The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued its quarterly report on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, and like clockwork media outlets responded with hysterical speculation about Iranian nuclear weapons despite this report being not materially dissimilar from recent quarterly reports.
The last report in November was that Iran had 182.3 kg of 60% enriched uranium, while the new report puts that stockpile at 274.8 kg. That the number grew is unsurprising, both because Iran isn’t using the 60% enriched uranium for anything and because Iran added to its number of centrifuges enriching uranium in November after the US and UK voted for the IAEA to condemn Iran.
The initial JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran was meant to prevent these stockpiles growing by having Iran export the enriched uranium for further processing into fuel for civilian reactors. The US withdrew from the JCPOA during President Trump’s first term, and the reprocessing hasn’t been happening since then.
60% enriched uranium is still well short of weapons grade uranium, considered to be 90%-95%. Though media outlets are emphasizing that further enrichment is a “technical” matter, it should be noted that not only has Iran never attempted to enrich any higher than 60%, but promised back in November that it will keep enrichment entirely at 60% or below.
Iran has been enriching at the 60% level since April 2021, and it has consistently been part of hawkish narratives to call for attacking Iran for its enrichment capabilities since then. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for attacks on Iran over its nuclear program since his first term in office in the 1990s though, so if the 60% stockpile pretext wasn’t there, it would likely be something else.
More relevant to the fear about Iran is that in January the CIA noted that there is no evidence Iran has decided to even attempt to build a nuclear weapon. Moreover, just a few weeks ago President Trump dismissed the idea of attacking Iran, saying he doesn’t believe that Iran wants a nuclear weapon. The vast majority of media coverage of the new IAEA report doesn’t mention any of this, and just speculates about what Iran might conceivably do.
Predictably, Fox News went even further than other media outlets on this, quoting an Iranian general calling for “Operation True Promise 3” that would raze Tel Aviv to the ground, intending to imply this was a threatened nuclear attack on Israel.
In reality, Operation True Promise 2 was the name given to the October conventional missile attack on Israel in retaliation to previous Israeli attacks, causing minor damage. There is no indication these new comments were anything but a threat for further conventional missile strikes.
Since Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a religious fatwa in 2003 forbidding the production of nuclear weapons, it would be unthinkable for an Iranian official to threaten an attack using a weapon they don’t have and by all indications aren’t even attempting to acquire.
Thankfully for those hysterians (not quite the same as historians, because Iran already has da bomb, mind you, that was not a normal earthquake and you know it) Germany just opened a conspiracy theory turn-in-your-loved-ones-to-the-Regime center, not Orwellian at all. I'll call right away on their behalf, because they're conspiracy-theorizing about Iran capabilities beyond reason, what part of "magic ayatollah fatwa protects us" don't they understand?
That was a normal earthquake. Iran does not have the bomb. Provide evidence (e.g., elevated radiation readings) if you think otherwise.
It was not “normal” in any way: it was identical to the Pakistan bomb test and happened in a low seismicity area. Believe what you wish but I’m positive that Iran already has the bomb, that the USA knows it and that the only thing left is to make it official.
So you believe that they just ignored the fatwa of the highest religious leader in that theocrat-led nation for no discernible benefit? What on earth is your reasoning for such an extreme claim? And what, if any, is the factual basis behind it? (If it's not just simple racist bigotry.)
Yes. Maybe even got a “secret fatwa” or they just ignored the boss, the Iranian Army is actively demanding an end to the fatwa anyhow. Religion is just ideology, it does not really bind the higher ups, it’s only for the unwashed masses.
The “unwashed masses” have a lot more power in Iran than in the west.
Not really: Iran is pretty much like Franco’s Fascism, which was called “organic democracy” at some point. Household heads (mostly men) could vote for either of the pre-selected candidates, just like in Iran. Also it was all in the name of God and the Fatherland, including when you got kidnapped and tortured by the police.
We too have preselected candidates and all the rest except the head of household part.
But voter participation is not high anyway. All in the name of God, freedom and democracy.
That’s true or at least true-ish. The US “democracy” is not very democratic TBH.
"Believe what you wish…"
As it seems your claim is a belief in and of itself, with "belief" defined along the religious meaning of "a position held despite a lack of evidence OR held against evidence to the contrary."
There are three possible positions here :
1. "The IRI does possess a functional nuclear weapon." This is a positive claim (your claim) and requires evidence to support it.
2. "The IRI does NOT possess a functional nuclear weapon." This is also a positive claim (that of the IAEA & American intelligence agencies) and also requires evidence to support it. And is a difficult position because it intends to prove a negative, which is problematic.
3. "I do not believe the claim that the IRI possesses a functional nuclear weapon." This is my position.
As "IRI does NOT possess" (#2) is the null-state of the question, I must address your positive claim (#1) and conclude that you (and/or your position) have not yet provided me sufficient evidence to hold confidence that it is true.
If you provide compelling evidence, I'll hold confidence that your position is tentatively correct.
Until then, I'm not saying the IRI is "innocent" of possessing a functional nuclear weapon; I'm saying that I find the IRI "not-guilty" of possessing such a device based on the evidence presented so far.
Evidence is there in the form of the “earthquake” at the right time and getting exactly the right reaction from the USA. You can believe what you want.
My confidence in a proposition is proportionate to the demonstrable, verifiable evidence that concords with Reality.
“Belief” is a colloquial term of no value here.
I’m not interested in persuading you, that’s what I meant by “believe what you will”. I stated the facts and, after that, your judgement is yours, I can’t decide for you.
You stated assertions absent any direct citation of evidence.
I'm fine with the claim there was an earthquake in the IRI. That's a mundane claim, earthquakes happen all the time.
You make the assertion that it was not an earthquake and/or it was a seismic wave from a nuclear detonation.
Provide the link to the reputable scientific journal where a peer-reviewed geological paper demonstrates conclusively that the seismic activity in question is concordant with and exclusively the result of a nuclear explosion.
If you do not have that, stop asserting a baseless claim as fact (or "informed opinion"). It isn't; and to call it a fact without supporting evidence, is lying.
[End of the conversation]
I appreciate your honesty.
IAEA is nothing but a Zionist front with evil agenda dictated by US hawks and Israel along the way with US main stream media…! Too many lies and eventual pressure may force Iran to quit NPT which they should…!
It's impossible that the IAEA knows how much uranium Iran has. I'd like to see an IAEA report on how much uranium Israel has.
This is simply propaganda for the purpose of making war.
"It's impossible that the IAEA knows how much uranium Iran has" So it is possible Iran has weapon grade uranium.
It is possible USA has weapon grade uranium too, so what is your issue, to trust the USA to act responsible?
I must say, I do NOT trust the demented people in DC at all.
I do trust the level headed people in Teheran more.
Well we do have a nut job running the show in DC right now. I can not argue with that.
False.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) AND to the Additional Protocols, and has been open as required to IAEA inspections with few, if any, violations of expected compliance.
It serves the IRI in several ways, to disclose what enrichment % and what mass thereof, they possess.
The Apartheid State of Israel, on the other hand, is NOT a declared nuclear power, is NOT a signatory to the NPT or AP, has NEVER been inspected by the IAEA and its enriched nuclear materials AND active warhead numbers are estimates only (with Uncertainty Bars damn-near wider than those for estimates of asteroid 2024 YR4's approach to the Earth-Moon system)
Does the IAEA know how much the USA has or just a hint how much good old Israel has?
The Iranians are not known to be liars, not like the liars in DC and Tel Aviv.
"60% enriched uranium is still well short of weapons grade uranium" "Well short" is not accurate. A "short step away" from making a bomb is correct.
A bomb can be made from 80%. See Hiroshima.
After months of further enrichment with a higher quality of centrifuge than they currently have.
No, enriching to 90% does not require a higher quality centrifuges. And enriching from 60 to 90% requires a lot less work and time than going from .7% to 60%.
And gunpowder can be made from base compounds like in that 'Star Trek : TOS' episode where Kirk fought the m.f.-ing Gorn.
That does not mean the resulting product (primitive cannon, or '40s vintage Atomic Bomb) will a) actually be of quality, b) actually work as intended, or c) be worth "half-assing" when more work and actual effort would generate a finished product ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better and more useful.
If one can make a 40s vintage grade bomb using 80% U-235, one can also make a more modern bomb out of 80% if desired. 90% is simply more bang for the buck. That is all.
Then skip a step and manufacture a conventional "dirty bomb" with Cesium-137 or another nasty isotope the IRI can already produce in abundance from nuclear medicine programmes it already has. Not a "nuclear bomb" by any definitions; a "radiological dispersion" absent any fission or fusion.
Let's focus on the more important point. Like states don't have a right to exist but impose their will, states can get nuclear weapons and others states can try to stop them. The revolution has been in place since 1989. If they wanted to get nuclear weapons they could have gooten them eralier, and if they decide to get them now they should pull out of the treaty and do that. Iran has been surrounded by US bases for decades. What it does in self defense is what it should do.
@ikester8:disqus@cjgeek:disqus@disqus_qhuce9v5DO:disqus@luisaldamiz:disqus@disqus_5AaJo0InJu:disqus@brian_bixby:disqus@disqus_JZc6YMs1ou:disqus@renatelittlejohn:disqus@disqus_tPoN2lEkPF:disqus@disqus_Ua0lwP5eay:disqus@unclesapien:disqus@disqus_1I7o7RsPa7:disqus@disqus_yQfZ1jQKBt:disqus
Context and history for perspective.
Jan 13, 2020 A timeline of U.S.-Iran relations The U.S. and Iran have a complicated history dating back decades.
From the U.S. involvement in the shah's 1953 coup of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh, to the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, to the U.S. killing of one of Iran's top generals in January 2020, the U.S. and Iran's conservative religious and political leaders have often found themselves in stark opposition to one another about their visions for both Iran's own future and larger interests in the Middle East.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-timeline-of-u-s-iran-relations
Also, the USA still owes the IRI an F-14 Tomcat.
There's still one owing under the contract the US had with the Shah that the US voided when the Revolution happened.
I'm nothing if not a stickler for details.
I am into details, but not necessarily this one.
Iran appears to be governed by level headed common sense people. Thank God, and I am a secular person.
Iran has never threatened the US and UK in any way, but the USA and UK ruling elite want their mineral resources and they will cut the throats of their own children to get it.
Compared to Christians the Muslims are the better human beings, they still have a soul, we only claim to have a soul.
West calls Iran a theocracy… ignoring Israel which behaves a lot worse…!
Many Americans don't know this, but the original "supreme leader" Khomeini, who was far more universally beloved than his successor who has been in charge since '89, ruled that not only nuclear but also chemical and bio weapons were forbidden under Islam because there's no way to make them kill only combatants. This in the face of Iraq attacking Iran with Chem weapons at the time!
As for these news, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. It does not matter at this stage whether Iran has some nukes or only has the materials, knowhow, and missile tech but has not actually built them. The threat is the same and all know it. So the FOX and CNN types will shout and scream and point and then of course use all this to justify more $$$ down the weapons rathole, which was the point all along. Ain't life grand?
Your first paragraph points to the Islamic position not simply that of Imam Ayatollah Khomeini (may G-d’s mercy be on him), it is the position of Prophet Mohammed (Prayers and Peace be on him).
The Iranian fatwa, a point of Islamic law, against the use of nuclear and chemical weapons remains in place though the current climate has caused growing hardline pressure on the Ayatollah Khamenei for it's rescinding.
As to the nuclear threat level in West Asia Israel's 60-900 nuclear warhead stockpile, Samson Option & variety of Knesset public calls for their use against the Palestinians Israel poses the greater nuclear threat than Iran.
Excellent reporting and an excellent anti war article.
”We are living in a nuclear world but I’m not a nuclear girl!”
89 Seconds to Midnight and the clock is ticking!…
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
One thing that can always be counted on is no matter how bad it gets, the Western media will always strive to make it worse. After all, you can't sell newspapers if you don't 'embellish' the truth a bit.