Iran Nuclear Deal Reached
- Thread starter ONW
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
sailordeac
Well-known member
vadtoy is certainly right about one thing. We have precious little leverage with Iran. Yeah, we can impose economic sanctions but if they feel the issue is important enough, they will learn to live with them and get around them. Let's hope it does not go that way. Other than sanctions we have bombs, which would be the worst choice of all. Consequently, we have appeals to interest (not necessarily a very strong argument here) or threats of sanctions (which are likely to be ineffective) or a counterproductive and unrealistic threat to bomb.
BobStackFan4Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 31,661
- Reaction score
- 1,538
Uh-oh, Chuck Schumer is opposed to the deal.
BobStackFan4Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 31,661
- Reaction score
- 1,538
Schumer says the Senate is gonna try to scuttle the deal by passing new sanctions.
In a statement, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he was “disappointed by the terms of the agreement” and added that the deal “makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December.”
In a statement, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he was “disappointed by the terms of the agreement” and added that the deal “makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December.”
BobStackFan4Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 31,661
- Reaction score
- 1,538
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told NBC News that piling on more sanctions would kill the agreement. “If there are new sanctions, then there is no deal. It’s very clear. End of the deal. Because of the inability of one party to maintain their side of the bargain,” he said. “What I hope is important is that we will all work to a final resolution of this issue. Now we are just taking a first step, the difficult work is ahead of us.”
DeaconOEF/OIFvet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,804
- Reaction score
- 151
And not even two weeks after the news came out on the Saudis purchasing nukes from Pakistan. Huh, what a coincidence...
SkinsNDeacs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 12,384
- Reaction score
- 550
Shocked...can't think of why Schumer would be against this. Someone ask Jesse Jackson if he can think of a reason.
Caturdayredux
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,237
- Reaction score
- 111
Dare I ask...is Obama the best president ever?
vadimivich
Well-known member
I'm not a nuclear policy expert, but I did sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night and all that jazz (basically, I go to dinner parties where I'm the dumbest person in the room by a factor of 10 and just try to listen a lot).
#1 - Iran (unlike Pakistan or India) is a signatory to the NPT, which is the basis to use heavy sanctions against them for failing to meet their treaty obligations. Everything that happens with Iran starts here - the NPT. Iran, however, has not ratified the additional protocol to the NPT (which would give the IAEA much greater monitoring and inspection capabilities through the entire fuel cycle).
#2 - The NPT allows for signatory states to have peaceful nuclear programs for domestic purposes. As a signatory of the NPT, Iran can build and use reactors for energy and research purposes and are guaranteed that right.
#3 - The sticking point begins with the second point. To operate a reactor for commercial power (what is generally called a "light water reactor") you only need to use 5% enriched uranium as fuel, and very few countries actually enrich their own uranium - most simply purchase it from one of the weapon states. There are only 13 states in the world that have the ability to enrich (there are 8 states with active weapons producing programs, for comparison). There is much debate over whether the NPT guarantees the ability to enrich fuel or just to use it, and this has been the key sticking point with Iran. They have maintained they have the right to enrich fuel to just below the break line for "highly enriched uranium" (which is at 20%) with no interference. This is acerbated by the fact that the main research reactor in Iran was provided by the USA in the 1960's and originally required HEU to operate (which was standard for reactors of that era). When the US stopped providing fuel after the revolution, Iran eventually worked with Argentina to redesign the reactor to use LEU at 19.75% enrichment as fuel. The fuel for this reactor has been a tool for Iran pushing for their ability to enrich to 20%.
#4 - Why does fuel enrichment matter? Because the actual process of building a nuclear weapon is fairly doable by any competent industrial nation provided enough time and effort. Hell, North Korea can't keep their lights on at night, but they managed it. They way that the international community has approached non-proliferation is to try and stall the longest parts of the process, so that a state can't build a bomb overnight. Enriching uranium to a high enough % for weapons purposes, in a large enough quantity, is a complicated and time consuming process. If Iran wanted to flip the switch and build a bomb, 20% is much closer to weapons grade than 5% (it's not a linear curve in terms of the process required ... it ramps up rapidly). Iran's insistence on being able to enrich LEU as a basic right meant they were building a large stockpile of raw material they could run to weapons grade much more quickly than is necessary for a purely peaceful program.
#5 - Iran was building a heavy water reactor (Arak or IR-40). While acceptable under the NPT for peaceful purposes (Canada uses them, for example) - heavy water reactors are extremely difficult to monitor compared to LWR. This is for two reasons - the first is that it uses raw uranium for fuel, so the fuel cycle isn't tracked under the NPT. It would be under the additional protocol, which gives the IAEA access to monitor mining and milling ... but Iran hasn't ratified that. Secondly, to remove spent fuel (which is what contains the plutonium you would want for weapons) from a LWR you must shut the reactor down and it's a very identifiable process that is easy to monitor. A heavy water reactor can have fuel added and removed during operation, which means it's nearly impossible to truly monitor effectively. There's a reason that HWR are basically the realm of weapons states only.
#6 - This agreement is a big step because the two biggest proliferation risks are reduced (Arak is shut down for the period of the agreement, and the 20% enriched LEU is being downblended to 5%) ... the time for Iran to "breakout" and build a bomb has been extended. That's huge. Also, by agreeing to downblend to 5% and not enrich above that point Iran has conceded that don't have an absolute right to enrich to the HEU breakpoint of 20%, and any future agreement will almost certainly see them capping enrichment at that 5% point for nuclear power purposes. The research reactor fuel will be treated separately, probably with some sort of fuel provisioning arrangement involving Russia where by Iran is guaranteed fuel to keep that reactor working. Lastly, this agreement basically gives the IAEA Additional Protocol access for the next 6 months (mining, milling and on demand 2 hour notice inspections) - meaning that Iran likely in the near future will fully ratify the AP. All of those are big, big steps in backing Iran further back from being able to build a weapon in the immediate future.
#7 - Final key detail ... Israel is one of only four countries in the world to not have signed the NPT. They do not have a treaty obligation to recognize Iran's right to possess peaceful nuclear power. The United States does (as does every nation in the world other than Israel, India, Pakistan and the South Sudan).
I'm personal friends with a number of IAEA inspectors, National Nuclear Security Agency people and the like. If my Facebook feed and conversations with some of them are any indication, they almost universally think this is a very good first step. It's nothing final by any means, but there is a light at the end of this tunnel, something that nearly everyone doubted even existed a little while back.
#1 - Iran (unlike Pakistan or India) is a signatory to the NPT, which is the basis to use heavy sanctions against them for failing to meet their treaty obligations. Everything that happens with Iran starts here - the NPT. Iran, however, has not ratified the additional protocol to the NPT (which would give the IAEA much greater monitoring and inspection capabilities through the entire fuel cycle).
#2 - The NPT allows for signatory states to have peaceful nuclear programs for domestic purposes. As a signatory of the NPT, Iran can build and use reactors for energy and research purposes and are guaranteed that right.
#3 - The sticking point begins with the second point. To operate a reactor for commercial power (what is generally called a "light water reactor") you only need to use 5% enriched uranium as fuel, and very few countries actually enrich their own uranium - most simply purchase it from one of the weapon states. There are only 13 states in the world that have the ability to enrich (there are 8 states with active weapons producing programs, for comparison). There is much debate over whether the NPT guarantees the ability to enrich fuel or just to use it, and this has been the key sticking point with Iran. They have maintained they have the right to enrich fuel to just below the break line for "highly enriched uranium" (which is at 20%) with no interference. This is acerbated by the fact that the main research reactor in Iran was provided by the USA in the 1960's and originally required HEU to operate (which was standard for reactors of that era). When the US stopped providing fuel after the revolution, Iran eventually worked with Argentina to redesign the reactor to use LEU at 19.75% enrichment as fuel. The fuel for this reactor has been a tool for Iran pushing for their ability to enrich to 20%.
#4 - Why does fuel enrichment matter? Because the actual process of building a nuclear weapon is fairly doable by any competent industrial nation provided enough time and effort. Hell, North Korea can't keep their lights on at night, but they managed it. They way that the international community has approached non-proliferation is to try and stall the longest parts of the process, so that a state can't build a bomb overnight. Enriching uranium to a high enough % for weapons purposes, in a large enough quantity, is a complicated and time consuming process. If Iran wanted to flip the switch and build a bomb, 20% is much closer to weapons grade than 5% (it's not a linear curve in terms of the process required ... it ramps up rapidly). Iran's insistence on being able to enrich LEU as a basic right meant they were building a large stockpile of raw material they could run to weapons grade much more quickly than is necessary for a purely peaceful program.
#5 - Iran was building a heavy water reactor (Arak or IR-40). While acceptable under the NPT for peaceful purposes (Canada uses them, for example) - heavy water reactors are extremely difficult to monitor compared to LWR. This is for two reasons - the first is that it uses raw uranium for fuel, so the fuel cycle isn't tracked under the NPT. It would be under the additional protocol, which gives the IAEA access to monitor mining and milling ... but Iran hasn't ratified that. Secondly, to remove spent fuel (which is what contains the plutonium you would want for weapons) from a LWR you must shut the reactor down and it's a very identifiable process that is easy to monitor. A heavy water reactor can have fuel added and removed during operation, which means it's nearly impossible to truly monitor effectively. There's a reason that HWR are basically the realm of weapons states only.
#6 - This agreement is a big step because the two biggest proliferation risks are reduced (Arak is shut down for the period of the agreement, and the 20% enriched LEU is being downblended to 5%) ... the time for Iran to "breakout" and build a bomb has been extended. That's huge. Also, by agreeing to downblend to 5% and not enrich above that point Iran has conceded that don't have an absolute right to enrich to the HEU breakpoint of 20%, and any future agreement will almost certainly see them capping enrichment at that 5% point for nuclear power purposes. The research reactor fuel will be treated separately, probably with some sort of fuel provisioning arrangement involving Russia where by Iran is guaranteed fuel to keep that reactor working. Lastly, this agreement basically gives the IAEA Additional Protocol access for the next 6 months (mining, milling and on demand 2 hour notice inspections) - meaning that Iran likely in the near future will fully ratify the AP. All of those are big, big steps in backing Iran further back from being able to build a weapon in the immediate future.
#7 - Final key detail ... Israel is one of only four countries in the world to not have signed the NPT. They do not have a treaty obligation to recognize Iran's right to possess peaceful nuclear power. The United States does (as does every nation in the world other than Israel, India, Pakistan and the South Sudan).
I'm personal friends with a number of IAEA inspectors, National Nuclear Security Agency people and the like. If my Facebook feed and conversations with some of them are any indication, they almost universally think this is a very good first step. It's nothing final by any means, but there is a light at the end of this tunnel, something that nearly everyone doubted even existed a little while back.
Last edited:
vadimivich
Well-known member
This has been an international effort, focusing solely on the United States as a driver of this is off base. Russia, France, UK, China and Germany have had a huge part to play as well as the various international agencies (IAEA, etc).
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
vad:nukes::CH:insurance
NPR interviewed a person this morning who is an Iran expert for the UN or World Bank or something and she described how crippling the sanctions currently are. Apparently the big hit was when the EU last year joined the oil embargo and also cut off Iran's access to European banking. They could defy the US embargo and sanctions (albeit not without pain) but when the EU joined in it got real painful, real fast. 40% inflation, the middle class can't afford to buy meat kind of painful. So they came to the table and per Vad made some serious concessions.
I hope the Israel lobby in the Senate doesn't screw this up. The Israelis have never understood that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
NPR interviewed a person this morning who is an Iran expert for the UN or World Bank or something and she described how crippling the sanctions currently are. Apparently the big hit was when the EU last year joined the oil embargo and also cut off Iran's access to European banking. They could defy the US embargo and sanctions (albeit not without pain) but when the EU joined in it got real painful, real fast. 40% inflation, the middle class can't afford to buy meat kind of painful. So they came to the table and per Vad made some serious concessions.
I hope the Israel lobby in the Senate doesn't screw this up. The Israelis have never understood that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
BobStackFan4Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 31,661
- Reaction score
- 1,538
Based on what Schumer said I think you're gonna see Repubs and Dems come together and pass new sanctions and destroy the deal.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,273
- Reaction score
- 6,402
vad just pwned this entire thread. That was outstanding, and provided a bunch of info that most of us likely didn't know.
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
Good post by vad. Seems in line with most of what I've read/heard about Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
NPR has done a really good job breaking this stuff down over the years.
NPR has done a really good job breaking this stuff down over the years.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,628
- Reaction score
- 22,649
And won't know through US media focused on the 6 months narrative.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,273
- Reaction score
- 6,402
Sadly, most voters would simply ignore the facts if they were presented to them. All they seem to care about is that some Mooslims might get nukes and we are all doomed if it happens.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,628
- Reaction score
- 22,649
All too true. This is one of the most optimistic things we've seen out of the Middle East in a long time and it won't happen due to fearmongering in the Israel lobby and obstructionism.