Iran’s President Tacitly Admits Iran is Cheating on Nuclear Agreement

Knave Dave's picture

The following article by David Haggith is from The Great Recession Blog:

(Black hole as symbol of negative interest rates policy.) By XMM-Newton, ESA, NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Countering recent US sanctions and President Trump’s talk of ending the “bad” nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran’s president threatened to restart its nuclear program. If his threat is true as stated, he unwittingly admitted something highly supportive of Trump’s position:

 

Mr. Rouhani said that a reconstituted nuclear program would be “far more advanced,” a veiled threat that the country could start enriching uranium up to the level of 20 percent…. “Iran will definitely revert to a far more advanced situation than it had before the negotiations, not in a matter of weeks or months but in a matter of days or hours.” (New York Times)

 

If Iran is capable of ratcheting up its program in a matter of weeks to enrich uranium to 20%, that means it has been purchasing and stockpiling all the equipment it needs to do that because such equipment cannot be built and installed that fast. So, the equipment is “stored” in a manner that is ready to go. That, in itself, probably violates the terms of the agreement (known as the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”).

HOWEVER, there is only one way Iran can have the capability to ratchet up production to “more advanced” levels than it had before the negotiations “in a matter of days or hours.” While I have no expertise in such equipment, it does not strike me as the kind of production process where you push a button, and you’re up and running with 20% enriched uranium coming out the other end in a matter of hours.

The New York Times seems to have missed that little tidbit. In fact, all the mainstream media stories today are missing this. Reuters, the BBC, CBS, the Wall Street Journal and CNN are all reported yesterday that Iran’s president said Iran could abandon the nuclear deal within hours. He did NOT say that. He stated quite plainly that Iran could be in “a more advanced situation” than it had before negotiations within hours — not that it could be out of the deal in that much time, but that it could show itself to be in a more advanced situation than existed before the deal.

CBS News almost got it right. They reported the words of the Iranian president as follows:

 

In an hour and a day, Iran could return to a more advanced (nuclear) levelthan at the beginning of the negotiations” that preceded the 2015 deal, Rouhani said. He did not elaborate.

 

But then they minimized those words in their own reportage to match the rest of the MSM by claiming Rouhani said he could exit the deal in that much time, missing completely the import of their record of his words, which said he could get to a more advanced nuclear level in just that much time. Unlike the rest of the MSM, they did, however, admit,

 

It was not immediately clear what Rouhani was referring to – and whether he meant Iran could restart centrifuges enriching uranium to higher and more dangerous levels.

 

There is a huge difference between what Iran’s president actually said and the way the mainstream media is trying to minimize his words. No doubt the MSM doesn’t want to admit Trump was right when he said during the campaign, “Never ever EVER in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran.”

The words of Rouhani’s nuclear chief below certainly clarify what Rouhani was threatening if some people are finding it difficult to understand (because they don’t want his statement to mean what he appears to have said).

 

What did Iran’s president actually threaten?

 

The head of Iran’s nuclear program made clear that Rouhani did mean 20% enrichment and that Iran would be able to demonstrate that ability in a surprising way:

 

Ali Akbar Salehi, president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the country could go up to 20 percent enrichment to “surprise the Americans.” (from The New York Times article above)

 

The clarification, if it is really needed, is right there in the original story. The MSM just doesn’t want to see it.

It would be no surprise whatsoever to find out that Iran could exit the deal in a day and an hour. It would also be no surprise at all to find out that Iran could build up the resources needed to start enriching uranium to 20%. They’ve already done that in the past. It would, however, certainly be a surprise to many to see 20% uranium being produced in a matter of hours, as that would indicate they were already carrying out such enrichment or that they never got rid of their 20% uranium as the JCPA required, either of which would verify that Trump was right about the agreement being a bad deal.

The only way Iran could now demonstrate production increases to 20% enrichment within hours (or “a day and an hour,” depending on which version of the story you read) is if its equipment is already producing highly enriched uranium so that all Iran would have to do to beat the high levels of enrichment that were known before the negotiations would be to start revealing what they are already producing!

Iran’s existing 20% enrichment fueled the JCPA in the first place. It is why the JCPA required Iran reduce its stock of 3.5% to a level that would not allow it to make enough 20% to become rapidly dangerous. So, how is it that Iran is now able to surprise the Americans with 20% enrichment in “days or hours?”

You can say this is just typical Iranian saber rattling, but since Iran’s president made this statement to the world as an argument against congress’s new sanctions and Trump’s statements that they are violating Obama’s nuclear agreement, I say we take him at his word. It is, after all, his argument as he chooses to make it. His word is that Iran can demonstrate 20% enrichment to the US within hours. (And it’s possible he even meant something more than 20% enrichment. I’m just limiting my understanding of his words to what his top energy dog claimed.)

Prior to the JCPA, Iran was known to already have enough 3.5% in the right gaseous form for further enrichment to make seven bombs if enrichment continued, using the centrifuges Iran already had. So, showing the world some uranium enriched to 3.5% wouldn’t cause anyone to raise an eyebrow because 1) the JCPA already allows that, and 2) it would not be “a far more advanced situation than … before the negotiations.”

In fact, even having some 20% is not a situation that is advanced beyond what existed before the negotiations. Iran already had hundreds of kilograms of 20% enriched uranium prior to the agreement in both solid (fuel) form and gaseous form (ready to be enriched to bomb-grade). That fact alone causes one to lean beyond the nuclear boss’s statement of a surprise at 20%. At 20%, the only surprise could be in how quickly Iran is able to produce that level of enrichment, meaning that the agreement hasn’t curtailed Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

 

How long does uranium enrichment take?

 

The Washington Institute stated just before the nuclear accord was signed that it would take 18,000 centrifuges (the maximum number Iran was known to own before the agreement) only five weeks to turn the 3.5% level of enrichment that Iran is openly allowed under the accord into enough highly enriched uranium (90%) to make a single bomb (27kg enriched to 90%). That is why Iran was also required under the JCPA to reduce its number of available centrifuges to 6,500.

While that is a rapid leap to a bomb, it certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of fast process that would yield a surprise for Americans in a matter of hours. It takes much longer to enrich uranium up to Iran’s allowed 3.5% than it takes to go from 3.5% up to the agreement-violating step of 20%, which is used in research reactors, and then takes very little time and effort to go from 20% to the 90% used for bombs. So, what level is Iran now at that would allow a “surprise” in mere hours?

 

graph of time to enrich uranium to weapons grade

 

The World Nuclear Association states that restarting centrifuges (just restarting, not installing and building) is a costly process. So, even if Iran’s centrifuges were not taken down as required, simply getting them back online sounds like it takes significant time as “costly processes” on the level of production that the World Nuclear Association cares about do not  happen in a few hours. (Only closely mistakes happen that fast.)

An alternative explanation of the Iranian president’s warning would be that Iran, under the cloak of the JCPA, has managed to acquire and stockpile much better equipment than the already advanced equipment it was required to dismantle by the agreement. The JCPA would, indeed, be “a very bad deal” if it allowed Iran to purchase and store more advanced technology than what it had before negotiations and, thereby, reduce its breakout time to a bomb.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Setarcos's picture

So what?  The Iranian leadership would have been unbelievably stupid not to have had contingency plans,in caser the US broke agreements ... as always.

What's wrong with Iran actually wanting to develop nuclear weapons, if it does?  Everyone else has them ... I mean: does anyone seriously imagine that about 1,000 overseas military bases are all nuclear free!!  Australia certainly has nuclear weapons.  At least three military installations are for US use only and all of our so-called "Australian" bases are joint use.  Tell me that things are totally different in Germany, Japan, S Korea, etc..  OK vassal/satrap states do not control the weapons, but that just makes matters worse.  What's to stop some Col Strangelove in the Pentagon, from launching weapons from Darwin and getting Australia targetted?

Kim Jong Un might be a tad odd and might or might not be the real power in N Korea, but whomever is not stupid either, e.g. N Korea is never going to start a war and can never attack the US, but the same can be said for Saddam Hussein and Iraq, Muamar Gadafi and Libya ... and so on.  The plot is unvarying, death and destruction.  So back to Iran.

IF, and it is IF, Iran wants to enrich to weapons grade, so what?  Iran has not gone to war with anyone for over two hundred years, whereas the US has been at almost continuous war for 240 nyears.  Go Iran.  Go Russia.

Knave Dave's picture

Yeah, that's brilliant -- the more nuclear weapons in the hands of maniacal leaders, the better, just because the US has them and Russia has them and the UK, etc.. Therefore, let them proliferate to all countries. Not just nations, but individuals, since in some nations like the DPRK, individuals rule the nation; and why should those individuals, just because they are born into power, be the only ones to have nukes to use as they please. EVERYONE should have a nuke in their own garage in case they need to use it on an unrighteous neighbor. Kim Jung-Un having nuclear weapons would make the world HUGELY safer! (Geeze, people are stupid in the extreme to advocate this stuff.) Let's put more nukes in the hands of religious extremists and in the hands of hate-mongers and even in the hands of oddballs like Kim. And, if Kim, why not in everyone's hands? (I have neighbors that I trust more with a nuke than Kim.)

No one ever said Kim Jong-Un was stupid (though nothing could be stupider than constantly prompting the US toward war). It is as stupid as poking a lion with a stick. It is not exactly as though South Korea has done so horribly by allying itself with the US. It has obviously become vastly richer under that alliance than the north, and its people are obviously far, FAR freer. No, what is said about Kim is that he's a blood-thirsty maniac who brutally kills his own family, so is likely to have much less restraint in killing yours! He ties them to missiles and blows into vapors, Dr.-Strangelove style.

The world would definitely be safer under your plan of letting him get nuclear weapons to tie his family members to.

AGuy's picture

"What's wrong with Iran actually wanting to develop nuclear weapons, if it does? "

it does not seem to me to be a good idea for religious nut-jobs that want to create a "bright flash in the sky ove jerusalem" to bring back a a false prophet of Mohammed back.

"Iran has not gone to war with anyone for over two hundred years,"

Iran has been locked in a religious war with the Sunnis for over a 1000 years. If Iran starts cracking out Nukes, so will the Saudis. Even if Iran does use them, Do you think the Saudis will refrain? And who knows what Israel will do. Back in the 1980's they attacked Iraq to destroy Iraqi Nuclear reactor. I am sure Israel would do a pre-emptive strike.

FWIW: Iran already has a limited number of nukes as the already got it from smuggled in from Russia during early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union and probably more weapons grade from Pakistan. since Pakistan sold them the technology to enrich uranium. This is why the US never attacked Iran. But having just a handful or less nukes isn't enough if you plan to use them for offensive operations.

Even if you think it would be OK for a regional nuclear ware in the Middle east where all the "Bad" guys kill each other. I am sure it will escalate into a full scale war when the US joins in. The US isn't going to idly let them duke it out themselves.

Personally, I think WW3 is inevitable, but I prefer it's delayed as much as possible. My guess is that it happens around 2022, but hopefully it will happen much later.

Setarcos's picture

Did I say OK for regional nuclear war in the ME?  NO I did not.  That is YOUR line of thinking, determined by your grossly incorrect view of Iranians as "religous nut-jobs".

Come off it!  I challenge you to tune in to PressTV some time.  I won't bother to argue with you.  I will simply state that the Iranian leadership is FAR more rational than anyone in Washington DC, excepting Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul and a couple of others I suppose.  Much the same applies for ALL Western leaderships, including Australia, which IS "West" by virtue of the economic and political system, and dominant Europe-derived population.

AGuy's picture

"hat is YOUR line of thinking, determined by your grossly incorrect view of Iranians as "religous nut-jobs"."

yeah they are Religous nut jobs. Anyone that think its OK to Kill people for not following Shari law, or have an different opinion is a nut job. If you think Iran is so wonderful go move there!

"FAR more rational than anyone in Washington DC"

They all suck! Just about every damn country on the planet is full of nut jobs. If not religous than Ideology. Socialism is the same crap as Theocracy. Socialism is just another form of religion. Instead of Worshiping a god, they worship the state and expect the state to deliver them salvation.

Vuke's picture

Who, in their right mind, would not develop nuclear weapons if they became a subject of the U.S. Press?

Your Creator's picture

Now there's a big surprise

EOTS2's picture

The lying fuck Neo-Con Zionist dickhead sympathizer(s?) at ZH strikes again.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

Problem with this article is it rejects reality. It only takes two lines for the article to reveal what it is: US propaganda, which is cheap by design.

What does it focus on? On a scenario. A scenario that is developed in a very linear manner, ignoring inconvenient facts like IAEA inspectors keeping constant watch on Iranian nuclear research and programs, as they have done now since many years.

US citizens come with the same trick over and over again: deflecting the burden of evidences onto the (pre-)convicted. Nobody is holding the cards as suggested by the article. It is non sense. Casting the reality against a hypothetical version of reality has no value save for cheap propaganda.

This US citizen author has crossed the border. Either he wants to write for Hollywood or he can no longer distinguish between reality and his fantasy.

But, hey, this is an American world so this is the kind of stuff you must be drowned with.

Setarcos's picture

Spot on Shemp.  I'll cut Knave Dave some slack, though, by assuming that he is just naive - which he is - and just ordinarily oblivious, like most still are even about 9/11.  Anything more recent and/or complex is just beyond their ken, though some successfully write articles which might as well be US propaganda.

Knave Dave's picture

Ridiculous nonsense on your part. Rouhani said what he said, plain and simple. Nothing made up there. No propaganda in taking someone at their word, and I couldn't care less about supporting one side or the other. Truly couldn't because I'm not even a Trump fan and have always been far from a neocon. I'm anti-establishment only because the present establishment (military-industrial complex, including Wall Street) is so corrupt and self-serving, and I'm against US intervention all over the world. It is time we quit aiming for regime change everywhere and quit nation building and quit overturning legitmately elected democratic governments like the one for which the US sponsored a coup to overthrow in Ukraine. And I've said all of that many times on my blog. So, your words are nonsense.

Denial on your part causes you to ignore the fact that there is no POSSIBLE way Rouhani could "surprise" America with a return to a nuclear STATUS that exceeds what existed before the negotiations and do that in "in an hour and a day" ("less than weeks") UNLESS he is operating WAY outside the joint agreement. Well, there is one alternative: he's a liar and cannot begin to do what he boasts he can with all his saber rattling. But I'm taking him at his word -- no propaganda in that. He said it; not me. I'm willing to believe him, and that means he's way outside the agreement. I'm not going to give him any special latitude for exaggeration.

No country like Iran on earth could possibly move up to Iran's nuclear status as it existed before the negotiations (and even exceed that status as Rouhani boasted) in a matter of hours or a day or two unless that country was already FAR outside the terms and the spirit of this particular agreement already. Are you calling Rouhani a liar for saying he can exceed Iran's nuclear situation as it existed prior to negotiations and do that in a matter of hours? Are you calling him an exaggerator? Or are you going to be willing to accept realities you simply don't want to hear? These are his words, not mine, and I see no reason to grant him special exceptions.

webmatex's picture

Your entire premise is based on what someone said not what the inspectors report.

When someone threatens you, you may wish to present a strong though slightly untruthful argument to dissuade their attack.

Punk: Gimme money and Iphone.

Victim: I'm warning you i am a black belt at karati and those guys over there are my work mates.

I have often used similar tactics in hostile situations to avoid violence as i am not a big guy.

Its a psycological gambit.

I can be pretty nasty if i'm cornered though.

 

Knave Dave's picture

Of course it is. I said that up front and repeated it throughout the article. The article is about what he said.

webmatex's picture

And remember that the U.S. signed up for all the early U.N. treaty for the control and ABOLISHON of nukes (1945, 1946,1948) and a heap of others since and has chosen (often with UK and Israel) to either ignore or break the commitment or to sabatage further resolutions in this direction.

This year 2017 they agreed on a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.

Russia and China have been supportive, U.S. not so much.

Pretty likely that if one day a Planet of the Apes situation arises we all know who, ultimatly was responsible.

Kirk out.

Setarcos's picture

You really are naive, blinkered and devoid of context.  What is wrong with Iran developing nuclear weapons IF they want to?  Actually there is a fatwah against - do some ffing research!  You are seriously in denial!  No country is safe from US aggression if not armed against attack.  Have you never heard of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Russia and at least 50 countries attacked since WW2, NONE of which posed any kind of threat to the US militarily, nor ideologically, nor even economically until recently, e.g. Russia and China gradually dumping the petrodollar.  What is your beef with Iran??  You seem to have a personal issue, rather like some in Tel Aviv do.  

Knave Dave's picture

Really? The more nukes all over the world the better? Even in the hands of religious extremists?

 

Extremism aside, you need to do some research yourself, and your without excuse for having done such a poor job of it. I can agree with you on Libya (Killary Klinton's war); Syria (never attacked the US). Your inclusion of Russia makes no sense as the US has never attacked Russia, unless you are referring to the fact that it empowered the Taliban to hold their own against Russia during the Russian-Afghan war (something the US should not have done); but the US has never attacked Russia. As for Afghanistan, it fully deserved all it got later under the US because it chose to harbor the entirely evil Al Qaeda.

You seem to have a personal issue against the US, rather than I having one against Iran. Here is where you research really falls search. There is a perfect case study right at hand for whether or not a nation needs nukes to protect itself from US attack and whether the US fits the one-sided notion you present (and you can see above that I agree with some of what you've said on that side; in fact, with a fair amount, but it is far from a complete picture and demonstrates biased research on your part). 

The case study is Korea. One nation that was ruled by a dynasty. You could say it was attacked by the US, or you could say the south was defended. Either way, skip ahead to how that turned out. The North is still ruled by the same vile dynasty that manically murders its own family members in the most saddistic ways it can dream up. The South THRIVES.

Is South Korea in danger of being attacked by the US because it doen'st have nukes? It only maintains an army to continue to defend itself against the North. It doesn't even need to defend itself from Japan any more because US protection assures that Japan will never attack it so long as South Korea is an ally of the US. Neither will any other nation attack it ... except the North. So, it is perfectly safe and does not need nukes to guarantee its safety. It is safe because it is playing well with other.

The South prospers while the North does not, even when it is not under sanctions. The south gets to elect its own leaders. The people enjoy human rights, while the peasants of the North live in tyranny. South Korea is autonimous. The US may try to influence it, but only in the manner in which all nations influence each other in trade. The US does not punish it economically or cajole it into cooperation with military threats. South Korea has plenty of internal problems with crime, etc. but it had those problems before the US showed up, and what country doesn't have those problems.

Fact is MOST nations in the world, including those like Mexico that have no nukes and Canada to the north live at peace with the US. They may have ISSUES with the US, but what country doesn't have issues with other countries. They do not ever live in fear of military attack, whether they have nukes or don't. Nations like Venezuela, however, that are filled with violence and whose leaders have shown years of unadulterated hatred toward the US don't fare as well. I don't think the US should get involved in anyway in Venezuela, but it is those kinds of nations where the US does get involved and, in most cases, should not. Very little of South America has faced any military threat from the US, and none of it has nukes or a military that could even in the slightest stand up against the US; but the US lives at peace with most of those nations. We have very good relations with them, travel freely across each other's borders, etc. ( a little too freely in terms of people not respecting US immigration laws, but that has not caused us to go to war in order to enforce our immigration laws; we may build a wall, but that is a completely NON-AGGRESSIVE form of defense -- about as non-aggressive as you can possible be).

So, you present a very one-side picture, even though I agree with your statement about US relations with most of those nations you named. Your one-sidedness shows in your failure to mention Jordan, which is Muslim, Middle Eastern and has a fine relationship with the US or Egypt. There are, of course, lots of people in both of those countries that hate us; but there are penty that don't. The US does not and has not attacked either of those countries, and there are plenty of other countries in the Middle East that the US hasn't attacked. (It did attack the Germans in some of those countries to drive them out; but it has not attacked those nations; just some entanglement in the MIddle East during WWI and WWII to the extent that any of those nations chose to ally with Germany.)

So, the US is far from pure, but the fact is that it is quite easily possible to live in peaceful coexistence with the US without even having a military at all. Do you think Jordan needs a military in order to maintain peaceful relations with the US? Is it Egypts military that keeps the US out of Egypt? The US has its own national interests; so, of course, it sometimes tries to argue with those nations to get its way; but it created along with other allies of WWI the UN as a place for those arguments to happen. Somtimes it pushes its way through; sometimes it does not succeed, but it is no different than any of those nations in trying to influence others toward its self interest.

There are, on the other hand, plent of situation where the US went to war over its self-interests and should not have ... such as in Iraq. I argued against that war with friends from the beginning. I think it was stupid and wrong to get involved there, and I still do. However, such wars typically only happen with the US where the nation is ruled by a dictator who behaves in attorcious ways, as Saddam Hussein did. Clearly, I am not saying we should have gone to war to throw him out; I just said the opposite; but my point is that behaving badly and dangerously and aggressively as Saddam did and as Kim Jung-Un does is exactly what tends to get the US to cross over the line and become aggressive itself. So, maybe, just maybe, Iran's leaders are entirely on the wrong track and if they tried a much more peacable approach toward the US and toward Israel, they'd find they have very good and completely safe relations with the US and are free to even be dictatorships and certainly to be Muslim and to do just about whatever they want ... so long as they are playing nice with those around them. Other nations are playing nice and are doing very well with the US. We get overlay aggressive, but it is USUALLY only with nations ruled by homicidal maniacs or with nations that continually poke us with a stick. Perhaps poking lions with sticks is a stupid game to play, even if the lion should behave himself better.

 

There's a little context for you, so that I won't be devoid of context.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

Still more attempts to stretch an owl on the globe.

Goes unmentioned that since many years Iranian nuclear research and technology are uninterruptedly under observance of IAEA inspectors. That is a point that this author wants to offuscate.

Knave Dave's picture

No, it is simply a point to obvious to need to be pointed out. What is not immediately obvious to people (apparently, given how the MSM is falling all over itself to avoid the conclusion), is that Rouhani just indicated he is breaking the nuclear accord already. That is what needs to be pointed out -- that apparently the well known nuclear inspector have failed because, if we take the leader's words seriously, he is only a day away from having a stronger nuclear program than he had before the JCPA negotiations began. 

Some are saying in his defense that he's just exaggerating. So what? That's his choice. You choose to exaggerate, people have a right to take you at your word anyway. If you choose to say, "You shouldn't have taken what I said to be literally the truth," then you are arguing against your own integrity, so now who cares about anything you claim anyway? You say you are only pursuing nuclear empowerment for peaceful reason, why should I believe me. You just told me you exaggerate in extreme ways. So, maybe you also miminize in extreme ways when it suits your interest.

ebworthen's picture

Those folks in the Middle East are our friends, just ask Constantinople.

Good thing we put the Jews right in the middle of it, some kind of mad genius.

thurstjo63's picture

Dave is really quite knave if he thinks that any country with a nuclear program could not ramp it up and use it to produce nuclear weapons. As all countries with nuclear weapons know, it's the one sure way to keep the US and the Israelis from attacking the country.

AGuy's picture

"As all countries with nuclear weapons know, it's the one "As all countries with nuclear weapons know, it's the one sure way to keep the US and the Israelis from attacking the country."

Never under estimate the gross stupidity of the US gov't. Its only a deterrent for sane/normal people. The US gov't is full of insane people!

If there is a ramp up of production of nuclear weapons in Iran or NK, its likely the US will do a pre-emtive strike regardless. Since they think war is inevitable and that the best option is to limit the amount of damage (ie letting a few cities get destroyed from nuke strikes, than dozens of cities getting hit.

The issue is that I doubt a strike on Iran or NK will be contained. Its very like to go global in a matter of hours.

Knave Dave's picture

You're quite knave yourself if you think any country Iran's size could do that in a couple of days! So, Rouhani is already well on the way there, which means way outside the agreement just as Trump has been saying (and I'm no Trump supporter). Besides, I didn't say he couldn't ramp it up. I said HE COULD. Your reading glasses need adjustment. 

giovanni_f's picture

sure what Rohani meant? Translation by BBC? Same translation "mistake" as with "wiping Israel from the map" (which has never been said)?

Do your homework first and check your sources before loading the burden of verification on your poor readers.

Apart from that, the US has used nuclear weapons already on civilians with the sole purpose to demonstrate to the world, in particular to the Sowjets,  the new American might. Therefore: There is no nation less entitled to lecture any other nation as to what is right or wrong.

Not so difficult to understand this, Yank, is it?

Knave Dave's picture

I'm not a nation, so there is no nation here lecturing anyone. I also do not speak for the US. It has its own diplomats to wage its own arguments.

Iran has many times talked about destorying Israel (shoving them into the sea), whether they used the term "map" or not. (Odd that so many different translators from different news sources in different countries come up with the same translations again and again.)

However, even if they are all in the fake news business, that is irrelevant because NOTHING in my article above said a word about Israel, nor did the article come from any concern about Israel. I was not thinking about Israel in the slightest when I wrote it. Nor did it in any way say whether Iran should or should not have nuclear weapons. Not ONE word about any of that.

(In full disclosure, I don't think Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons, but the US is far from being the only nation that is against Iran getting nukes. FAR from it. Wether they should or should not, however, has NOTHING to do with anything I wrote above where I did not express my opinion on that matter nor indicate which way anyone should go with respect to Iran getting such weapons.)

What my article states is ojbective truth from scientists about how long it would take Iran to get a nuclear weapon IF it chose to do so AND that Iran's president has just said they are only days or hours away from having their nuclear program at the same level as it was before negotiations began. HIS words, and the interpretation of his words was backed up by his own nuclear chief.

The article did not in any way pontificate on what America should do about that (if anything), but merely stated the JCPA has clearly been broken by Iran IF we are to take its president at his own word. If we cannot take words from national leaders on such a hugely important topic as being free from exaggeration, why would we trust their words on anything?

You could argue back, "Well, then why do you trust Trump's words? He exaggerates all the time." Well, case in point: I don't. I think he does exaggerate, and he shoots his mouth off from the hip. So, I don't trust Trump. But that has nothing to do with whether or not Iran can be trusted. Their leader just told the entire world their program is only a few hours short of being more powerful than it was before the nuclear accord. I'm willing to take him at his word, and I think the rest of the world should take him at his word. I'm not willing to defend him if he's lying (exaggerating) about something so important. It was his careful choice to say things as he did. 

veritas semper vinces's picture

What a BS article. Must have been written in Tel Aviv

jfb's picture

yap. You see the difference between the artiles on economy at zh and their crappy sources when it comes to promote a war on Iran. This guy isn't physicist and of course not a nuclear expert, unlike all the inspectors who implicitelly rejected such ridiculous claims in the past, but you see he contributes to Jewish online sources, so he must be an "expert"

veritas semper vinces's picture

Bibi,did you downvote me for speaking the truth?

HowdyDoody's picture

ZH has gone full ZionistHedge. Those bills don't pay themselves.

 

1.21 jigawatts's picture

Yeah but its pretty consistent with (((downvoters))). 

Never more than 2.

YourAverageJoe's picture

Let's stop firing warning shots at them...waste taxpayer funded of ammo.

Go for direct hits.

Winston Churchill's picture

i still don't know exactly what O'Butchers Iran deal was really about.

My suspicion is the very large cash ammount in euros was supposedly payment for the

Iranians to hand over the nukes and mirvs they aquired during the fall of the USSR.

Of course none of the western intelligence agencies were actually quite sure how many they had bought,

even though they absolutely knew that buy they had.

Seems like the USA got double crossed, not so nice when the boot is on the other foot.

They don't need centrifuges, at least not for WMDs.

Why else do you think the Israelis havent't taken them out and need big brother ?

Games within games.

 

Stinkytofu's picture

take 'em out?  no way, bro!

 

iran is the best thing for israel,

keeps the congressional welfare

train running!

giovanni_f's picture

I have a revolutionary idea nobody had before. How about everybody stops producing / keeping nuclear weapons of any kind, including US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel? Wow - that could be it.

HenryKissingerBilderberg's picture

everybody stops producing / keeping

who is going to police, enforce that?
are you proposing a central power? a new world order?

giovanni_f's picture

step by step. First let's all sign that by 2025 all nukes will we outlawed. Any country not comitting to this goal will be excluded from any international agreement and is subject to harsh sanctions. My guess is that Russia will sign but the rogue states  US,Israel, UK,Pakistan, India will not.

P.S: There is always a "world order", like it or not. Let's all hope that things have a chance to become better once the angloimperialist empire gos down the drain.

Knave Dave's picture

The US and Russia have already both signed, and both have reduced their nukes a lot; but they still have a long way to go. Neither country will ever reduce its nukes to nothing so long as other nations have any. In fact, the US is now estimated to have fewer nukes than Russia, though both nations have more than enough to annihilate the world, so their reduction is far from resolving the problem.

It would be great to get to a new definition of ground zero that means zero nukes on the ground (or anywhere); BUT how do we get there? From what I hear people saying, I think most people in the US would like to see that; but very few want to see it happen in a unilateral way, and no one seems to know any way to make it verifiable. Even with the intense scrutiny given to Iran, no one can be certain that they have no nukes. Even many who argue here in Iran's favor, aver that they do have nukes that they absconded.