How Will US and Israel Respond to Increased Iranian Uranium Enrichment?
Under JCPOA provisions, Iran may enrich uranium to a 3.67% level – enough for commercial power and research, well below the 90% level needed to produce nuclear weapons.
Pre-JCPOA, Iran enriched uranium to a 20% level. It’s prepared to return to that level if Britain, France and Germany observe illegally imposed US sanctions.
While claiming their intention to stick to JCPOA terms, follow-up action hasn’t so far hasn’t been forthcoming. Most often Brussels observes US demands – even when harming the interests of EU member nations.
Will this time be different? Past history isn’t encouraging, Europe most often acting as an appendage of America’s imperial agenda.
In Monday remarks, Iranian Ayatollah Seyed Ali Kmanenei said the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) will prepare for enriching uranium to level of 190,000 SWU without delay – remaining within the JCPOA’s framework for now.
According to AEOI spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi, “(i)n a letter that will be handed over to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)…Iran will announce that the process of increasing the capacity to produce…UF6 (uranium hexafluoride)” – what’s needed to produce centrifuges.
Under JCPOA provisions, advanced ones aren’t permitted – able to enrich uranium 20 times faster than Iran’s current rate.
“We should accelerate some process(es)…linked to our nuclear work capacity to move forward faster in case needed,” Kamalvandi added.
As of now, Iran intends fulfilling its JCPOA obligations as it’s done since agreeing to its provisions, while preparing to resume pre-nuclear deal enrichment and related activities if the agreement falls apart for failure of Britain, France and Germany to adhere to their commitment – unclear but what’s likely unless proved otherwise.
How will Washington and Israel react if things turn out this way? Is joint military action an option? Is it likely – striking Iranian nuclear facilities despite no Islamic Republic atomic weapons program or intention to have one?
Would Trump order an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities – perhaps in part to let DPRK leader Kim Jong-un know US military action will follow if summit and subsequent talks don’t produce results his regime wants.
He and Netanyahu are militantly hostile to Iran. So are hardliners surrounding them – maintaining the fiction of an Iranian threat, a nation that hasn’t attacked another one in centuries, not about to now except in self-defense if attacked.
Meeting with Germany’s Angela Merkel on Monday, Netanyahu maliciously claimed Iran intends waging religious war in Syria, wanting a foothold in the country to attack Israel – bald-faced lies, adding:
“Iran calls for our destruction but it’s also seeking nuclear weapons to carry out its genocidal designs” – more bald-faced lies!
Netanyahu is a notorious serial liar. Despite their normal relations with Israel, leaders of other nations know nothing he says is credible – notably about Iran, Syria, Hamas, Gazans and other Palestinians.
Iran is the region’s leading advocate for peace, stability, and elimination of nuclear weapons entirely. Israel and America threaten everyone everywhere – despite having no enemies except invented ones.
Looking ahead, regimes running both countries risk greater regional aggression than what’s already raging.
Stepping back from the brink responsibly to restore peace and stability in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Occupied Palestine, and elsewhere is considered anathema to US and Israeli hardliners.
Most likely, greater conflict lies ahead – maybe full-scale US-led war on Syria and attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, risking something far more serious than what’s now going on.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”