4 ms·

> To mark the event and send a message to its negotiating partners, technicians at Natanz began to operate a small batch of IR-6 centrifuges as well. The majori

> To mark the event and send a message to its negotiating partners, technicians at Natanz began to operate a small batch of IR-6 centrifuges as well. The majority of centrifuges at Natanz are a model known as IR-1, which is much less efficient at enriching uranium than the IR-6 design. The nuclear agreement signed with Iran in 2015 (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) limited it to using only IR-1 centrifuges, so the installation of the IR-6s is widely seen as a provocation designed to give Iran leverage in the revived talks. To add to the tension, Iran has been enriching uranium gas to 20 percent since the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement two years ago. Prior to this, it was enriching uranium to 3 to 5 percent. The higher levels put Iran closer to the 90 percent enrichment that is needed for nuclear weapons, all of which raises the stakes for Israel. Why should anyone believe they are pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program when they do things like this? Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it.

eunos 6y ago
Leverage for the next JCPOA.
- CivBase 6y ago
  Could you elaborate on what kind of leverage this gives them? Does anyone doubt they had the capability to employ more efficient centrifuges and enrich uranium beyond 20% prior to this. How does choosing to actually do those things benefit them in negotiations? If the criminal in a hostage situation starts shooting their hostages, does that give them leverage in negotiations? I would think it just devalues their hostages and gives the police more incentive to shoot before things get worse.
  - eunos 6y ago
    In this case the prev-police broke a promise with the criminal, while the criminals held other VVIP hostages. Current police hates the prev-police , but thats fait accompli. In addition unlike irreversible killings, they can freeze high enrichment as leverage. Of course both party must let IAEA do the works.
geoduck14 6y ago
They probably want 1 bomb so they can join the elite group of countries that make big decisions at the UN.
bosswipe 6y ago
Trump violated the JCPOA first. Why should Iran hold up their side of a broken agreement? The JCPOA was working fine but Netanyahu didn't like it because he wants to destabilize Iran.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > Why should Iran hold up their side of a broken agreement? Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with. The US essentially just said they would tolerate an Iranian nuclear program so long as it adhered to a set of guidelines which assured Iran was being honest about their goal of pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program. The US was providing Iran an incentive to keep its word. For better or for worse, that incentive was removed. But that doesn't mean Iran is incentivized to go against its word. Continuing to adhere to those guidelines would help build trust from the rest of the world that Iran really just wanted a nuclear energy program. Instead, their recent actions only continue to build distrust.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with. Your somewhat understanding things. It definitely was an agreement, passed by the UN, the EU, and thus somewhat the US. The disagreement is whether a congressional vote is necessary as well, which most UN agreements don't require but allow for congress to vote against them. There weren't enough senators against the agreement for that to happen, but because there weren't enough to vote in favor of it either Trump's team argued it wasn't an official treaty. So whether it was an official agreement is somewhat unclear, but your description that it was an ad-hoc trust building exercise is not correct.

eunos 6y ago

Leverage for the next JCPOA.

CivBase 6y ago
Could you elaborate on what kind of leverage this gives them? Does anyone doubt they had the capability to employ more efficient centrifuges and enrich uranium beyond 20% prior to this. How does choosing to actually do those things benefit them in negotiations? If the criminal in a hostage situation starts shooting their hostages, does that give them leverage in negotiations? I would think it just devalues their hostages and gives the police more incentive to shoot before things get worse.
- eunos 6y ago
  In this case the prev-police broke a promise with the criminal, while the criminals held other VVIP hostages. Current police hates the prev-police , but thats fait accompli. In addition unlike irreversible killings, they can freeze high enrichment as leverage. Of course both party must let IAEA do the works.

geoduck14 6y ago

They probably want 1 bomb so they can join the elite group of countries that make big decisions at the UN.

bosswipe 6y ago

Trump violated the JCPOA first. Why should Iran hold up their side of a broken agreement? The JCPOA was working fine but Netanyahu didn't like it because he wants to destabilize Iran.

CivBase 6y ago
> Why should Iran hold up their side of a broken agreement? Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with. The US essentially just said they would tolerate an Iranian nuclear program so long as it adhered to a set of guidelines which assured Iran was being honest about their goal of pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program. The US was providing Iran an incentive to keep its word. For better or for worse, that incentive was removed. But that doesn't mean Iran is incentivized to go against its word. Continuing to adhere to those guidelines would help build trust from the rest of the world that Iran really just wanted a nuclear energy program. Instead, their recent actions only continue to build distrust.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Because - and correct me if I'm misunderstanding things - so far as I can tell it wasn't really an "agreement" to begin with. Your somewhat understanding things. It definitely was an agreement, passed by the UN, the EU, and thus somewhat the US. The disagreement is whether a congressional vote is necessary as well, which most UN agreements don't require but allow for congress to vote against them. There weren't enough senators against the agreement for that to happen, but because there weren't enough to vote in favor of it either Trump's team argued it wasn't an official treaty. So whether it was an official agreement is somewhat unclear, but your description that it was an ad-hoc trust building exercise is not correct.