The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Iran exceeds uranium enrichment limit

by Onize Ohikere
Posted 7/08/19, 11:37 am

Iran increased its uranium enrichment level to 4.5 percent on Monday, fulfilling its threat to exceed the limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, confirmed the increase to two semiofficial news agencies. The country announced last week it will also break the limit on the size of its low-enriched uranium stockpile. In exchange for relief from economic sanctions, the nuclear pact restricted Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 660 pounds, which is lower than the amount needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Prior to the deal, Iran had enrichment levels as high as 20 percent, closer to what is needed for weapons-grade uranium.

The pact started to fall apart last year after President Donald Trump withdrew the United States and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Iran set a Monday deadline for the remaining countries to offer new terms to offset the U.S. sanctions. “Iran better be careful,” Trump said on Sunday.

The German government said it was “extremely concerned,” and Britain warned Iran to “immediately stop and revise all activities” related to the deal.


Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Onize Ohikere

Onize is a reporter for WORLD Digital based in Abuja, Nigeria.

Read more from this writer

Comments

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 02:15 pm

    It seems that our president broke our part of the deal by pulling out and then imposing sanctions. Iran is playing tit for tat. It was our tat that began this down spiral. They did not exceed the limits while the deal was in effect.

  • news2me
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 04:50 pm

    LOL

    That's a good one. 

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 05:54 pm

    "They did not exceed the limits while the deal was in effect."

    Gramma, how can you possibly know this? The JCPOA allowed for many sites to be off-limits to IAEA inspectors including military compounds. In addition, Iran was to be given advance notice prior to inspections. All of which means they were showing the inspectors only what they wanted them to see. So there is no definitive way to know for sure if they violated the agreement. Iran has a long history of lying and obfuscating. Which makes one wonder of what value is an agreement that is made with a liar and cannot be verified.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 02:42 pm

    My opinion is that there never was an actual agreement.  Shortly after all parties signed, the U.S. published a summary of the main points.  Then Iran disputed key points, saying in effect, "We never agreed to that."  None of the points Iran disputed were ever resolved.

    So I would say we only had the illusion of an agreement.  I would hardly characterize what President Trump did as breaking the deal.

    Like Neville Chamberlain in 1938, President Obama--and many other world leaders--let their hopefulness overrule their good sense.

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 04:17 pm

    Nevertheless, it was the US that acted first to change the status quo. Iran responded.

  • news2me
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 04:52 pm

    I laughed when Obama said he made a deal.

    I DID NOT LAUGH when he gave them money.

     

  • WORLD User 253263
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 05:04 pm

    Before suggesting that the U.S., under President Trump's leadership, just randomly pulled out of the nuclear agreement, find out WHY we pulled out. Was it to pressure Iran to stop supporting terrorism? Was it to pressure them to improve their terrible record on human rights (espcially to counter their abuse, imprisonment, and unjust trials of Christians)? Was it, as others have said, because Iran didn't adhere to the accord anyway, so why pretend they did?  All of those situations require that we end our side of the accord in order to apply the pressure of sanctions on Iran. If we applied sanctions to Iran without pulling out of the accord, THEN we would have been inviolation of the agreement. To maintain our honor while pressuring Iran to behave itself, we had to pull out of the accord in order to apply sanctions.

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 06:10 pm

    So the United States has lots of nuclear weapons and missiles and jets to deliver them to targets. Iran has none, but feeling threatened by Israel and the U.S. figures that having a nuke or two might give it protection against a preemptive strike.
    Probably some readers of wng would point out that Iran is very evil, while the U.S. is good and just. However, the U.S. is the only nation to use nukes (twice) on another nation, and has also used other weapons of mass destruction including chemicals (napalm) and cluster bombs and white phosporous.
    I would like to see a concerted effort by followers of Jesus to point out the satanic nature of these horrific weapons no matter who possesses them. Do we trust in Christ, or in Death?

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 09:18 pm

    Let's see, the mullahs in Iran having a nuclear weapon, what could possibly go wrong?

  •  Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Mon, 07/08/2019 09:29 pm

    Allen, I am sure that you are familiar with Desmond Doss.  He felt the same way that you did about weaponry and killing on the battlefield.  That is why he steadfastly refused to carry weapons.  He endured persecution within the ranks because of it.  Yet he understood the difference between good and evil, and aided and abetted his mates' death-dealing in the Pacific War because of it, both by rescuing them on the battlefield and praying for their victory.  In fact, there are a couple of instances in battle where God protected his company after he prayed for them.  In one attack on Hacksaw Ridge, his company was hardly touched while others around them were chewed up.  His presence became so profoundly comforting to his mates that at one point they delayed an attack in order to allow him to finish his prayers before joining them for the attack on his Sabbath.  This attack resulted in final victory at one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific War.

    I do not know how he felt about the atomic bombings.  I suspect that he probably thought the same about them that you do.  But to say that we committed great evil by dropping them ignores the context:  Japan had waged a merciless war of conquest--raping, pillaging, and enslaving thousands of conquered peoples and soldiers across the Pacific and Asia.  Then they fought on for years after the war turned against them, to the death.  They fought almost to the last man on every island that we attacked.  They got their citizens on Okinawa to jump off cliffs rather than let us capture them.  We had good reason to believe that they would do the same on the main island of Japan.  It took two atomic bombs to bring them to their knees--and they almost did not surrender even then.

    Do the math:  if we had not dropped those bombs, forget our casualties--we might have had to wipe out Japanese culture as we know it.

    It is also unfair in my opinion to imply that only people who lack faith in Christ use such weapons.  David killed his tens of thousands; yet God called him a man after his own heart.  The writers of Samuel and Chronicles lauded his Thirty for their feats of arms.  The Judges killed many enemies in defense of God's chosen.  The Jews to this day celebrate the days of Purim, when Xerxes allowed the Jews to slaughter their enemies in self-defense.  In the 20th Century, Israel has fought a number of successful and miraculous wars of defense against their enemies.

    Iran is one of those ruthless enemies who would destroy Israel given the chance.  Israel has never fought a war of conquest.  Iran would.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Tue, 07/09/2019 02:58 pm

    Excellent, Mr. Bossard, Big Jim, and World User 253263!  Thank you! 

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Tue, 07/09/2019 03:49 pm

    Mr.Bossard,

    You raise the ethical dilemmas of oppressive powers against defenseless populations. I will not cavalierly dismiss these concerns. Yes, Japan became ruthless toward China and others in the 1930's. God finds ways to punish these evil doers. For example, in the Bible we see God using the ruthless Assyrians to punish Israel, and then punishes Assyria for being ruthless. Contrary to Just War doctrine, the U.S. and allies severely firebombed Dresden, Tokyo, and then the A bomb, killing vast numbers of civilians.
    However, in Christ we find that allegiance to a nation and ethnic culture takes a back seat to His inbreaking Kingdom and the way He has taught us. Christians have a responsiblity to resist evil, following the way of Jesus.

    I would suggest that your claim that Israel has not acted aggressively be looked at again. In the 1947-1949 timeframe, the majority of the Palestinians were forcibly evicted from their homes by Zionist militias. (and do not take the excuse that Arab leaders told them to leave).
    The animosity of many Arabs toward Israel has some justification.

    Thank you for your insights.

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Tue, 07/09/2019 06:39 pm

    Thanks, Allen Johnson, for some truly Christian commentary.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Tue, 07/09/2019 11:56 pm

    Some people have an idea that since God is love, and Jesus told His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek, that means violence or warfare should not be used to combat evil.  I suppose we could have stayed completely out of WW II, even refusing to respond to Pearl Harbor. I suppose it is possible that if we stayed home and the Christians among us prayed fervently, Hitler would have decided to stop his troops from continuing to conquer other nations and rounding up everyone he considered undesirable and killing them.  I suppose Hirohito and Tojo would also have decided to quit conquering other nations and forcing their people into slavery. Perhaps God would have honored us for taking that course.

    On the other hand, perhaps He would have condemned us. As James 4:17 says, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (ESV). And as Psalm 82:3-4 says, “3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (translation not cited). 

    It’s true that a lot of verses dealing with defending the weak and oppressed are commanding us to “speak up” for them.  That fits in well with the modern sentiment that physical conflict is wrong, but it doesn’t do a whole lot to stop violent oppressors who consider our words of admonition as an indication we are too weak or cowardly to fight. When dealing with people like that, possibly we should actually try concerted fervent prayer that the oppressors change their ways.  Maybe it’s just a lack of faith that I think action is better. 

    But I believe it’s a complete mistake to say “God does not approve of violence!”  Did he not order his people to conquer city after city, and leave no one alive?  Well, you may say, that’s the Old Testament, right?  We’re under a New Covenant.  God doesn’t do that anymore. God has changed. 

    Oh really. Has He?  He who says, “I do not change!”  ???

    If you think God is not interested anymore in fighting evil with violence, I’ll direct you to the 16th thru 19th Chapters of Revelation.  Particularly pay attention to 19, verses 15 and 21.  The sword with which the unrepentant will be struck down proceeds directly from the mouth of Christ Himself. And this is after the seven bowls of wrath and torment and destruction have been poured out on unrepentant men, and they still refuse to repent and bow to the Lord. 

    Guess this has run too long, but I’ll leave with one final thought.  I personally hope, if I’m ever near a situation where someone is being oppressed violently in some way, I am neither slow nor afraid to take decisive action. I’ll save my second-guessing for when it’s all over.

     

ADVERTISEMENT