Iran Responds to Trump - sort of

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Iranians announced that since Trump reneged on the treaty requiring them to abandon nuclear weapons research, they are no longer bound by the conditions of the treaty and will begin refining uranium above the purity level specified by the treaty.

Sort of. The level of purity they plan to refine is above that permitted by the treaty, but far short of that needed for nuclear weapons.

Here's What It Really Means That Iran Enriched Uranium to 4.5%

Iran claims it has enriched uranium to 4.5%, breaking the limit of 3.67% set during the 2015 nuclear deal. The move was a response to the U.S. violating the terms of the deal under President Donald Trump's administration. But what does the enrichment news mean?

To a certain extent, this is a question with a simple, chemical answer. As the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission explains on its website, uranium comes in a few different forms (or "isotopes"). All of them have the same number of protons (92) but a different number of neutrons. By far, the most common such isotope in nature is uranium-238, which has 146 neutrons. On Earth, this isotope makes up 99.3% of any sample of naturally occurring uranium.

But for nuclear reactors (or bombs), that flavor isn't very useful. Dense clusters of uranium-238 don't tend to start nuclear chain reactions. The second most common isotope, however, uranium-235 (making up just about 0.7% of any sample of natural uranium and containing 143 neutrons), does tend to start nuclear chain reactions. In these reactions, the nuclei of the uranium atoms split into smaller nuclei and release neutrons. Those neutrons then cause other nuclei to split, releasing more neutrons for a self-sustaining "chain" reaction that emits enormous amounts of energy. [Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth]

Enriching uranium is the process of sorting uranium-238 atoms out of a uranium sample such that the sample includes a higher proportion of uranium-235. Uranium enriched to 3.67% is 3.67% uranium-235. Uranium enriched to 4.5% is 4.5% uranium-235. And so on.

So does Iran's breaking of its enrichment threshold mean that the country is now significantly closer to having a bomb?

Not really.

As the Associated Press reported, 4.5% is enriched enough for Iran to power its peaceful, already-active Bushehr nuclear reactor. But that level falls far short of the standard 90% threshold for "weapons-grade" uranium.

https://www.livescience.com/65898-iran-uranium-enrichment.html

It's a warning without actually returning to nuclear weapons preparations.

Which suggests that whoever is pulling the strings in Iran right now, would rather have open trade than a nuclear weapon. It's as if they're sending a message to NATO and Russia; "talk some sense into this guy, before it's too late."

Should be interesting to see how talks between U.S. and Iran go this week.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Trump was wrong in pulling out of the deal. He has destabilized the entire region.

Bolton is telling Trump that he can't be a successful president until he has a good war. Iran looks like the target. Look for propaganda, telling us what horrible people Iranians are, and how they are a threat to everyone, especially countries where Trump has lots of money invested, like Saudi Arabia.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Is Bolton Steering Trump Into War with Iran?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
May 7, 2019

Bolton ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln, its carrier battle group and a bomber force to the Mideast “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

What “attack” was Bolton talking about?

According to Axios, Israel had alerted Bolton that an Iranian strike on U.S. interests in Iraq was imminent.

Flying to Finland, Pompeo echoed Bolton’s warning:
“We’ve seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and … we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests. … (If) these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group or the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the … Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”

Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself.

Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.

Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.

Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.

Iran responded last Tuesday by naming the U.S. a state sponsor of terror and designating U.S. forces in the Middle East as terrorists.

Iran has also warned that if we choke off its oil exports that exit the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait could be closed to other nations. As 30% of the world’s oil shipments transit the Strait, closing it could cause a global crash.

In 1973, when President Nixon rescued Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC Arabs imposed an oil embargo. Gas prices spiked so high Nixon considered taking a train to Florida for Christmas vacation.
The gas price surge so damaged Nixon’s standing with the public that it became a contributing factor in the drive for impeachment.

Today, Trump’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation.
While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?

In late April, in an interview with Fox News, Iran’s foreign minister identified those he believes truly want a U.S.-Iranian war.

Asked if Trump was seeking the confrontation and the “regime change” that Bolton championed before becoming his national security adviser, Mohammad Javad Zarif said no. “I do not believe President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war.

“President Trump himself has said that the U.S. spent $7 trillion in our region … and the only outcome of that was that we have more terror, we have more insecurity, and we have more instability.
“People in our region are making the determination that the presence of the United States is inherently destabilizing. I think President Trump agrees with that.”

But if it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?
Said Zarif, “I believe ‘the B-team’ wants to actually push the United States, lure President Trump, into a confrontation that he doesn’t want.”

And who makes up “the B-team”?

Zarif identifies them: Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.

Should the B-team succeed in its ambitions — it will be Trump’s war, and Trump’s presidency will pay the price.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Why Trump’s Iran Isolation Plan May Backfire
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
July 10, 2018

In May, President Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal despite Iran living up to its obligations and the deal working as planned. While the US kept in place most sanctions against Tehran, China and Russia – along with many European countries – had begun reaping the benefits of trade with an Iran eager to do business with the world.

Now, President Trump is threatening sanctions against any country that continues to do business with Iran. But will his attempt to restore the status quo before the Iran deal really work?

Even if the Europeans cave in to US demands, the world has changed a great deal since the pre-Iran deal era.

President Trump is finding that his threats and heated rhetoric do not always have the effect he wishes. As his Administration warns countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November or risk punishment by the United States, a nervous international oil market is pushing prices ever higher, threatening the economic prosperity he claims credit for. President Trump’s response has been to demand that OPEC boost its oil production by two million barrels per day to calm markets and bring prices down.

Perhaps no one told him that Iran was a founding member of OPEC?

When President Trump Tweeted last week that Saudi Arabia agreed to begin pumping additional oil to make up for the removal of Iran from the international markets, the Saudis very quickly corrected him, saying that while they could increase capacity if needed, no promise to do so had been made.

The truth is, if the rest of the world followed Trump’s demands and returned to sanctions and boycotting Iranian oil, some 2.7 million barrels per day currently supplied by Iran would be very difficult to make up elsewhere. Venezuela, which has enormous reserves but is also suffering under, among other problems, crippling US sanctions, is shrinking out of the world oil market.

Iraq has not recovered its oil production capacity since its “liberation” by the US in 2003 and the al-Qaeda and ISIS insurgencies that followed it.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that “a complete shutdown of Iranian sales could push oil prices above $120 a barrel if Saudi Arabia can’t keep up.” Would that crash the US economy? Perhaps. Is Trump willing to risk it?

President Trump’s demand last week that OPEC “reduce prices now” or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump’s bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for “cheap oil,” how cheap is that oil?

At the end, China, Russia, and others are not only unlikely to follow Trump’s demands that Iran again be isolated: they in fact stand to benefit from Trump’s bellicosity toward Iran. One Chinese refiner has just announced that it would cancel orders of US crude and instead turn to Iran for supplies. How many others might follow and what might it mean?

Ironically, President Trump’s “get tough” approach to Iran may end up benefitting Washington’s named adversaries Russia and China – perhaps even Iran. The wisest approach is unfortunately the least likely at this point: back off from regime change, back off from war-footing, back off from sanctions. Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring this advice may be higher than he imagined.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Frog-Marching Trump Toward War on Iran
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
July 9, 2019

Hypocrisy seems to have become a defining characteristic of US foreign policy, especially when it comes to Iran. After breaking the Iran deal last year and, de facto, forcing the Europeans to violate the deal in May, the US Administration is now complaining that Iran is no longer abiding by its obligations under the deal!

It’s remarkable to see Secretary of State Mike Pompeo take to Twitter to complain of Iran enriching uranium to pre-deal levels, as if somehow the US believes it can still dictate the terms of a deal to which it is no longer a party.

This latest neocon push for US war on Iran started last week when Iran exceeded the limit of a 300 kilogram stockpile of low-enriched uranium. As usual, the media only reported part of the story. One reason Iran went over the limit was that the countries to which Iran was exporting its excess uranium were notified by the US in early May that they would face US sanctions if they continued taking the uranium off Iranian hands.

The US created the crisis by preventing Iran from exporting its excess uranium and then pointed to the expanding Iranian stockpile of uranium enriched to 3.6 percent as proof that Iran was about to launch a nuclear weapon!

Make no mistake about it: Trump’s neocons are determined to trap him into a massive, disastrous war with Iran and they are using the same tactics they used to hoodwink George W. Bush into a multi-trillion dollar war on an Iraq that could not have attacked us if it wanted to.

Secretary Pompeo Tweeted yesterday the exact kind of dishonest hysterics used to terrify many Americans into supporting an Iraq attack 13 years ago: “Iran’s regime, armed with nuclear weapons, would pose an even greater danger to the world.”

As the former head of the CIA, surely Pompeo knows that his own agency had determined back in 2003 that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program and that every US intelligence assessment since then has concurred with that conclusion. But then again, he did brag recently about his excellent ability to lie, cheat, and steal.

Though the Europeans promised Iran that they would continue to honor the deal, they have proven themselves unable to put forth a credible alternative to the US-dominated SWIFT system, meaning no trade in Iran’s number one export: oil.

Iran responded over the weekend to European fecklessness by announcing that they would begin enriching uranium up to five percent, which is a level needed to run one of its nuclear power generating plants. As could be predicted, this move – which is allowed according to section 36 of the Iran deal – is being treated as the equivalent of Saddam’s “mobile chemical weapons labs.”

The Iranians are not backing down. They rightly feel cheated, as they continued to honor the deal even as the US re-imposed crippling sanctions meant to destroy their economy and starve their people.

President Trump has a very serious decision to make. He is being frog-marched into war by his neocons and his Middle East “partners.” He has very little time left to change course. If the neocons are not swept out immediately, he is risking both his second term and his legacy.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
The JCPOA is a sham. It was never signed by either party: US or Iran.

Here is what the State Department said about it:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.
The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.


This was just another case of Obama sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money in a deal which means nothing. Just like the Paris Climate accord. Nothing but a scam.

You can read the rest of this here: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iran-nuclear-deal-not-signed-document-not-binding/

Obama's big signature deal of his presidency is meaningless. Nobody signed anything. Iran can walk any time it so chooses and so can the US.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
This was just another case of Obama sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money in a deal which means nothing.

I see the problem, your getting your facts from the national review....The neocons favorite propaganda tool.

And just to correct the record.....Obama (as much as I dislike him) gave Iran their OWN money...It wasn't taxpayer money...
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The US created the crisis by preventing Iran from exporting its excess uranium and then pointed to the expanding Iranian stockpile of uranium enriched to 3.6 percent as proof that Iran was about to launch a nuclear weapon!

It's a cynical lie. That isn't remotely close to anything that could be used for a weapon. The Iranians did it only to protest our government reneging on the accord. The State Department is trying to inflame American fears of a nuclear-armed Iran, when they are presently incapable of becoming so. That is what the accords did. But now, they are free to go back to that point, before Obama's coalition forced them to stop.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
It's a cynical lie. That isn't remotely close to anything that could be used for a weapon. The Iranians did it only to protest our government reneging on the accord. The State Department is trying to inflame American fears of a nuclear-armed Iran, when they are presently incapable of becoming so. That is what the accords did. But now, they are free to go back to that point, before Obama's coalition forced them to stop.

What's a cynical lie?
 
Top