلام کرد در صورت نقض قطعنامه شوراي امنيت کشورهاي ۱+۵ مي توانند موضوع هسته اي ايران را ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم منشور ملل متحد که به حمله نظامي جامعه جهاني عليه کشوري مشروعيت مي بخشد، قرار دهند.
به گزارش رجانيوز، شامگاه دوشنبه عباس عراقچي در برنامه گفتگوي ويژه خبري حاضر شد و ديدگاه تيم مذاکره کننده را درباره دستاوردهاي برنامه جامع مشترک اقدام و قطعنامه جديد شوراي امنيت تشريح کرد.

در قسمتي از اين برنامه مجري از عراقچي پرسيد: آيا اين امکان وجود دارد در صورت نقض قطعنامه شوراي امنيت از سوي ايران، پرونده هسته اي ايران ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم منشور ملل متحد قرار بگيرد و مجوز حمله نظامي از سوي شوراي امنيت صادر بشود؟

عراقچي در پاسخ به اين سئوال گفت: ما از اين مراحل مدت ها است عبور کرديم .اگر که ما ضعيف باشيم بله . البته اين محدوديت ها و تحريم ها جديد نيست ، تحريم هاي تسليحاتي تقريبا ۱۰ سال است که وجود دارد؛ بله از نظر حقوقي امکانش هست (که پس از نقض توافق ازسوي ايران موضوع ايران ذيل ماده ۴۲ مطرح شود) اما از نظر سياسي و واقعيت هاي ميداني نه .... امکانش در تئوري هست اما در عمل نه. همان طور که ايران در سال هاي گذشته ذيل فصل هفتم شوراي امنيت بوده نتواستند اين کار بکنند. چرا؟ به خاطر اقتدار جمهوري اسلامي و اين کار را تا وقتي که اين اقتدار وجود دارد نخواهند کرد.

هر چند عراقچي تاکيد کرده علي رغم نقض قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت از سوي ايران، صرفا به خاطر اقتدار ايران اين شورا موضوع هسته اي ايران را ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم قرار نداده است اما در واقع در سالهاي گذشته از جهت تئوري و حقوق بين الملل امکان معرفي موضوع هسته اي ايران ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم وجود نداشته است چرا که پیش از این، ایران ۴ قطعنامه تحریمی و دو قطعنامه توصيه اي (مجموعا ۶ قطعنامه) شورای امنیت علیه برنامه هسته ای را غیرمشروع و غیرقانونی می دانست و از تائید آن خودداری می کرد به همین علت کشورهای ۱+۵ نمی توانستند، نقض قطعنامه های تحریمی علیه ایران را بهانه کرده و موضوع هسته ای را ذیل ماده ۴۲ مطرح کنند.

اما دولت ايران با پذیرش قطعنامه جدید شورای امنیت و سازوکارهای ارائه شده در آن، عملا خود را متعهد به انجام آن می کند و بر اساس حقوق بين الملل در صورت نقض مفاد قطعنامه مذکور عملا راه برای قرار گرفتن موضوع هسته ای ایران ذیل ماده ۴۲ سازمان ملل (که به اقدامات نظامی مشروعیت بین المللی می دهد)، هموار می کند.

علاوه بر اين آقاي ظريف وعراقچي در اظهارات خود به برخي مسائل اشاره کردند که به صورت گذرا به آن پرداخته مي شود. رجانيوز در روزهاي آتي به صورت مجزا مسائل ذيل را به صورت مبسوط مورد بررسي قرار مي دهد.

۱- عباس عراقچي در برنامه گفتگوي ويژه خبري به صورت تلويحي اعلام کرد: ادامه سياست هاي دفاعي ايران که در قطعنامه شوراي امنيت با محدوديت مواجه شده ، مفاد قطعنامه را نقض مي کند اما سبب نقض توافق نمي شود.

وي با بيان اين مطلب گفت: تحريم ها تنها در صورتي باز مي گردد که مفاد توافق نقض شود نه مفاد قطعنامه .

اين اظهارات عراقچي در حالي مطرح مي شود که متن پيش نويس قطعنامه شوراي امنيت در مذاکرات وين مورد بحث قرار گذاشته شده و مورد تاييد طرفين مذاکره از جمله تيم مذاکره کننده ايران قرار گرفته است. حال سوال اين است تيم مذاکره کننده ايران بنا بر چه استدلالي برخي از محدوديت هايي را پذيرفته که اولا ربطي به موضوع هسته اي ندارد و مربوط به موضوع دفاعي مي شود و ثانيا با علم اينکه پذيرش اين محدوديت ها براي ايران امکان پذيير نيست (چرا که بقاي جمهوري اسلامي را به خطر مي اندازد) حاضر به تاييد آن شده است که بعدها ايران بخواهد آن را نقض کند.

۲-برخلاف اظهارات آقاي عراقچي، تبعات نقض قطعنامه تبعاتي همانند تبعات نقض توافق نامه دارد و از يک جهت حتي بدتر از نقض توافق است.



براي روشن شدن اين موضوع بايد اين مساله مورد بررسي قرار گيرد که در صورتي که ايران توافق را نقض کند چه اتفاقي مي افتد:



الف)تحريم ها بلافاصله برمي گردد.



ب) به اين علت که توافق ذيل قطعنامه الزام آور شوراي امنيت قرار گرفته ، قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱ نيز نقض مي شود که اين امر باعث مي شود تحريم هاي جديدي علاوه بر تحريم هاي گذشته عليه ايران وضع شود.



ج)به اين علت که ايران قطعنامه ماده چهل و يکمي شوراي امنيت را نقض کرده و چون ايران اين قطعنامه را تاييد کرده است، شوراي امنيت اين امکان را پيدا ميکند که موضوع هسته اي ايران را ذيل ماده ۴۲ معرفي کند و شرايط براي صدور مجوز حمله نظامي از سوي شوراي امنيت فراهم شود.



اما در صورتي که ايران برخي از بندهاي قطعنامه را که مربوط به توافق نيست نقض کند چه اتفاقي مي افتد:

مورد «ب» (وضع تحريم هاي جديد بين المللي ) و «ج» (معرفي موضوع هسته اي ايران ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم) که در بالا ذکر شد تکرار مي شود علاوه بر اين ايران بايد همچنان به توافق پاينبد بماند و محدوديت ها را ادامه بدهد.همانگونه که مشخص است در صورت نقض توافق ، ايران مي تواند به شرايط قبل از توافق باز گردد و برنامه هسته اي خود را در چارچوب NPT بدون محدوديت هاي در نظر گرفته شده از سوي ۱+۵ ادامه دهد اما در صورتي که قطعنامه نقض شود هرچند تحريم هاي جديد عليه ايران وضع مي شود اما ايران بايد همچنان پايبند به توافق بماند.



۳- آقاي ظريف و عراقچي در اظهارات خود بر اين مساله تاکيد کردند که قطعنامه جديد شوراي امنيت ذيل ماده ۲۵ منشور ملل متحد قرار دارد و برخلاف قطعنامه هاي قبلي ذيل فصل هفتم شوراي امنيت نيست. اما نکته قابل تامل اينکه هيچ کدام از قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت عليه ايران ذيل فصل هفتم شوراي امنيت نبوده است بلکه صرفا ذيل ماده ۴۱ فصل هفتم بوده است و چون اين قطعنامه ها از نظر ايران غيرقانوني بوده ، ايران خود را ملزم به اجراي آن نمي دانسته و در صورت نقض مفاد آن موضوع ذيل بند ۴۲ فصل هفتم منشور ملل متحد ، که زمينه ساز حمله نظامي است مطرح نمي شد.



۴- ماده ۲۵ که کليت اين قطعنامه ذيل آن قرار گرفته نيز به معناي آن است تمامي مفاد قطعنامه براي طرفين اجرا و ساير کشورها الزام آور است علاوه بر اين ۱۰ پاراگراف مهم اين قطعنامه ذيل ماده ۴۱ فصل هفتم که الزام بيشتري دارد، قرار گرفته است. آقاي ظريف در اظهارات صبح امروز در مجلس شوراي اسلامي گفت که تنها موادي ذيل ماده ۴۱ قرار گرفته که شامل تعهدات طرف مقابل مي شود اما با رجوع به متن قطعنامه شوراي امنيت، مشخص مي شود پاراگراف هاي مهمي که شامل تعهدات ايران مي شود مانند موضوع بازگشت پذيري تحريم ها بند ۱۲ ، سازوکار حل اختلافات بند ۱۱، ايجاد محدوديت براي مشارکت هاي بين المللي در برنامه هسته اي ايران با ارجاع آن به کميسوين مشترک بند ۱۶ قطعنامه، ذيل ماده ۴۱ قرار دارد. رجانيوز در گزارش مبسوطي به بررسي بندهاي قطعنامه شوراي امنيت که ذيل فصل هفتم شوراي امنيت قرار گرفتند مي پردازد.

۵- آقاي عراقچي در اين گفتگو بارها تاکيد کرد که در گذشته نيز تحريم موشک هاي بالستيک و تحريم تسليحاتي عليه ايران اعمال مي شده و اتفاق جديدي نيافتاده است و براي تاييد حرف خود با اشاره به بند ۹ قطعنامه ۱۹۲۹ ، از کارشناسان درخواست کرد تا اين بند را مورد بررسي قرار داده تا متوجه شوند تيم ايراني به چه دستاورد بزرگي رسيده است.

در بند قابل اجرای ۹ قطعنامه ۱۹۲۹ آمده:

" ایران به هیچ گونه فعالیتی که به موشک های بالستیک با قابلیت پرتاب سلاح های هسته ای مربوط باشد، و از جمله پرتاب با فناوری موشک های بالستیک دست نخواهد زد، و کشورها تمامی اقدامات لازم را به عمل خواهند آورد تا از انتقال فناوری یا کمک های فنی به ایران که در ارتباط با چنین فعالیت هایی باشند جلوگیری کنند."

در بند ۳ قطعنامه جديد شوراي امنيت (قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱) نيز آمده است:

«از ایران خواسته می‌شود تا هیچ فعالیتی مرتبط با موشک‌های بالستیک طراحی شده با قابلیت حمل تسلیحات هسته‌ای صورت ندهد، از جمله شلیک هرگونه موشک با استفاده از چنین فناوری‌های مربوط به موشک‌های بالستیک، تا زمان هشت سال پس از «روز پذیرش برجما» و یا تا زمانی که آژانس بین‌المللی انرژی اتمی گزارشی ارائه دهد که «جمع‌بندی مبسوط» را تأیید کند، بسته به اینکه کدام زودتر اتفاق افتد.»

همانطور که قابل مشاهده است برخلاف اظهارات آقاي عراقچي محدوديت هاي در نظر گرفته شده براي توان موشکي ايران در قطعنامه ۱۹۲۹ و ۲۲۳۱ يکسان است با اين تفاوت که ايران قطعنامه ۱۹۲۹ را به علت غيرقانوني و ظالمانه بودن «رد» کرد اما دولت قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱ را مورد پذيرش قرار داد که همانگونه گفته شد اين بدين معناست اگر ايران مفاد آن را نقض ، موضوع هسته اي ايران ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم مطرح شده و شوراي امنيت مي تواند مجوز حمله نظامي به ايران را صادر کند.



۶- تحريم هاي تسليحاتي ايران در سالهاي گذشته شامل همه تسليحات نمي شده اما در قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱ ايران به صورت مطلق در موضوع تسليحاتي تحريم شده است.



۷- در قطعنامه هاي پيشين شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل ايران به اين علت که آن قطعنامه ها را ظالمانه مي دانست ، خود را ملزم به اجراي آن نمي دانست براي همين با دور زدن تحريم ها به فروش و انتقال تجهيزات نظامي ادامه ميداد، با توجه به متن قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱ اگر ايران به کشورهاي ديگر از جمله عراق و سوريه، حزب الله ، حماس سلاح بفروشد يا سلاح ارسال کند توافق را نقض کرده است. البته در متن قطعنامه آمده که ايران مي تواند با تاييد شوراي امنيت به ديگر کشورها سلاح ارسال کند اما بر اساس اظهارات عراقچي عملا شوراي امنيت چنين اجازه اي را نمي دهد و ايران مجبور است اين محدوديت را دور بزند. با اين حال در صورتي که ايران تحريم هايي تسليحاتي را دور بزند و اين موضوع به تاييد شوراي امنيت برسد ، به معناي آن است که ايران قطعنامه شورا را نقض کرده که با توجه به تاييد اين قطعنامه از سوي ايران، تبعاتي چون قرار گرفتن موضوع هسته اي ذيل ماده ۴۲ فصل هفتم و همچنين وضع تحريم را به دنبال دارد.



۸-تيم مذاکره کننده ايران همواره در پاسخ به سئوالاتي مبني بر اينکه چرا تمامي تحريم هاي يک جانبه آمريکا عليه ايران لغو نمي شود تاکيد مي کردند که «ما تنها درباره موضوع هسته اي گفتگو و مذاکره مي کنيم صرفا تحريم هاي مرتبط به موضوع هسته اي برداشته مي شود» اما شاهد هستيم در متن پيش نويس قطعنامه موضوعات غير هسته اي مثل تحريم هاي تسليحاتي نيز گنجانده شده است.



۹-هرچند موضوع تحريم هاي تسليحاتي ، موشکي در قطعنامه هاي قبلي بوده است( ايران قطعنامه هاي قبلي شوراي امنيت را نامشروع مي دانست و آن ها را رد مي کرد) با اين حال آقاي ظريف ۲۹ مرداد ۱۳۹۳ شبکه تهران گفت: تحریمهای شورای امنیت کاملاً در ارتباط با موضوع هستهای است، بنابراین تمامی این تحریمها باید برداشته شود. اما در عمل نه تنها تحريم هاي اصلي شوراي امنيت مانند تحريم هاي اشاعه اي برداشته نشد بلکه تحريم هاي جديد مانند تحريم همه تسليحات نظامي و اقلام با کاربرد دوگانه نيز در قطعنامه ۲۲۳۱ اضافه شد.

 

[Rukarl]

he addressed a wrong line intentionally to skip this one!:
از جمله شلیک هرگونه موشک با استفاده از چنین فناوری‌های مربوط به موشک‌های بالستیک
The question is whether Iran accepts this resolution or not? That's the question which again he didn't answered.


بازی با کلمات، وعده سر خرمن، بزک نمیر بهار میاد کمبیزه با خیار میاد
how can we access to IR-8 during next 8 years, while during the next 8.5 years we can't even test them? Ultimate hypocrisy.

Boro baba mardom noon nadaran bekhoran to donbale ye chandta centrifuge chosaki oftadi. vaghean ke.

 

[Siavash]

بازی با کلمات، وعده سر خرمن، بزک نمیر بهار میاد کمبیزه با خیار میاد
how can we access to IR-8 during next 8 years, while during the next 8.5 years we can't even test them? Ultimate hypocrisy.

Based on the deal at page 6 part 3:
"3. Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not
accumulate enriched uranium. Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years
will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex I, and
Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of
uranium as specified in Annex I. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8
centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges
after eight and a half years, as detailed in Annex I."

So Iran can test IR-8 and do research and development on it. Why not read the deal first? For centrifuges it is sufficient to test the input output of the cascade and 30 is enough for testing its nominal vs operational capacity, durability and in cascade performance ...

again at 32.
"32. ... Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges.
Mechanical testing on up to two single centrifuges for each type will be carried out only
on the IR-2m, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-6s, IR-7 and IR-8. Iran will build or test, with or
without uranium, only those gas centrifuges specified in this JCPOA"

also at 38 and finally at 53 in Annex I:
"Iran will start to install necessary infrastructure for the IR-8 at Natanz in Hall B of FEP
after year 10."

 

[mohsen]

Based on the deal at page 6 part 3:
"3. Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not
accumulate enriched uranium. Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years
will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex I, and
Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of
uranium as specified in Annex I. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8
centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges
after eight and a half years, as detailed in Annex I."

So Iran can test IR-8 and do research and development on it. Why not read the deal first? For centrifuges it is sufficient to test the input output of the cascade and 30 is enough for testing its nominal vs operational capacity, durability and in cascade performance ...

again at 32.
"32. ... Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges.
Mechanical testing on up to two single centrifuges for each type will be carried out only
on the IR-2m, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-6s, IR-7 and IR-8. Iran will build or test, with or
without uranium, only those gas centrifuges specified in this JCPOA"

also at 38 and finally at 53 in Annex I:
"Iran will start to install necessary infrastructure for the IR-8 at Natanz in Hall B of FEP
after year 10."

A centrifuge test wont be completed until a full cascade of 164 machines were installed.
for example IR-2 showed it's problem after a cascade of 164 machine were installed and they stopped feeding it.
according to this deal after 8.5 years we can just test 30 of them, and after 10 years we can expand the tests
so I ask again, how can Mr Salehi talk about 1 milion swo after 8 years, while 8.5 years later we still aren't allowed to complete our tests.
Speaking of IR-8, even after 10 years still we can't produce more than 200 centrifuges per year. with this rate it wont take more than 200 years to accomplish what Salehi said! وعده سر خرمن

 

[Siavash]

A centrifuge test wont be completed until a full cascade of 164 machines were installed.
for example IR-2 showed it's problem after a cascade of 164 machine were installed and they stopped feeding it.
according to this deal after 8.5 years we can just test 30 of them, and after 10 years we can expand the tests
so I ask again, how can Mr Salehi talk about 1 milion swo after 8 years, while 8.5 years later we still aren't allowed to complete our tests.
Speaking of IR-8, even after 10 years still we can't produce more than 200 centrifuges per year. with this rate it wont take more than 200 years to accomplish what Salehi said! وعده سر خرمن

That is not entirely right. The number in the cascade is related to the SWU of the centrifuge. That means if you have an IR-1 with SWU of 2 then you need 165 and if you have an IR-8 with SWU of 22 ish you need less. If 1 centrifuge can deliver alpha purity and each centrifuge will act as a load of the other and increase the purity by a factor with a resistive element in flow calculated. Therefore it is logical to think if by any chance the resistive flow element induced by each centrifuge is constant (which is not IR-8 load is probably lower but lets think all are matched for maximum throughput) then it is normal that by SWU increasing 11 times the number of centrifuges needs to decrease by a factor less than the maximum number which is this case 30 is calculated by Salehi and Murano. They don't get these number out of nowhere. So 165 for IR-1 and less than 30 for IR-8 in other words they have a full cascade for 3.67% with less number which is logical. Urenco has a application note on this. Armscontrolwonk and Mr. Fisher I believe commented on this issue which you can find and read.

I rest my case here. You need not to worry not having a test case for IR-8. It is sufficient and a very clever move
.

 

[Arminkh]

That is not entirely right. The number in the cascade is related to the SWU of the centrifuge. That means if you have an IR-1 with SWU of 2 then you need 165 and if you have an IR-8 with SWU of 22 ish you need less. If 1 centrifuge can deliver alpha purity and each centrifuge will act as a load of the other and increase the purity by a factor with a resistive element in flow calculated. Therefore it is logical to think if by any chance the resistive flow element induced by each centrifuge is constant (which is not IR-8 load is probably lower but lets think all are matched for maximum throughput) then it is normal that by SWU increasing 11 times the number of centrifuges needs to decrease by a factor less than the maximum number which is this case 30 is calculated by Salehi and Murano. They don't get these number out of nowhere. So 165 for IR-1 and less than 30 for IR-8 in other words they have a full cascade for 3.67% with less number which is logical. Urenco has a application note on this. Armscontrolwong and Mr. Fisher I believe commented on this issue which you can find and read.

I rest my case here. You need not to worry not having a test case for IR-8. It is sufficient and a very clever move
.

Nice technical comment. Welcome by the way.

 

[Rukarl]

That is not entirely right. The number in the cascade is related to the SWU of the centrifuge. That means if you have an IR-1 with SWU of 2 then you need 165 and if you have an IR-8 with SWU of 22 ish you need less. If 1 centrifuge can deliver alpha purity and each centrifuge will act as a load of the other and increase the purity by a factor with a resistive element in flow calculated. Therefore it is logical to think if by any chance the resistive flow element induced by each centrifuge is constant (which is not IR-8 load is probably lower but lets think all are matched for maximum throughput) then it is normal that by SWU increasing 11 times the number of centrifuges needs to decrease by a factor less than the maximum number which is this case 30 is calculated by Salehi and Murano. They don't get these number out of nowhere. So 165 for IR-1 and less than 30 for IR-8 in other words they have a full cascade for 3.67% with less number which is logical. Urenco has a application note on this. Armscontrolwong and Mr. Fisher I believe commented on this issue which you can find and read.

I rest my case here. You need not to worry not having a test case for IR-8. It is sufficient and a very clever move
.

The guy you are talking to is a hezbollahi !1 meaning they replaced his brains with ''yonje''. What a sad day it is when people like him are jumping up and down for a 60 year old technology while the average Iranian cant pay his rent.

Unbelievable.

 

[Siavash]

Nice technical comment. Welcome by the way.

Thank you Arminkh my pleasure.

 

[Siavash]

Something interesting regarding Heavy water

The deal on article 10 says:
"10. There will be no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran for 15 years. All excess heavy water will be made available for export to the international market."

Heavy water plant produces 15 tons of heavy water and Arak needs 200 ton. Salehi says we have 90 ton already but I am confused he said after 200 ton we don't need any more and we can sell the excess amount. I thought Arak will be changed to light water after wards. Anyway 15 tons of heavy water is huge it costs between 680 US$ to 7800 US$ per kilo depending on purity. Lets say 680 US the yearly export value of heavy water is 8 million $ for the 15 ton heavy water. That is not bad export coming out of a single factory just producing D2O.

I found this on pricing:
The price of deuterium oxide (heavy water) varies immensely by purity. The best price in currently aware of for generally usable material comes from Cambridge Isotopes. They sell 1 liter (slightly more than 1kg) of material for 680USD. At that price, you'll get 99%-D, meaning that 99 out of 100 hydrogen atoms are deuteria, with 1 in 100 being hydrogen.
For 995USD, also from Cambridge Isotopes, you can get 1kg of material at 99.96%-D. If you want material that's even more pure, Sigma Aldrich sells the best I can find. At 376USD per 50g bottle, you will spend 7520USD for 1kg of 99.994%-D deuterium oxide.


Just kidding: Think of SA and GCC, we may be able to sell them fruit flavored heavy water bottles at higher price. Heavy water water melon! (Heavier than normal one!) Just need to make it a fashion for this rich people and tell them it is good for you and makes you nuclear capable!

 

[mohsen]

That is not entirely right. The number in the cascade is related to the SWU of the centrifuge. That means if you have an IR-1 with SWU of 2 then you need 165 and if you have an IR-8 with SWU of 22 ish you need less. If 1 centrifuge can deliver alpha purity and each centrifuge will act as a load of the other and increase the purity by a factor with a resistive element in flow calculated. Therefore it is logical to think if by any chance the resistive flow element induced by each centrifuge is constant (which is not IR-8 load is probably lower but lets think all are matched for maximum throughput) then it is normal that by SWU increasing 11 times the number of centrifuges needs to decrease by a factor less than the maximum number which is this case 30 is calculated by Salehi and Murano. They don't get these number out of nowhere. So 165 for IR-1 and less than 30 for IR-8 in other words they have a full cascade for 3.67% with less number which is logical. Urenco has a application note on this. Armscontrolwonk and Mr. Fisher I believe commented on this issue which you can find and read.

I rest my case here. You need not to worry not having a test case for IR-8. It is sufficient and a very clever move
.

buddy, don't need to make stories out of yourself. The number 164 is what our authorities have said.
and to make it technical:
SWU doesn't represent the amount of enrichment, but the output power of the centrifuges. so if you need 164 IR-1 machine to reach 3.67 enrichment, then you will need the same number of machines with IR-8 too, but your output will be 16 times more.

also if you read the deal, you will see in the same R&D section we were allowed to keep 164-machine IR-2m cascade and 164-machine IR-4 cascade to complete the necessary tests.

 

[Siavash]

buddy, don't need to make stories out of yourself. The number 164 is what our authorities have said.
and to make it technical:
SWU doesn't represent the amount of enrichment, but the output power of the centrifuges. so if you need 164 IR-1 machine to reach 3.67 enrichment, then you will need the same number of machines with IR-8 too, but your output will be 16 times more.

also if you read the deal, you will see in the same R&D section we were allowed to keep 164-machine IR-2m cascade and 164-machine IR-4 cascade to complete the necessary tests.

I said the power of enrichment per centrifuge by SWU. SWU (separative work unit) It is obvious what I mean in my text. Even by the way you describe it you should understand what I said . if you now try to have same output you can reduce the length 16 times more if the load of each centrifuge was similar but its not so it becomes less than the number you get dividing nominal SWU of two machines. Separation work unit SWU is the amount of work each centrifuge does by itself which is exactly what I defined in my post and it is common knowledge.

Anyway I suggest you go and read 2008aglaser_sgsvol16.pdf from princeton university on the cascade analysis of Iranian P1 and then go to Urenco application note on "GC" cascade number and stages optimum calculation if you have access (hint table Table A.2.1) number of cascade units per row for Urenco type system. 164 is not a magical number it is per design per centrifuge type.

Also the princeton paper shows how the IR-1 works and its number of stages (5 stage 24 each which is strange as cascade is set to achieve a separation profile and stages will have lower number as it reaches the end) peak output at mid stage...

Those whom understand have got it already. Salehi and his MIT buddy certainly got it better than you and me. They wanted a minimal usable Cascade number that will do the job and separate successfully till 3.67% in one cascade and they reached it. Now lets say by way you describe: They didn't want 16 time more so keyword is minimal number of cascade length that gives the same enrichment or separation capacity when cascades are working at optimal speed.

The 16 times more production is defined as throughput of plant and achieved by making parallel cascade number of optimal number of cascades they have calculated for a particular flow and enrichment percentage. So 30 machines IR-8 same flow reaches same enrichment % of 164 cascaded IR-1 now N number of them in parallel reaches N times more capacity or throughput whatever you like to call. 164 is the magic number for IR-1 centrifuge not IR-8. End of discussion. You still can have 164 centrifuges of IR-8 in cascade but then you need to run them each at a fraction of their capability. With 30 (should be lower ) seems you run them at optimal speed. If you are going for low power consumption you may run them at different speed and different cascade number. I rest my case here. You can either accept it or leave it.