Iranian Affairs

Scorpion

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,006
Reactions
2,127 25
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
Iran Third step of reducing its JCPOA ( Iran nuclear deal ) commitments is 20% uranium enrichment

Iran says next option is 20% uranium enrichment

Saudi Arabia will then fir its first nuclear missiles.
 

Persian Gulf

MEMBER
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
267
Reactions
81 1
Country
Iran
Location
United Kingdom
Saudi Arabia will then fir its first nuclear missiles.
Iran enriched at 20% before and Saudi didn't fire anything.

Regardless, Saudi Arabia is far away from being able to develop nuclear weapons let alone have the means to deliver them (their Chinese BMs were pre-approved by the US on condition that they cannot deliver nuclear warheads and Saudi BM programme is in very very early stages). As far as I know KSA doesn't have any centrifuges or serious nuclear energy infrastructure yet...

You don't seem to understand how enrichment works, 20% is still very far away from nuclear weapons grade uranium.

If KSA wants to agree to a set of limitations on its nuclear programme akin to the JCPOA that it is welcome to do so.

so what makes Iran violate the deal then?
Question based on false premise. Iran's non-compliance is in response to EU's non-compliance and is thus permitted (i.e. not a 'violation') pursuant to Articles 25 and 36 of the JCPOA. Hence why the other parties (the EU, UK, Germany, France, Russia and China) haven't called for a meeting of the joint commission/UNSC to discuss any 'breach'/'violation' of the deal by Iran.

Should also note that Iran's steps that are being dishonestly portrayed as violations are a direct result of US sanctions. For example, under the deal Iran is supposed to export its excess heavy water out of the country. Recent US sanctions ban Iran from doing this, thus Iran exceeded the limit of heavy water it was permitted to keep within the country.
 
Last edited:

Scorpion

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,006
Reactions
2,127 25
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
Iran enriched at 20% before and Saudi didn't fire anything. You don't seem to understand how enrichment works, 20% is still very far away from nuclear weapons grade uranium.

If KSA wants to agree to a set of limitations on its nuclear programme akin to the JCPOA that it is welcome to do so.


Question based on false premise. Iran's non-compliance is in response to EU's non-compliance and is thus permitted (i.e. not a 'violation') pursuant to Articles 25 and 36 of the JCPOA. Hence why the other parties (the EU, UK, Germany, France, Russia and China) haven't called for a meeting of the joint commission/UNSC to discuss any 'breach'/'violation' of the deal by Iran.

Should also note that Iran's steps that are being dishonestly portrayed as violations are a direct result of US sanctions. For example, under the deal Iran is supposed to export its excess heavy water out of the country. Recent US sanctions ban Iran from doing this, thus Iran exceeded the limit of heavy water it was permitted to keep within the country.
You are missing my point. If Iran reaches a point where it is so close to passing the red line of enrichment, Saudi Arabia will fire its nuclear missiles.

How is the EU non-compliant? What country did violate the JCPOA deal other than US pulling out?
 

Persian Gulf

MEMBER
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
267
Reactions
81 1
Country
Iran
Location
United Kingdom
You are missing my point. If Iran reaches a point where it is so close to passing the red line of enrichment, Saudi Arabia will fire its nuclear missiles.

How is the EU non-compliant? What country did violate the JCPOA deal other than US pulling out?
Saudi Arabia doesn't have nuclear material for a warhead or a delivery system, so no. Iran's "nuclear program" began in the late 1960s and now extends to dozens of nuclear facilities spread across the country (uranium mines, research centres, enrichment facilities, heavy water facility etc etc) and the ability to domestically produce and test increasingly large, complex and efficient centrifuges. This didn't come overnight - this is the result of decades of investment and learning. The point is that KSA can do this too but it cannot just jump from having virtually no nuclear infrastructure or experience to having "nuclear missiles" in a click of the finger.

As for non-compliance, the first thing to note is that there is no black and white in this area. I am a lawyer and detailed contracts can span hundreds of pages in length, with provisions stipulating each party's rights and obligations in the event of certain circumstances (e.g. non-performance by one party). However, very often the meaning of each word in such contracts can be subject to lengthy and expensive arbitration/court proceedings. So there is no right or wrong answer here necessarily, just points of view and arguments.

Article 26 JCPOA:
Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
This alone is enough to justify Iran's non-compliance.

The case for the EU's non-compliance is more murky, but it exists. Article 28 JCPOA:
The E3/EU+3 and Iran commit to implement this JCPOA in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere, based on mutual respect, and to refrain from any action inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent of this JCPOA that would undermine its successful implementation.
Iran interprets this as requiring the EU to maintain an economic relationship with Iran. Arguably, in failing to adequately protect its companies from the extra-territorial reach of unilateral US sanctions, and failing to operationalise INSTEX for non-sanctioned trade, the EU is not living up to this expectation.

Regardless, Article 26 alone is sufficient to justify Iran's steps to scale back compliance with the deal (and these steps are meant to encourage the EU to take stronger steps to preserve the JCPOA).
 

Persian Gulf

MEMBER
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
267
Reactions
81 1
Country
Iran
Location
United Kingdom
Russia's response to the US calling for a meeting to discuss the JCPOA at the IAEA:

"The initiative to convene this extraordinary session came from the United States — the country that has declared the JCPOA to be a 'terrible deal' and took the path of its destruction," he said. "In practice, it turns out that Washington is aware of the importance of the plan and is seeking its full implementation. Although for some reason, they only refer to Tehran." (Ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov)

 

Persian Gulf

MEMBER
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
267
Reactions
81 1
Country
Iran
Location
United Kingdom
The Administration’s Futile Flailing On Iran

"The administration went to the IAEA board in order to be seen doing something about an Iranian nuclear issue the administration itself has stirred up, and it has no better ideas on what to do. It is flailing in trying to get out of a box of its own making, and it sees no way to get out—other than the way it refuses to admit, which would be to reverse its own action that built the box in the first place. Everything else that has ensued in what has become perceived as a nuclear crisis with Iran is clearly, wholly, directly, and unsurprisingly the result of the Trump administration reneging on U.S. obligations under the JCPOA. Before that action—and even for a year after that action—Iran was fully complying, as IAEA inspectors have certified, with the agreement’s strict limitations on its nuclear program.

It is self-contradictory, of course, for an administration that has spared no effort in berating the JCPOA and its terms to start expressing great concern about Iran no longer conforming completely with those same terms. Evidently the limits the JCPOA established are useful and important after all, despite what the administration had long been trying to get people to believe.

There is every indication that Iran’s small, incremental, publicly announced, and very reversible exceeding of enrichment limits is designed as counterpressure aimed at restoring complete compliance with the JCPOA.

Trump can still get out of the mess he created if he admits, even if only to himself, that accepting something very close to the JCPOA is the only way out. Otherwise, expect nothing good to come out of an administration posture based on a desire to destroy whatever Trump’s predecessor did, a subcontracting of the administration’s Middle East policies to regional rivals of Iran who have their own reasons to keep it permanently ostracized, and an obsession about Iran that is blatantly inconsistent with the standards the administration applies to other foreign policy problems."


[Good critical analysis of the US strategy on Iran and the JCPOA]
 

Persian Gulf

MEMBER
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
267
Reactions
81 1
Country
Iran
Location
United Kingdom

Persian Gulf

MEMBER
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
267
Reactions
81 1
Country
Iran
Location
United Kingdom
House approves measure to block Trump from launching military strike against Iran

WASHINGTON – The House approved a measure Friday that would bar President Donald Trump from launching a military strike against Iran, setting up a confrontation with the White House over the administration's aggressive stance toward Tehran.

The House proposal – which was added to a sweeping $733 billion defense bill by a vote of 251-to-170 – would bar the Trump administration from using any federal funds for military force "in or against" the Islamic Republic, unless the president receives explicit congressional approval for a strike.

The underlying bill, passed on Friday by a vote of 220-to-197, also includes several other contentious provisions, such as including a one-year ban on the sale of air-to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for use in the Yemen war. The Trump administration has pushed to bypass Congress in selling weapons to the Saudis and the UAE, sparking a bipartisan backlash.

But the Iran provision was the most noteworthy, with more than two dozen Republicans bucking the White House to support the measure.

The Iran vote came a day after the House approved another limit on Trump's foreign policy: an amendment that would force the administration to end U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia's military operations in Yemen.

The twin legislative actions represent a new level of congressional push back against Trump's foreign policy, as Democrats use their House majority to rebuke the president over his aggressive stance toward Iran and his cozy ties with Saudi Arabia.

 

Scorpion

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,006
Reactions
2,127 25
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia doesn't have nuclear material for a warhead or a delivery system, so no. Iran's "nuclear program" began in the late 1960s and now extends to dozens of nuclear facilities spread across the country (uranium mines, research centres, enrichment facilities, heavy water facility etc etc) and the ability to domestically produce and test increasingly large, complex and efficient centrifuges. This didn't come overnight - this is the result of decades of investment and learning. The point is that KSA can do this too but it cannot just jump from having virtually no nuclear infrastructure or experience to having "nuclear missiles" in a click of the finger.

As for non-compliance, the first thing to note is that there is no black and white in this area. I am a lawyer and detailed contracts can span hundreds of pages in length, with provisions stipulating each party's rights and obligations in the event of certain circumstances (e.g. non-performance by one party). However, very often the meaning of each word in such contracts can be subject to lengthy and expensive arbitration/court proceedings. So there is no right or wrong answer here necessarily, just points of view and arguments.

Article 26 JCPOA:


This alone is enough to justify Iran's non-compliance.

The case for the EU's non-compliance is more murky, but it exists. Article 28 JCPOA:


Iran interprets this as requiring the EU to maintain an economic relationship with Iran. Arguably, in failing to adequately protect its companies from the extra-territorial reach of unilateral US sanctions, and failing to operationalise INSTEX for non-sanctioned trade, the EU is not living up to this expectation.

Regardless, Article 26 alone is sufficient to justify Iran's steps to scale back compliance with the deal (and these steps are meant to encourage the EU to take stronger steps to preserve the JCPOA).
Saudi Arabia does not need a nuclear program to fire its missiles. Already Saudi Arabia announced if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will right test its nuclear-capable missiles the very next day.


US and EU companies will not risk US/EU investments to please Iran. This should not be a reason to violate the agreement as those are independent companies and not gov owned ones.
 

Top