Iran Nuclear Inspectors Detect Uranium Enriched to 84% Purity

[925boy]

So if we agree that military option is being considered any moment now, and that a casus belli is being sought, dont you think it would accelerate this if Iran were to prematurely announce a departure from NPT and openly announce that it wants to proliferate nukes?

It could accelerate it....in theory....because lets follow that line of thought further- if the West decides to "escalate" on Iran, wtf exacty will they do? Military action. But military action is war and war is logistics, but NATO and US's war logistics at the moment is horrible and degraded, so that automatically gives the military action initiative to countries like Iran and China, which have well trained, motivated, rested, armed, confident, funded armies that can fight any enemy at any time- EU and US have lost that deterrence now.

Surely it would be more cunning to deny everything until it's too late i.e. nukes are locked and loaded. I admit it would be brave for Iran to announce that it intends to build nukes before having any in its arsenal, just not sure if its wise or if it will delay military action.

Iran has probably Law of Attracted military action to its sites, because if not, why is Iran so prepared for that scenario? Also, the west and ISrael fucked up- they have given Iran the AMPLE time needed to develop myriad of sophisticated radars and deploy them across large and important parts of Iran, so that essentially removed the West and Israel's element of Aerial attack surprise.

It would be dumb for US to take on Russia

If US was really able to do this then i would like to know why it needed to use Ukraine to do that.

or China,

with what ammunition?and those rusted boats called Aircraft Carriers? pls dont make me laugh

out of the three Iran is still an easier target relatively speaking.

Easy...on paper....i dont see any real facts that show thats true in reality- US still havent openly or conventionally attacked Iran in over 40 years...same with other countries...those deterrence facts speak for themselves- Iran is a hard nut for99% of countries on earth.= to attack

I'd even say relatively easier than North Korean.

oh i see....nuke strike probably not too bad right?

Also I don't think NATO is short of weapons, at all.

projection - NATO surely is- Stoltenberg admitted it a few times , even yesterday or today, they also ALL had to bandy up together to provide almost enough weapons for Ukraine- NATO is short on weapons.

Ukraine is NATO's waterloo.....no more serious misadventures for NATO after this UKraine war.

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

It could accelerate it....in theory....because lets follow that line of thought further- if the West decides to "escalate" on Iran, wtf exacty will they do? Military action. But military action is war and war is logistics, but NATO and US's war logistics at the moment is horrible and degraded, so that automatically gives the military action initiative to countries like Iran and China, which have well trained, motivated, rested, armed, confident, funded armies that can fight any enemy at any time- EU and US have lost that deterrence now.

I don't know what makes you think that NATO's logistics are horrible, especially in somewhere like the Middle East. Dont mistake their half-assed attempts at arming Ukraine as weakness. You need to think how this will pan out. Once the west and Israel are sure Iran is building nukes, then they do have the ability to strike facilties, which will cause Iran to react. How Iran reacts will determine how this escalates, and unless Iran purposefully avoids Israeli and NATO military (which would be pointless) then anything other than escalation is wishful thinking. Underestimating an entity like NATO and the possibility of an Arab/Israeli alliance thrown in for good measure is a deadly combination. So it would make sense for Iran to already have nukes locked and loaded before wilfully telling the world it has nukes...it's just about using some common sense and being a little bit shrewd. Also I'm not saying Iran cant take the fight to NATO but it will be catastrophic for all.

Iran has probably Law of Attracted military action to its sites, because if not, why is Iran so prepared for that scenario? Also, the west and ISrael fucked up- they have given Iran the AMPLE time needed to develop myriad of sophisticated radars and deploy them across large and important parts of Iran, so that essentially removed the West and Israel's element of Aerial attack surprise.

Yes Iran obviously would have contingency planning like decoy sites, but that doesn't mean the myriad of sattelites and intelligence the west has wont sniff out desired targets. Iran is just doing its best to prepare for this. Sorry but I dont see how radars are going to stop 100 f-22s from enetering Irans airspace or F-35s launching missiles from outside Iran's airspace. Again, underestimating the enemy.

If US was really able to do this then i would like to know why it needed to use Ukraine to do that.

Regarding Russia and Ukraine, I think we agree that US is reluctant and dumb to take on Russia directly, hency why they've relied on a proxy war.

with what ammunition?and those rusted boats called Aircraft Carriers? pls dont make me laugh

I think you have reading comprehension issues, I'm saying it would be dumb for US to take on Russia and China on directly. Youre basically giving some of the reasons why it would be difficult. Im not thinking conventionally though, just on the nukes both sides have it's very unlikely that that will happen. However, keeping China and Russia busy with potential proxy wars they will be too tied up to help Iran, which is an easier target. Not hard to understand.

Easy...on paper....i dont see any real facts that show thats true in reality- US still havent openly or conventionally attacked Iran in over 40 years...same with other countries...those deterrence facts speak for themselves- Iran is a hard nut for99% of countries on earth.= to attack

Iran isnt easy! Dont put words in my mouth. But it is easier than Russia and China, reletively speaking. Iran isn't easy like Iraq but it can be seriously damaged by NATO, conventionally, which will be devastating. To deny that is again ridiculous, on paper definitely and even in practice i.e think tanker war of the late 80s. Yes, Iran is more powerful now and will inflict damage the other way, but so is a combined force of NATO and allies. I dont enjoy saying this, my heart burns for Iran and the region in general, but i dont think you're being realistic.

I say Iran is easier than North Korea simply because of the nukes. Pretty obvious what I was hinting at there...

Projection of what? Nato is short on weapons to hand over to Ukraine, but not short on weapons for itself. In fact it's probably short on weapons for Ukraine because it is being stocked for a nation like Iran.

I prefer Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia as a better analogy, but I get what you're hinting at. NATO probably won't lead an attack on Iran, it will just be a case of Israel striking Iran with American assistance, probably under a Trumpian/republican administration, and NATO supporting Israel. This is why nukes are very important to be had before word gets out.

 

[mohsen]

Iran Refutes Western Stories on 84% Uranium Enrichment -| Tasnim News Agency

Kamalvandi said Bloomberg’s report was aimed at distorting the realities.

He added that during the enrichment process, the mere existence of individual uranium particles enriched to above 60 percent purity does not mean that uranium is being enriched at levels above 60 percent, Press TV reported.

The spokesman has also noted that existence of such particles was a totally normal issue in the course of uranium enrichment and could happen even when the feedstock entering centrifuge cascades decreased momentarily.

“What matters is the final product and the Islamic Republic of Iran has never embarked on (uranium) enrichment at a level above 60 percent,” Kamalvandi said, adding, “The IAEA is well aware that such issues happen during the (nuclear) work. In various cases in the past, different levels of enrichment have been observed and have been accounted for, and this latest issue will be definitely clarified as well.”


CIA Director William Burns:
US does not believe Iran will develop nuclear weapons

------------
So wrap up your fantasies - you are just a victim of anti-Iran propaganda

 

[SalarHaqq]

CIA Director William Burns:
US does not believe Iran will develop nuclear weapons

------------
So wrap up your fantasies - you are just a victim of anti-Iran propaganda

IAEA: Iran might have enriched uranium to 84%. CIA: Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Translation: "We order our stooges at the IAEA to keep spreading propaganda by portraying Iran as a rogue state bent on acquiring nuclear arms, so we can brainwash the public and use it as a mock justification for our illegal sanctions and pressures against the Iranian people. At the same time, we'll have the CIA chief declare Iran is not pursuing nukes, in order to reconcile said propaganda with the fact that all our "regime" change attempts have failed miserably and that we do not dare to launch military aggression against the same Islamic Republic we're busy depicting as a "threat to the planet"."

 

[mohsen]

IAEA: Iran might have enriched uranium to 84%. CIA: Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Translation: "We order our stooges at the IAEA to keep spreading propaganda designed to portray Iran as a rogue element bent on acquiring nuclear arms, so we can brainwash the public and use it as a mock justification for our illegal sanctions and pressures against the Iranian people. At the same time, we'll have the CIA chief declare Iran is not pursuing nukes, in order to reconcile this with the fact that all our "regime" change attempts have failed miserably and that we don't dare to launch military aggression against the same Islamic Republic we're busy depicting as a "threat to the planet"."

Well said.

 

[BHAN85]

I dont understand how IAEA can know that Iran only has those centrifuges and they haven't copy one million of those machines and put in unknown underground locations in the middle of desert.

 

[Stryker1982]

I dont understand how IAEA can know that Iran only has those centrifuges and they haven't copy one million of those machines and put in unknown underground locations in the middle of desert.

That's the thing...they don't know.

Their is more as well. IAEA inspectors do not have full access or any access at all to military bases. Which means essentially, you can install them in an existing military base, or declare the area as a military base and block access to it.

Really any underground mountain or military base can be a centrifuge site, more so if you are very elaborate, you can disguise a underground mountain centrifuge site as a missile site with fake silos and fake launch portals on the mountain side to deceive the nature of the site.

 

[BHAN85]

That's the thing...they don't know.

Their is more as well. IAEA inspectors do not have full access or any access at all to military bases. Which means essentially, you can install them in an existing military base, or declare the area as a military base and block access to it.

Really any underground mountain or military base can be a centrifuge site, more so if you are very elaborate, you can disguise a underground mountain centrifuge site as a missile site with fake silos and fake launch portals on the mountain side to deceive the nature of the site.

I wonder, is it needed a array of centrifuges together to enrich Uranium? Or you can put one centrifuge isolated in separated places? In that case, it's really easy to hide enrichment.

I imagine Iran desert plenty of caves filled of Uranium centrifuges.

 

[AA_]

When I was growing up, I read the book by professor Huntington - clash of civilizations and remaking of the new world order. In it, he talks about the time that Iran allegedly purchased 10-15 warheads from the former Soviet republics post 1991.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. Pakistan built the warheads first, and later on tested the missile delivery systems. I’m not against nuclear weapons - countries need them to safeguard territorial integrity. We have multiple cases of what happens when you lack that insurance.