under the Democrats, the JCPOA has been stripped of most of it's power :(

[peacefan]

Iran approaches the nuclear threshold

As hopes for restoring the Iran nuclear deal fade, Iran is faced with a choice: breakout (build nuclear bombs) or hedge (approach but do not cross the nuclear threshold). Which will Iran choose? And how will the Gulf states and the West respond?

www.iiss.org

...

Rapid enrichment​

The IAEA defines the amount of nuclear material necessary for a nuclear weapon as a ‘significant quantity’ (SQ) or the ‘approximate amount of nuclear material for which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive device cannot be excluded’. An SQ is 25 kilograms of uranium enriched to contain 20% or more of the U-235 isotope. The IAEA estimated in its most recent quarterly report that, as of 21 August 2022, Iran possessed over 13 SQs of uranium enriched beyond 20% U-235, including more than two SQs of 60%-enriched uranium (the level needed to build a simple, compact nuclear bomb). (Under the 2015 JCPOA, Iran’s enrichment was capped at just under 4% U-235, allowing it to continue operating a light-water research reactor, which uses fuel enriched from 1.5–4% U-235.)

In response to the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran announced a series of incremental steps towards higher levels of uranium enrichment. It now possesses more material, technology (in the form of advanced centrifuges used for enrichment) and weaponisation know-how than it had prior to the deal. At the same time, Iran’s relationship with the IAEA has become more contentious as it has violated agreements it made under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol. The Additional Protocol, which Iran has implemented but not ratified, prohibits states from possessing undeclared nuclear material. In 2015, the IAEA completed its investigation into undeclared military activities in Iran since 2003. Subsequently, the IAEA detected the presence of uranium at three previously undeclared sites. The agency has not been able to verify the ‘correctness or completeness’ of Iran’s safeguards compliance because it has not yet received a credible explanation from Tehran about the current whereabouts of the radioactive material from these sites.

Iran previously agreed to a plan to resolve this issue, but it is now no longer cooperating with the IAEA, including on the interim monitoring measures. At the same time, the IAEA has determined that Iran has enriched uranium up to a level of 60% and has continued to install centrifuges to increase its enrichment capacity – activities that are not compatible with its declared enrichment goals. Iran itself stated that it had achieved one SQ of uranium enriched to 60% U-235 in November 2021. Given the number of new centrifuges that have begun operating since then, Iran could further enrich the two SQs of 60%-enriched uranium it possessed in August 2022 to a level of +90% within weeks. These technical realities have had a paralysing effect on the Vienna negotiations to bring Iran back to previous JCPOA limits.

Red lines​

In its September report, the IAEA Board of Governors stated that ‘the Agency is not in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful’. While this declaration relates to Iran’s undeclared nuclear activities, the IAEA’s findings, combined with Iran’s continued enrichment activity beyond one SQ, means that Iran now possesses the material and know-how to build its own nuclear weapons. This conclusion raises the question: when will the international community consider Iran to be a nuclear-threshold state? And what are the implications of such a determination?

Israel has said its red line is Iranian ‘capability’ to build a nuclear weapon, but it is unclear whether Israel considers Tehran to have crossed this line. Israel has not yet reacted with kinetic strikes, which suggests that the red line could be Iran obtaining one SQ of nuclear material enriched to +90%; converting enriched uranium into metal, which is necessary to create a bomb; or fashioning the metal into a ‘pit’, which forms the core of a bomb.

Considering Iran’s refusal to answer questions related to the IAEA safeguards investigation, future talks regarding Iran’s nuclear programme will need to be sensitive to these new political realities. For now, Iran may be planning to stop at a certain number of SQs of 60% U-235. Given its unwillingness to admit to any former wrongdoing, however, its intention to produce weapons cannot be ruled out. Negotiations may convince Iran to convert existing stocks of 60% U-235 for other uses (e.g., for medical isotopes). The worst-case scenario would be for Iran to continue enrichment until it acquires one SQ or more of +90% U-235, further reducing its already-negligible breakout time.

If future talks adjust their aims to accommodate Iran’s new status, what particular threshold – enrichment, quantity, metallurgy, a finished warhead, more than one warhead or a nuclear test – would be set? Regardless, transparency measures would be required to provide confidence that Iran remains below the new threshold status. The regional reaction to Iran being permitted to move even closer to nuclear-weapon capability would pose serious political risks. The US would have little choice but to provide new security assurances to dissuade states from taking matters into their own hands – especially regarding their own nuclear status, given the regional interest in access to nuclear power-generation technologies. Countries outside the region with similar security conundrums might also find it useful to draw closer to a threshold status, especially ones with previous undeclared nuclear weapons programmes, such as Taiwan and South Korea.
...

in essence, i am one of the founders of the JCPOA[1], and i'm now concerned that the JCPOA has been eroded over time far too much, primarily by the Democrats in the USA, who failed to see Muslim feigned friendliness as the severe threat that it secretly is.
i believe that with our withdrawal from Afghanistan, we must be willing and able to teach the lessons of humility and good neighborly behavior to yet another Muslim country (Iran) that direly needs it - just like the Taliban in Afghanistan needed to be shown that it's not OK to harbor terrorists.
since we are busy in Ukraine and soon Taiwan as well, i believe it's best to let the Israelis handle the Iranians, with our (US+EU+Allies) full support.

[1] Of Western Media Hype and Iran in 2006, news of an imminent US invasion of Iran was all over my news screens; i was already watching US mass media news almost exclusively.
but because of my online forums work against muslim terrorism recruiters, i went onto compuserve.com (as user peacefularg - peaceful argument) and advocated intensively against that invasion.
my reasoning was simple : the gazillions of Muslims and Muslimas living in Europe would go beserk if the US were to invade one Muslim country after another - online terrorist recruiters actually might find viable candidates for their filth.
but my last steps (on defence.pk/forums as user peacegen) was to explain to the people there that a retreat from Afghanistan was no disgrace at all.
it was a show of wisdom and mercy.
and that we would be back if the Taliban ever took up harboring terrorists again.

 

[Moonglow]

Do you think their one nuke will be able to handle our thousands?

 

[peacefan]

Do you think their one nuke will be able to handle our thousands?

even 1 or 2 nukes in the hands of an openly hostile Muslim nation would be unacceptable to me.

 

[Moonglow]

even 1 or 2 nukes in the hands of an openly hostile Muslim nation would be unacceptable to me.

They said the same thing about Pakistan, yet, here we are thirty years later and nothing.

 

[peacefan]

They said the same thing about Pakistan, yet, here we are thirty years later and nothing.

Pakistan never publicly desired the end of one of it's neighbors. Iran does.

 

[peacefan]

please note, i'm not calling for a regime change mission for Iran.
that would create too much upheaval.

i believe that stiffer sanctions until Iran complies with the original JCPOA criteria as defined by the West are in order.
that's right, the 'Trump plan'.

 

[Moonglow]

Pakistan never publicly desired the end of one of it's neighbors. Iran does.

That is not what Pakistan thought of India.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons development was in response to the loss of East Pakistan in 1971's Bangladesh Liberation War. Bhutto called a meeting of senior scientists and engineers on 20 January 1972, in Multan, which came to be known as "Multan meeting".

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia​

 

[Mushroom]

in essence, i am one of the founders of the JCPOA[1], and i'm now concerned that the JCPOA has been eroded over time far too much, primarily by the Democrats in the USA, who failed to see Muslim feigned friendliness as the severe threat that it secretly is.

It was always 100% worthless, and had absolutely no standing legally. It was not a treaty, it was not legally binding in any way, shape, or form on either Iran or any of the other countries.

It was never anything but a "feel good" piece of paper. Even more worthless than the Munich Agreement, and we all know how effective that was.

 

[peacefan]

It was always 100% worthless, and had absolutely no standing legally. It was not a treaty, it was not legally binding in any way, shape, or form on either Iran or any of the other countries.

It was never anything but a "feel good" piece of paper. Even more worthless than the Munich Agreement, and we all know how effective that was.

it kept the Iranians safe from regime change for the past 17 years, but it did need constant upkeep, like all international relations do.

 

[peacefan]

That is not what Pakistan thought of India.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons development was in response to the loss of East Pakistan in 1971's Bangladesh Liberation War. Bhutto called a meeting of senior scientists and engineers on 20 January 1972, in Multan, which came to be known as "Multan meeting".

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia​

loss of territory can be considered a valid reason to be developing your own nukes.
Iran suffered no such loss, and is not projected to lose territory.

 

[Moonglow]

loss of territory can be considered a valid reason to be developing your own nukes.
Iran suffered no such loss, and is not projected to lose territory.

I am sure that Iran will use scrutiny with its maybe one nuke.

 

[peacefan]

I am sure that Iran will use scrutiny with its maybe one nuke.

Iran has long standing regional empirical ambitions.
they'd use the threat of their 'few nukes' to stave off regime change, while they become a bigger and bigger problem in the region.
plus, we're looking at nuclear proliferation in that Muslim-rich region if Iran gets the bomb.

 

[Moonglow]

Iran has long standing regional empirical ambitions.
they'd use the threat of their 'few nukes' to stave off regime change, while they become a bigger and bigger problem in the region.
plus, we're looking at nuclear proliferation in that Muslim-rich region if Iran gets the bomb.

Yet which country is a superpower with universal ambitions that has used nukes on humans when at peace? You do understand that since Muhammad died there has been a rift between Muslims that causes them to fight each other?

 

[peacefan]

Yet which country is a superpower with universal ambitions that has used nukes on humans when at peace? You do understand that since Muhammad died there has been a rift between Muslims that causes them to fight each other?

thank God no country has done that yet.
and yes, i'm aware of the Shia vs Sunni conflicts.

 

[Moonglow]

thank God no country has done that yet.
and yes, i'm aware of the Shia vs Sunni conflicts.

The US has done that to civilians and military members during peacetime.

 

[Mushroom]

it kept the Iranians safe from regime change for the past 17 years

One of the most nonsensical statements I have ever read in here.

 

[DudleySmith]

Biden is bribing the Iranians with pallet loads of cash, and for no agreements at all, just hoping they won't do anything to make him look bad before the election cycle.

 

[DudleySmith]

The US has done that to civilians and military members during peacetime.

You and your fellow deviants should emigrate from this evil hellhole.

 

[Moonglow]

Biden is bribing the Iranians with pallet loads of cash, and for no agreements at all, just hoping they won't do anything to make him look bad before the election cycle.

Pictures or it didn't happen.

 

[Moonglow]

You and your fellow deviants should emigrate from this evil hellhole.

Why, I am perfectly happy in this hellhole.