Iran to Inject Gas into IR8 on 1st Day of Implementing Final N. Deal

Iran to Inject Gas into IR8 on 1st Day of Implementing Final N. Deal

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers. Zarif and the Atomic Energy Organiation of Iran (AEOI) Chief Ali Akbar Salehi are taking part at a closed-door session at the parliament this morning to brief the legislature about the details of the latest round of the nuclear talks with the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) and the joint statement released by the seven nations in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday.

"The AEOI chief and the foreign minister presented hopeful remarks about nuclear technology R&D which, they said, have been agreed upon during the talks (with the six world powers), and informed that gas will be injected into IR8 (centrifuge machines) with the start of the (implementation of the) agreement," member of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Javad Karimi Qoddousi said following the closed-door session at the legislature today.

According to another MP Gholam-Ali Jafarzade who was also present in the parliament's closed-door session today, the Iranian nuclear chief, Salehi, has briefed the lawmakers on the latest conditions of Iran's atomic plants and the country's latest achievements in the nuclear sector during the closed-door session today.

Iran and the G5+1 started their new round of talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, last week to narrow their differences over Tehran's nuclear energy program ahead of a July 1 deadline. After nine days of hard work, the seven nations reached an understanding on Thursday which laid the ground for them to start drafting the final nuclear deal.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940118000331

Hm... OK, so Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses. WTF? And in light of much trumpeted "framework agreement" with Ayatollah and Mullahs, does it not makes mockery of Obama and Kerry?



Is something sinister is in play here, or am I just being paranoid?

 

there are many questions yet to be decided and Obama and Kerry have said this many times. The mockery is the rights sleazy attempts to demonize an agreement that doesn't exist. are conservatives really so ignorant?

 

Iran says they'll start using new centrifuges, which are 20 times faster, on day one of the signing of an agreement with the West, which negates any reduction in the number of centrifuges by an order of magnitude. Have you heard a whiff of it from Obama or Kerry? Can we assume, Iran is lying about this and Obama is telling the truth? But if Iran is lying on this, can we trust Iran with anything else? Maybe it is Obama who is lying, and Ayatollah is telling the truth?

Do you see how easy it is to get confused?

 

You are correct and to give Barack Obama credit where credit is due, back in 2008 he initially stated that he would negotiate with Iran without any preconditions . . . and ultimately he kept his word on that. Enjoy.

 

It seems to me to be a highly technical matter, and one that is certainly beyond my limited scientific understanding. But it looks at though Iran has pledged not to inject the IR-8 centrifuge with uranium hexafluoride, and so no secret enrichment is occurring according to the IAEA - assuming I have understood the following article HERE.

Meanwhile, I wonder what type of advanced centrifuges Israel uses for it's nuclear weapons programme in Dimona?

 

Israel as a government body has threatened to eradicate the entire population of a nation because it hates their religion and because it is racist or bigoted against their ethnicity? Wow! Why hasn't this been in the news?

 

No it hadn't. And neither did Iran.

 

I suspect there is something sinister in play here but not from the Iranian side. As Finian Cunningham points out:

"Enrichment of Uranium nuclear fuel will be limited at the designated low five per cent level for the next 10-15 years and will only be permitted at just one of Iran's several nuclear sites — at Natanz. Other nuclear sites at Fordow and Arak will cease enrichment activities and will be converted into research facilities under international cooperation.

Iran will be compelled to reduce its number of centrifuges required for enrichment by two-thirds of the existing numbers and its stockpile of already-enriched Uranium will be cut from 10,000 kg to 300 kg.

Skeptics may say that if Iran is genuinely pursuing peaceful applications of nuclear technology then these restrictions are not onerous. But the cessation of uranium enrichment and the curtailment of infrastructure is a grave infringement on the legitimate rights of Iran as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. No other signatory to the NPT is obliged to conform to such unprecedented restrictions.

On the issue of sanctions, again, Iranian declarations of success from Lausanne also seem premature. The wording of the Joint Statement talks about the US, European Union and United Nations ending nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions "simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, thus holds the key as to when Iran will be deemed clear for sanctions relief. If the IAEA reports that Iran has not removed the requisite quantity of low-enriched uranium, centrifuges or converted its designated nuclear facilities to international research applications — all this within three months — then the clear implication is that Iran will not be entitled to sanctions relief.

In the past, the IAEA has shown itself to be infiltrated by Western and Israeli intelligence by publishing reports that have undermined, somewhat scurrilously, Iranian claims of peaceful nuclear ambitions.

Days before the latest round of talks opened in Lausanne, the IAEA issued an assessment which claimed that Iran had not fully cooperated with inspections to verify non-military applications of all its nuclear sites.

It is thus not hard to imagine how the Western-dominated IAEA could very well write unhelpful reports over the next three months — and indeed years — implying that Iran is not meeting its "international obligations" under the Joint Statement. That will in turn postpone the signing of a final nuclear deal and result in the continuation of Western sanctions. Within hours of the joint statement being heralded at Lausanne, Washington and its allies began shifting their interpretations — much to the chagrin of Iran's Zarif.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius — who in the past has shown a flare for sabotaging delicate P5+1 talks — described the Joint Statement as a "positive development". But, he added with a mischievous overtone, "serious questions remain". That is code for more backsliding and prevarication.

President Obama gloated over the "most intrusive inspection regime in history" being imposed on Iran, and he explicitly said that the lifting of sanctions would be "phased in" over the lifetime of any agreement, which could mean up to 15 years from the signing of a final accord in three months times.

Therefore, contrary to what Iran's top diplomat Mohammad Zarif is saying, it is far from clear that all sanctions against his country will be annulled immediately in the coming months.

Iran might then find itself in an invidious position whereby it has made strategic concessions on its nuclear rights only to be placed under further duress from the vicissitudes of Western blockade on its economy and development.

The devil is not so much in the detail of the so-called nuclear negotiations. The devil is in Western politicised interpretation. That inscrutable quality makes for mercurial and untrustworthy "partners".

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41456.htm

It would appear, therefore, that the framework agreement makes a mockery, not of Obama and Kerry, but rather of Mohammad Zarif.

 

republicans don't want a deal, they want Iran to be able to do as they please

 

one of those at the table with Kerry is the sec of energy who is a nuclear physicist I bet he knows all about this stuff. Again, there is only a framework not an agreement or treaty. you are getting your panties in a bundle over absolutely nothing.

 

Yes Iran did in the form of its Mullahs and its past president.

 

With no deal how is the sutuation changed

If anyone can assure no enrichment based on No deal
That would be the best alternative
But i am paranoid about such assurances from opponents of the deal

 

This assertion is based upon the common conflation of references to the zionist state and the jewish people

There are lots of jews living in iran without being exterminated
Many people find zionism and its policies repugnant
And express that view

But that is not the same as proposing a new holocaust
And there has never been a reason to conclude that iran would use wmd to eliminate the "zionist state"

In fact there are many more credible threats of military attack originating from israel and usa than from iran

 

No they did not. That's propaganda.

 

The way I see it is that this announcement absolutely flies into the faces of the Anointed One and his Dumbo sidekick. How else can you read the language? Iranians are saying they will kick up production of the enriched uranium on the very day the agreement to reduce uranium production is signed. Is it not unlike to scream Death to America simultaneously with Obama praising Iran?

Are Republicans nuts for not wanting a deal which is guaranteed to be broken? Or is it Liberals who are nuts for wanting a deal that is guaranteed to be broken?

 

actually its nuts for right wing extremists to keep lying about the framework, which is all it is right now.

 

In other words, Obama has nothing. Than WTF was the song and dance all about if he has nothing but proclamation of Death to America?

 

there is an agreed to framework which is progress. no one ever claimed peace in our time.

 

Like I said - there's (*)(*)(*)(*) which mullahs themselves saying is a lie and is different from their version.

 

you tend to mess around with reality a lot don't you?

 

If one equates the "Zionist regime" with the "state of Israel", and "lost to the sands of time" being equivalent to "wiped off the face of the map" then you are correct.

Think of it as the same kind of rhetoric that some republicans have used in loudly advocating the destruction of the Iranian regime and the "liberation" of Iranians.

Apparently in conservative circles what's good for the goose is forbidden to the gander.

 

A gutted 1960s Volkswagon flow-power van is a framework -- though otherwise useless -- and thus similarly it's just as well that at least the one sin Barack has failed to commit is declaring that this gutted out bus represents 'peace in our time'.

 

Not only this analogy but...

Netanyahu Asks Why Iran Deal Ignores Nuclear Missile Program

“Why doesn't the framework address Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program whose sole purpose is to carry nuclear payloads?"

Actually, what I am finding most interesting is the way in which Obama is walking back several of his positions of last week. This is, of course, in response to severe criticism that has been directed at the framework agreement with Iran and at his hard-nosed attitude. Yesterday, Bibi asked some particularly pertinent questions (the deal is so full of holes there are always more questions):

“Why doesn't the framework address Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program whose sole purpose is to carry nuclear payloads?"

And...”What is to stop Iran from using the over one hundred billion dollars that will be unfrozen as part of this agreement to fund aggression and terror in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere?”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193787#.VSVc4ZuJjIV

 

It doesn't really matter what centrifuges they use as long as they stick within the bounds of the agreement and the NPTT wrt to enrichment and use of the fissionable material. Under the NPTT, of which the U.S. and many other countries, including Iran, are signatories, they are allowed to enrich uranium for research and energy production.

 

Everyone sane knows that this is just so that when all is said and done Barack Obama can pretend to have achieved at least one foreign policy triumph before his dismal presidency finishes expiring and he walks off stage with a golf club resting on his shoulder and grinning at all the useful idiots who twice voted for him. This is simply about Obama's presidential legacy and the irony that this agreement is all appearance and no substance -- as everyone on Earth knows at this point in time -- is also curiously symbolic of the fact that as president the man is also all appearance and no substance.

Obama KNOWS that he could have dropped shorts, aimed the moon at Iran, and told them to sign 'this' and still the captured and ideologically corrupted bulk of the U.S.'s Mainstream Media would have whistled and applauded him . . . and that's how Obama figures that this secures a big chunk of his presidential legacy; the bulk of the anti-ethical MSM will agree with him . . . no matter what he does; and so there never had to be any meaning in the 'agreement', and thus there is no meaning in it.