Iran’s outgoing President Hassan Rouhani made comments that risk serious misunderstanding Wednesday, claiming that Iran could enrich uranium to 90% purity if they had a need to do so. 90% is considered weapons-grade.
Rouhani was neither threatening to do so, nor suggesting Iran was going to make weapons. Indeed, his comments included the caveat that they would only be doing it on “the peaceful path” for use in a hypothetical reactor, though this explanation was only mentioned in some media reports on his statements.
Weapons weren’t really on the table in the first place. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei long ago declared nuclear arms haram, making it religiously forbidden to even try to make them.
On top of this, the hypothetical reactor that needs 90% uranium simply doesn’t exist. Iran’s enrichment needs are generally in the 3% range, with the 50+ year old Tehran Research Reactor using 20% purity fuel. Iran’s parliament ordered enrichment to 60% to protest Israeli sabotage efforts, but even that level had no apparent use, and presumably Iran is just going to have to dilute it back down to use it for anything.
Given that, it is scarcely worth Rouhani having brought it up. It may be intended to bolster Western interest in restoring the nuclear deal, which would cap enrichment levels.
This Ayatollah is 82 years of age, and won’t be around forever.
Regarding the 90% enrichment level, an internet search indicated some nuclear subs require that level in their reactors.
“Given that, it is scarcely worth Rouhani having brought it up. It may be intended to bolster Western interest in restoring the nuclear deal, which would cap enrichment levels.”
And I thought Rouhani was sharp. The only thing it would “bolster” would be our belligerence.
If by “our” you mean the US, said belligerence needs no bolstering and is a given.
Whenever Rouhani talks, it should be assumed that the US government is not the audience he’s trying to appeal to. In some case, he could be addressing a domestic Iranian audience. In others, he might be letting non-US governments know what’s in store if they don’t get down on the correct side of the fence.
Yes. I meant the US. Why must people continuously make a point of that? When my tax dollars aren’t used for nefarious actions I will stop taking ownership as to what “my” government does with that money. And do you seriously believe that if Iran were to enrich to 90% our belligerence wouldn’t be bolstered? There are different levels of belligerence and we would see a definite uptick. I can hear Tom Cotton now.
“Our” belligerence will be bolstered if Iran enriches to 90%.
“Our” belligerence will be also bolstered if Iran shuts all its centrifuges down and Khamenei personally hands all Iranian uranium over to Naftali Bennett while visiting Jerusalem to announce his conversion to Judaism.
“Our” belligerence isn’t conditional on what the Iranians do.
And the Iranians know that.
Therefore, it’s not “us” the Iranians are talking to when they talk like this.
Funny — but true.
The Apartheid state wants Syria smashed and south Lebanon to grab – it lusts after the water there. Iran is in the way of both those objectives.
I did not use the word “bolster” correctly. Believe it or not I actually knew what the word meant, being it is used so often in sporting events that I follow. I was using the word as though it meant an increase. And one quotation marks around “our” would have made your point. I guess I can’t separate myself from responsibility of the government’s behavior because I do nothing to stop it. If I refused to pay taxes or if I stormed the capitol demanding change it would be different. And I don’t mean storming the capitol to get the bloated narcissistic King back on the throne.