Julian Borger reports on the gutting of the State Department office responsible for implementing and negotiating arms control treaties:

A state department office tasked with negotiating and implementing nuclear disarmament treaties has lost more than 70% of its staff over the past two years, as the Trump administration moves towards a world without arms control for the first time in nearly half a century.

The Office of Strategic Stability and Deterrence Affairs, normally a repository of expertise and institutional knowledge that does the heavy lifting of arms control, has been whittled down from 14 staffers at the start of the Trump administration to four, according to the former staffers. The state department declined to comment.

The state department has instead focussed its arms control efforts on “creating the environment for disarmament” (CEND)shifting the onus for disarmament from the nuclear weapons powers to non-weapons states.

An invitation to a 2 July state department conference on the subject invites non-nuclear states to come up with “measures to modify the security environment to reduce incentives for states to retain, acquire, or increase their holdings of nuclear weapons”.

The Trump administration has expressed no interest in extending New START, and this major reduction in relevant staff confirms that they have neither the intention nor the ability to carry on serious arms control talks with Russia or anyone else. Negotiations for extending New START, which expires in 2021, should have already begun, but if Bolton has anything to say about it they will never take place. Russia has expressed a willingness to extend the treaty, but so far they have not had any answer from the Trump administration. Borger continues:

Vladimir Putin has said Russia is in favour of a New Start extension, but warned that time is running out.

“If we do not begin talks now, it would be over because there would be no time even for formalities,” Putin told the Financial Times.

Bolton’s position that the treaty shouldn’t be extended as it is, but would have to be expanded to include other classes of nuclear weapons, is an obvious non-starter for the Russians. Even if there were a chance of negotiating a more comprehensive treaty, there is no time to get it done before New START dies. When Bolton claims that a new treaty could be concluded quickly, he is just making an excuse for running out the clock. Meanwhile, the administration has done nothing that suggests it would be ready to negotiate with Russia about anything:

But former officials and arms control experts in Congress say there have been no serious consideration of what to do when New Start expires in February 2021.

“There is no one home,” a congressional staffer involved in arms control said. “There is no serious effort to come up with a plan. There is nothing real going on.”

Trump has occasionally talked up the possibility of negotiating a treaty that involves both Russia and China, but this makes no sense to the Chinese government, whose nuclear arsenal is much smaller than the American and Russian ones. Like the feigned interest in a “better deal” with Iran, the idea of a trilateral arms control treaty is a way to destroy the existing arms control architecture while pretending to want an improved treaty. The significance of slashing staff at this office is that it deprives the department of the manpower and expertise to conduct arms control negotiations. This would be a serious problem even if the administration were inclined to hold talks regarding New START extension or a new agreement, but it is even more alarming because it signals that the administration is abandoning arms control entirely. 

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-destruction-of-arms-...

In spite of Washington’s 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the administration of US President Donald Trump has accused Iran of violating the terms of the treaty. The Iranian foreign minister tweeted that the White House is wrong and backed up his assertions.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Monday tweeted that, contrary to a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee statement, Iran has never violated the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal.

“We have NOT violated the #JCPOA,” Tehran’s foreign minister tweeted. “We triggered & exhausted [paragraph] 36 [of JCPOA] after US withdrawal. We gave E3+2 a few weeks while reserving our right. We finally took action after 60 weeks. As soon as E3 abide[s] by their obligations, we'll reverse.”

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201907021076119988-iran-has-not-viola...

 

Washington has unleashed a fresh barrage of threats against Tehran, with US President Donald Trump warning it against “playing with fire” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo branding it a “top sponsor of terrorism.”

Fresh from rekindling his strange bromance with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Trump has returned to his war-mongering ways, leveling a vague new warning at Iran. Asked whether he had a message for Iran after its stockpiles of enriched uranium exceeded the 300kg cap set out in the 2015 nuclear deal, Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that he had “no message whatsoever” but added that Iran knew it was “playing with fire.”

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/463166-iran-us-playing-fire/

 

Read from top.

 

From a fellow called Bobby Ghosh for Bloomberg...

With the Islamic Republic announcing that it has breached uranium-enrichment limits agreed in the 2015 nuclear deal, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane, to remind ourselves of how we got here.

The first thing to keep in mind — and it is often forgotten — is that Iran has only ever had one reason to start a nuclear program: to menace its neighbors. This was true for Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1950s, and it is true of the theocratic state that has followed. 

In 1974, in a moment of rare candor, the Shah admitted he wanted nuclear bombs. Iran’s current rulers have been careful not to declare their intention: they say it has more to do with proving Iran’s scientific prowess, and with a view to one day producing nuclear energy, but not for military applications. Indeed, Iranian officials have claimed that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

This protestation is problematic in many ways. Sitting on some of the world’s most abundant supplies of oil and natural gas, Iran has no need for nuclear energy. (This is also true of Saudi Arabia, which is pursuing nuclear technology.) It is not expending comparable state resources on other alternative energy technologies, like solar or wind power. 

Gus: The point here is that the camels of the deserts need to diversify their energy sources. Global warming is looming. In Iran as much as in Saudi Arabia, solar panels would be the go as the wind for windmills is pretty feeble at most times. 

Iran has a long continuing civilisation with about 4000 years of history. Saudi Arabia history goes back to the 1930s. Before this, the place was camel retailers heaven run by bedouins, more or less controlled by the brits with Lawrence of Arabia and the likes, for colonial empire purposes.

In the 1950s, the US and the Brits enforced regime change in Iran from a republic into a dictatorship under the Shah of Iran. At the time, the French needed cash to develop their nuke capability. Iran (the Shah) invested enough cash into the project. This Franco-Iranian agreement still holds as explained on this site, despite a change of government in Iran. 

---------------------------

Iran produced 289 TWh gross in 2016, comprising 233 TWh (81%) from gas, 32 TWh (11%) from oil, both of which it has in abundance, 16 TWh from hydro which is less reliably available, and 7 TWh (2%) from nuclear power. Demand is growing at about 4% per year, and Iran trades electricity with Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Turkmenistan and Turkey. 

Net exports are about 2 TWh/yr, mostly to Turkey and Iraq. Consumption in 2016 was about 242 TWh, or about 3000 kWh per capita.

In 2018 generating capacity was 79 GWe.

Nuclear power developments

In 1957 a civil nuclear program was established under the US Atoms for Peace programme.

In 1974 the Shah announced a target of 23,000 MWe of nuclear capacity to free up oil and gas for export. Preliminary agreements with Siemens KWU and Framatome for four nuclear power plants were signed.

In 1975 construction of two 1,293 MWe (gross) PWR units was started 18 km south of Bushehr in Bushehr province on the Persian Gulf by Siemens KWU, based on the Biblis B reactor in Germany. The contract was actually signed in mid-1976 and some $3 billion paid. 

After the Islamic revolution, further payment was withheld and work was abandoned early in 1979 with unit 1 substantially complete and unit two about half complete. The plant was damaged by Iraqi air strikes in 1984-88.

At Darkhovin, on the Karun River close to the Iraq border, there were also two French 910 MWe units which in January 1979 had just started construction under a $2 billion October 1977 contract with Framatome. 

These were cancelled in April 1979, and their engineering components were retained in France, being built there as Gravelines C, units 5&6, which came on line in 1985. 

In 1992, the Islamic Republic of Iran signed an agreement with China to build two 300 MWe reactors at the Darkhovin site, similar to those at Qinshan in China and Chashma in Pakistan, but China withdrew before construction started.

The original 1974 plan called for construction of four units at Bushehr, then two units at Isfahan, 340 km south of Teheran, to come on line in mid-1980s and two units at Saveh, near Teheran. 

The Isfahan and Saveh units were to be 1300 MWe class KWU types with dry cooling using two 260 m tall and 170 m wide dry cooling towers. They would have been the first large nuclear plants to use dry cooling.

Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countr...

---------------------

So, what follows is a lot of hogwash from Bobby Ghosh:

And the excuse that Iran wanted to show off its scientific capabilities doesn’t wash. These days, nuclear technology is no indication of great technical accomplishment: as North Korea has demonstrated, pretty much any country that sets itself to develop the technology can do so, if it is prepared to brave international opprobrium, and sanctions. 

The only logical reason for Iran to have a nuclear program was to signal to its Arab neighbors that the theocracy was capable, at least in theory, of building the ultimate weapon. It is no accident that the nuclear program accelerated after the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. The regime in Tehran, still isolated from much of the world, needed anything — even a theoretical nuclear threat — to avert a repeat of that disastrous conflict.

But as the Iraqi threat receded in the 1990s, the Iranians began to expand their influence in the Arab world, typically by deepening ties with terrorist groups — like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. During this period, the regime kept up the charade that its nuclear program was small, and entirely benign. 

But there were actually two Iranian nuclear programs. The second was conducted in utmost secrecy, until it was revealed in 2002, when a uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy-water facility in Arak came to light. With Russian help, Iran had been pursuing nukes after all. So much for Khamenei’s fatwa.

Caught out in its lie, Iran suspended its quest for nuclear weapons in 2003, but continued enrichment. The message to its neighbors remained unchanged: we’re only a few steps away from having the capacity to make the Bomb. Meanwhile, Iran continued to perpetrate mischief through its proxies.

The world reacted by placing Iran under sanctions: the United Nations in 2006 and 2010, before the Western powers imposed even more restrictions in 2011 and in the years that followed. Iran remained defiant even as its economy atrophied, and its currency tumbled. 

Finally, in 2013, the regime signaled an openness to negotiations. Khamenei, channeling George Orwell, described this U-turn as an act of “heroic flexibility.” 

Two years of complex negotiations followed, between Iran and the world powers — the U.S., the EU, Germany, Russia, China, France and Britain. The discussions centered on the nuclear program, and not on Iran’s other malign activities. Eventually, they came up with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which restrained the nuclear program for 15 years. In exchange, Iran was to re-enter the global financial system, increase oil and gas exports, and access as much as $150 billion in frozen assets.

 

The Obama administration declared the deal a great bargain, an end to Iran’s history of nuclear deceit. For its neighbors, it was a disaster, giving the regime a shield from behind which it could continue to menace them. They feared that access to billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and new revenues would allow the Iranian regime to fund ever more ambitious efforts to destabilize the region. And indeed, the Islamic Republic significantly increased its support for its proxies and allies. 

The biggest beneficiary was the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, with Iranian fighters and proxies joining in his genocide against the country’s Sunni majority population. For good measure, the regime also stepped up assassinations of opponents on European soil.

Last year, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal, and began imposing tighter sanctions, re-designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and sanctioning Khamenei himself. But what the Trump administration hopes to achieve is unclear — simply a better nuclear deal than the JCPOA, or a grand bargain incorporating all of Iran’s chronic misbehavior.  

Now, apparently giving up hope that the other JCPOA signatories can help it evade the sanctions, Iran says it will gradually abandon the nuclear restraints it agreed to in 2015. The days ahead will see debates about how much enrichment amounts to an actual threat. Should we start worrying when Iran has 1,000 kg of uranium enriched to 3.67%? Or can we remain sanguine until they begin enrichment to 20%?

The Iranians will likely remain — or at least give the impression of remaining — within enrichment levels that allow them to claim they’re not actually trying to make nuclear weapons. But remember: there is no other reason for them to have a nuclear program.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-01/iran-s-uranium-limit-breach-is-reminder-of-its-nuclear-bomb-goals

Gareth Porter, a historian, investigative journalist, and analyst specializing in US national security policy, told Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear that the US’ claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program is based on false ideas bolstered by the US intelligence community and that China is unlikely to succumb to the US’ anti-Iran campaign.

“The problem in part is that the US intelligence community completely muffed it - they blew this even more thoroughly than they blew the questions of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Porter told host John Kiriakou on Wednesday. 

It was based on a series of false ideas that the intelligence communities began with and some maneuvering by high-ranking CIA officials … who interfered with the process of the assessment of Iran's nuclear program within the CIA,” Porter explained. “It culminated in the approval of this set of documents that came from the Mujahedin-e-Khalq [MEK] that was aligned with and did work with the Israelis” to allegedly prove that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program.

“They were fakes, they were fabricated documents,” Porter said, referring to a laptop the MEK allegedly supplied Israeli intelligence with in 2005, claiming it belonged to an Iranian nuclear scientist. “And the Israelis were behind it. They were the ones who had the capability and the motivation to produce such fabrication and the CIA did not do their job appropriately and they gave it the go ahead. The reality is that those documents were the central evidence that was offered to the world and accepted by the International Atomic Energy Agency as sufficient evidence to put Iran in the dock.”

“So ever since 2005, the US and its allies have been getting the rest of the world to get along with the idea that Iran was trying to get nuclear weapons,” Porter explained.

“During the Iran-Iraq War, when Iran was subjected to eight years of chemical weapons attack by the Iraqi government which killed upwards of 100,000 Iranians, the Iranians had the capability to produce chemical weapons. 

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201907041076141061-us-intelligence-has-...

 

Read from top.