What's new

Will Iran Follow North Korea’s Path and Ditch the NPT?

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 24, 2018
Messages
4,657
Reaction score
-2
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
To stay or to leave?.....
There are also be third options.Such as beginning the formal political steps required to leave but to suspend implementation of that process provided that certain steps are not taken by the west/un ie no snap back of un sanctions for instance,another possibility would be to formally leave but to still,purely on a voluntary bases only,abide by the terms of the treaty.
Altho leaving is a very credible threat,whats equally or possibly of even greater importance is the question of what does iran do after it leaves?.Does it begin developing a nuclear arsenal of its own and formally become one of the nuclear weapon states?,does it build up a stockpile of heu for a more robust japan option,or does it just keep on doing what its been doing ie leu production for commercial/civilian use?.
Ultimately leaving,or credibly threatening to leave,only makes some real sense if iran actually gets some real benefit,either political or military,from it.Otherwise its not really worth the trouble.
What do the posters here think?

Will Iran Follow North Korea’s Path and Ditch the NPT?

By Mahsa Rouhi

Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran has recently pushed each side into a series of escalatory moves and countermoves. Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, his administration has hoped that Iran would eventually relent and make concessions on its nuclear program, missile development, and regional activities, but it seems increasingly likely that Iran may instead decide that its best path forward is to follow North Korea’s example and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), long considered the global cornerstone for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. (Three years after pulling out in 2003, North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon.)

The mainstream view in Iran until recently was that withdrawing from the NPT would bring further diplomatic isolation, lead to increased sanctions, and court a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to Tehran’s larger aspirations of regional leadership and reintegration into the international community. But recent events have caused Tehran to reevaluate those ambitions, as they seem increasingly far-fetched. In the past year, the prospect of withdrawing from the NPT has transformed from a fringe idea among hard-liners in Iran into a real policy option that resonates with a surprisingly large spectrum of Iranian society.

Iran still maintains that it does not seek nuclear weapons, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed on March 3, Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 1,021 kilograms (1.1 tons) since November 2019. This amount, if further enriched, would be enough for a nuclear bomb, if Iran decided to cross the line.

It hasn’t helped that diplomatic relations between Iran and the other parties to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have rapidly deteriorated. Since May 2019 Iran has scaled back on its commitments, and on Jan. 5, it announced it would no longer abide by the operational restrictions on the low-enriched uranium stockpile, enrichment capacity, percentage of enrichment, amount of enriched material, and research and development.

In response, three of the remaining parties to the accord—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (known as the E3)—triggered the deal’s dispute resolution mechanism. Iran takes issue with this, arguing that it already triggered the mechanism itself after the United States pulled out of the deal in 2018. The E3 and the European Union disagree and have been trying, with middling success, to persuade Russia and China to side with them on the matter.

This measure—if all steps are exhausted—could ultimately refer Iranian noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council and trigger the snapback of U.N. sanctions within weeks. However, as long as no party declares that Iran has not taken steps to resolve the dispute, it can remain bottled up indefinitely in the Joint Commission, the body charged with overseeing the accord. Since Iran has not taken further provocative steps, such as enriching to 20 percent, the other parties seem content to kick the can down the road.

This is for the best. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has stated that if U.N. Security Council sanctions are reimposed, Iran may exit not merely the nuclear deal but also the NPT.

It is not just the prospect of U.N. economic sanctions that upsets Iranians, but the notion of again falling under provisions of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows the Security Council to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security.”

The idea of withdrawing from the NPT is not new, but is now being discussed widely in moderate circles, including by the speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani. This turn in strategic thinking is due to the ramping up of U.S. sanctions, particularly on oil sales and what Iran sees as the failure of other parties to provide sanctions relief promised under the deal. Under these circumstances, Iranians increasingly believe they have nothing to gain from the deal and little more to lose by going rogue—since their country is already being treated as an outcast. The heightened tensions with Washington and the increasing possibility of conflict add to Iranians’ sense that the cards are stacked against them no matter what

To the Iranian government, U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat to its survival.

Iran’s strategy since 2003 can best be described as nuclear hedging: The country has been developing nuclear capabilities in order to maintain the option of building a weapon in the future should it decide to do so, while also downplaying and sidestepping international opposition in order to build negotiating leverage. However, the heavy toll from Trump’s efforts since 2018 to deprive Iran of oil revenues appears to be changing Iran’s cost-benefit calculus.

Its economy shrank by 9.5 percent last year and is projected to remain flat in the coming year. Foreign investment has declined and oil exports have dropped dramatically. Iran’s currency, the rial, has deeply depreciated and inflation has risen dramatically, increasing the cost of living for ordinary people in Iran. Economic turmoil, in turn, has created a tense domestic situation: In November 2019, nationwide protests over the sudden increase in gasoline prices put new pressure on the government. The devastating impact of COVID-19, which has hit Iran particularly hard, exacerbates the gloom.

To the Iranian government, U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat to its survival. The government therefore needs a game-changer. Feeling driven into a corner, Iran could consider withdrawing from the NPT as the only option left to ensure self-preservation. In a sense, they are falling for the same fatalistic logic applied by hawks in Israel and the United States who argue that since a conflict with Iran is inevitable in the future, it is best to weaken their adversary and face any conflict now rather than later. Many of the political elite feel that they should take the gamble now rather than after a few years with more limited oil revenue.

If Iran does decide to withdraw, it would not necessarily imply a decision to build nuclear weapons. It considers that rejoining the NPT will be a valuable bargaining chip. In addition, it could openly accelerate its enrichment program for the purpose of building leverage for future negotiations. However, advocates of withdrawal point out that Iran is already suffering many of the same international consequences as North Korea—sanctions, pariah status—without any of the benefits.

Tehran is suffering now from problems that Pyongyang only encountered after withdrawing from the NPT. So why not build a bomb for the sake of regime security and regional prestige?

After all, Iran complied with the nuclear deal for three years, only to ultimately be threatened with new rounds of sanctions.

Some hard-line voices in Tehran argue that a nuclear weapon capability would boost Iran’s regional status like never before and might also guarantee the regime’s survival, as the risk of toppling a nuclear government in an already destabilized region would be too high for the West. In short, they conclude, a nuclear-armed Iran would have an upper hand in the international community.

However, Iran is aware of the risks of following North Korea’s path. Despite its nuclear escalation, North Korea has not been able to negotiate tangible sanctions relief. Leaving the NPT would likely unite the international community—including China and Russia—against Iran, and could provoke the United States, Israel, and at least one of the Gulf states, or a combination of these powers, to launch military strikes against its nuclear facilities.

Such an attack, which would be hard to keep from expanding to a large-scale war, would destroy Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities in the near term, but would almost guarantee that Iran would continue to build nuclear weapons in clandestine facilities.

However, if faced with renewed military threats from the United States, and if the E3 continues to prove unable to defuse mounting economic pressure and potential U.N. sanctions, Iran is likely to take this step.

The government in Tehran is under immense internal pressure from hard-line factions and from the public.

In the summer of 2021, a new, most likely hard-line, president will take office. If Iran has not obtained significant sanctions relief by then, it is possible that the new president will seek to achieve for Iran the status his compatriots yearn for—likely through negotiations, with the open question being whether this will occur before or after Iran has built a nuclear weapon.

With the future of the nuclear deal in doubt, it is essential for the Europeans, China, and Russia to take firm action on sanctions relief, as well as diplomatic and economic reintegration. Such actions and assurances would de-escalate the situation, decrease the possibility of military attack and slow down Iran’s policy shift

The severity of COVID-19 in Iran gives the remaining parties to the deal a strong reason to provide sanctions relief and assistance in humanitarian fields such as sending medical supplies. Doing so would also show good faith and signal to Iranians the benefits of remaining part of the international community. It can also set a more positive foundation for diplomacy and encourage restraint on Iran’s part not to cross a red line on its nuclear activities.

It is vital that Iran continue its compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and remain party to NPT, in order to keep the door open for future agreements and prevent the worst-case scenarios of war or a nuclear-armed Iran.

https://www.bourseandbazaar.com/art...an-follow-north-koreas-path-and-ditch-the-npt
 
What does the NPT actually offer Iran? The nuclear issue was but one excuse for the Americans and their followers to demonise and weaken the Iranian establishment. Iran is already under nigh maximum pressure. NPT was actually used as an excuse to place sanctions on Iran. Iran should leave the NPT and say it will not sign back until Israel does the same and opens its nuclear activities to IAEA, and as we know, that is next to impossible.
 
What does the NPT actually offer Iran? The nuclear issue was but one excuse for the Americans and their followers to demonise and weaken the Iranian establishment. Iran is already under nigh maximum pressure. NPT was actually used as an excuse to place sanctions on Iran. Iran should leave the NPT and say it will not sign back until Israel does the same and opens its nuclear activities to IAEA, and as we know, that is next to impossible.
Well at this point the npt doesnt actually offer iran anything,in fact it never has.The very fact that in order to build its civilian fuel cycle iran had to literally find whatever technology it could wherever it could,often usually through black market deals.Its only "value" to iran,such as it is,is purely political ie the costs of leaving outweighed the costs of staying,however is this still the case?.That is the question.:undecided:
 
Well at this point the npt doesnt actually offer iran anything,in fact it never has.The very fact that in order to build its civilian fuel cycle iran had to literally find whatever technology it could wherever it could,often usually through black market deals.Its only "value" to iran,such as it is,is purely political ie the costs of leaving outweighed the costs of staying,however is this still the case?.That is the question.:undecided:
I dont think they could do anything to Iran that they haven't already.
 
NPT was signed by Shah in 1968 within a year after he had his coronation. Technically, the NPT is a legacy of Shah regime which should have been withdrawn following the revolution.
 
NPT was signed by Shah in 1968 within a year after he had his coronation. Technically, the NPT is a legacy of Shah regime which should have been withdrawn following the revolution.
well , it gave us Tehran research reactor that is still produce medicine we use here and it was supposed to gave us nuclear reactors to produce electricity but for some reasons that I won't go into it it didn't provide that to us.
 
If they are smart they should ditch it because I feel this treaty made by imperial powers to keep other countries from becoming unclear also this will lead a nuclear race in the Middle East.
 
Won’t happen. The damage for leaving means Iran loses Russia and China.

Plus Iran is far too pragmatic to leave. Iran is currently viewing what happens with presidential election.

The issue here is Iran didn’t learn its lesson. You negotiate with a REPUBLICAN president NOT a democratic president. Iran negotiated with Reagan and not Jimmy Carter because it realized that to have a solid deal you need the backing of the hardliners (Republicans). Thus you had Iran Contra and Embassy hostage deal.

Anything a democratic president draws up can be ripped up by a Republican president the next time around. But a Democratic president would not rip up a Republican agreement.

So sooner or later Iran has to negotiate it with a Republican. Negotiating with democrats is a waste of time.
 
If they are smart they should ditch it because I feel this treaty made by imperial powers to keep other countries from becoming unclear also this will lead a nuclear race in the Middle East.

IRGC need to get in the reigns of power I see Nukes coming when their influence in the govt is sealed

Won’t happen. The damage for leaving means Iran loses Russia and China.

Plus Iran is far too pragmatic to leave. Iran is currently viewing what happens with presidential election.

The issue here is Iran didn’t learn its lesson. You negotiate with a REPUBLICAN president NOT a democratic president. Iran negotiated with Reagan and not Jimmy Carter because it realized that to have a solid deal you need the backing of the hardliners (Republicans). Thus you had Iran Contra and Embassy hostage deal.

Anything a democratic president draws up can be ripped up by a Republican president the next time around. But a Democratic president would not rip up a Republican agreement.

So sooner or later Iran has to negotiate it with a Republican. Negotiating with democrats is a waste of time.

Tho both the GOP and the Democrats are the uni-party and pratically the same I would partially agree with you here a deal sighed by a GOP President has better chance surviving look at Nixon/China in the 70s and Iran in the 80s as well thats something foreign govts need to understand
 
There is no reason to get out of NPT, these drastic type of actions would not help us or would not remove sanctions ... the other side would use as a propaganda to fool people for more pressure the only way is this Iran should invest on its own people gain their trust and diverse its partner ... there are many ways to ditch the sanctions the point is first you want to do it and the second is you be able to make a proper decision .... current administration ain't able to make decision ... a travel ban took a month ...
 
Iran has no other choice after all this maximum pressure and crippling sanctions.

What NPT gives to Iran at this moment? Nothing.

Iran offered cooperation with its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions removal and now they demand unacceptable things and impose extreme sanctions.....even Russia and China can't help Iran at this moment.

What Iran should do?

Iran should withdraw from NPT and expel IAEA inspectors and ---than offer to return to NPT and JCPOA 2.0 in exchange for sanctions removal

So you will be in a better negotiating position if you leave NPT....but again, it depends on the results of US presidential elections.
 
I sincerely hope so. Iran needs a nuclear deterrent more than North Korea. At least North Korea can devastate Seoul through conventional means in a cost effective manner.

Unless Iran can acquire a vast stockpile of hundreds of thousands of missiles capable of levelling Israel to the ground, I believe that it won’t be enough to deter the US.

Iran won’t capitulate to Trump and any sanctions relief from the next president, if it is a Democrat, will be short-lived. I’m struggling to see another option. At least war is off the table once you make that final jump.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom