On Saturday, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said Iran wouldn’t enrich uranium over 60 percent even if the negotiations in Vienna to revive the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, fail.
In response to an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility back in April, Tehran began enriching some uranium at 60 percent, which is still below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade. When asked by Sputnik if Iran would exceed 60 percent enrichment, Iran’s atomic energy chief Mohammad Eslami answered, “No.”
“All our nuclear activities are carried out according to the agreements, statutes, and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Eslami added.
The JCPOA negotiations in Vienna are currently on pause but are expected to resume on Monday. Since the talks resumed at the end of November, the US has been accusing Iran of not taking the process seriously. The Biden administration wants Tehran to accept a draft agreement that was reached during earlier negotiations with the previous Iranian government, but Iran wants more sanctions relief.
US officials have also been warning that time is running out on the talks. Last week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan visited Israel and said the deadline for the negotiations will come “within weeks” if an agreement isn’t reached.” He also met with Israeli officials to reassure them that the US was willing to take a harder line on Iran.
How about a deal both Israel and Iran stop nuclear weapon development? The world would be a better place.
But nither are “developing” nuclear weapons. Iran isn’t because it doesn’t want them. Israel isn’t because it already has them.
Hi John:
Once the nuclear cat is out of the bag, it is difficult to put it back in.
I agree with your statement, I too would like both countries to be nuclear free but… Israel will never give up its nukes, never and Iran will not be able to give up any nuclear capability as long as Israel has it.
It is, rather a conundrum…
Sullivan in a meeting with his Israeli superiors.
He gave something for nothing, or he made a threat?
If we had an independent translation with any subtlety, I think the threat would be clear. He’d be right to say that, too.
This is why:
Why is Iran producing 60 per cent-enriched uranium?
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium
They need the 20% for research, but the 60% is in minimal quantities solely to act as a bargaining chip. Iran is well aware that enriching to 90% and building a bomb would not only be pointless but would inevitably start the war between Iran and the US/Israel. So they never will – even if a war is started – because a handful of un-deliverable bombs will be useless.
People don’t understand that nukes are only useful if 1) you have enough of them to be an existential threat, and 2) you can deliver them effectively without being annihilated yourself by a counter-strike. MAD works. Neither Iran nor North Korea qualify.
How come when Israel did it, it didn’t start any wars?
Because Israel had the support of first France, then the US – both nuclear powers. They also kept much of their development secret until it was too late, and even today use “nuclear ambiguity” even when everyone knows they have them.
Iran and North Korea don’t have any such protectors. North Korea does have China which states that if NK starts a war, they’ll stay out, but if the US unilaterally attacks NK over nukes, they will enter the war. So NK does have some protection – but not from the possession of nukes – it is the possession of nukes that makes them a target for the US.
Iran has none. Some people claim Russia would protect them, because Putin has referred to them as allies. I doubt that would be applied if Iran actually had nukes, especially if they threatened to use them on Israel.
“it is the possession of nukes that makes them a target for the US.”
Yeah, because it’s not like they were a target of the US before their first nuclear test in 2006 or anything.
Even a few nukes are a significant deterrent. If Syria’s Assad had even one nuke that he could reliably lob at Tel Aviv, and publicly indicated a willingness to use it if attacked, the Israelis wouldn’t be bombing Syria’s airports, etc. on a regular basis.
No, they’re not. Not against a full-fledged nuclear power. Yes, if Iran had 5 nukes and Saddam had 5 nukes, with both deliverable to each other, they might balance each other out. That doesn’t apply to Iran vs Israel or the US, nor to North Korea vs the US.
Also, if Assad had one verifiably deliverable nuke, Israel would have made sure he was destroyed by the US long before he could use it. The same applies to Iran.
Nukes as a deterrent are *way* over-sold. There are a lot of other geopolitical and military factors that apply.