Iran will enrich uranium up to 60% if it wants to, Khamenei warns amid discontent over IAEA deal

[Montgomery]

Iran will enrich uranium up to 60% if it wants to, Khamenei warns amid discontent over IAEA deal

If Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would have them, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared, suggesting Tehran may continue enriching uranium up to 60 percent. The statement followed outcry over President Hassan Rouhani’s IAEA deal.

www.rt.com

Iran has proven itself to be a peaceful nation that should have nuclear weapons if it chooses to have them for it's own protection. However, Iran has declared that it is against their religious beliefs to keep nuclear weapons and so most likely won't, unless they become seriously threatened with nuclear war with the ME's apartheid regime.

It's time for a rational discussion on the matter. No nation has ambitions of starting a nuclear war with it's weapons. These weapons are meant as a defensive threat only and have likely saved humanity from a WW3 for over 75 years.

Opinions?

 

[Montgomery]

Quite surprising! There are 30 views of this topic but nobody wants to go there. This could be an indication of Americans' resolve to punish Iran being broken. It could also be something to do with confusion over what Biden intends to do?

 

[Phys251]

Iran will enrich uranium up to 60% if it wants to, Khamenei warns amid discontent over IAEA deal

If Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would have them, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared, suggesting Tehran may continue enriching uranium up to 60 percent. The statement followed outcry over President Hassan Rouhani’s IAEA deal.

www.rt.com

Iran has proven itself to be a peaceful nation that should have nuclear weapons if it chooses to have them for it's own protection. However, Iran has declared that it is against their religious beliefs to keep nuclear weapons and so most likely won't, unless they become seriously threatened with nuclear war with the ME's apartheid regime.

It's time for a rational discussion on the matter. No nation has ambitions of starting a nuclear war with it's weapons. These weapons are meant as a defensive threat only and have likely saved humanity from a WW3 for over 75 years.

Opinions?

RT News (RT.Com) - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Get another source.

 

[phoenix2020]

Yes, there are many views of this issue but really only one fact. That fact is: if you have nuclear weapons, you are more likely to be left alone (Pakistan) than interfered with (Iran).

 

[Tigerace117]

Iran will enrich uranium up to 60% if it wants to, Khamenei warns amid discontent over IAEA deal

If Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would have them, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared, suggesting Tehran may continue enriching uranium up to 60 percent. The statement followed outcry over President Hassan Rouhani’s IAEA deal.

www.rt.com

Iran has proven itself to be a peaceful nation that should have nuclear weapons if it chooses to have them for it's own protection. However, Iran has declared that it is against their religious beliefs to keep nuclear weapons and so most likely won't, unless they become seriously threatened with nuclear war with the ME's apartheid regime.

It's time for a rational discussion on the matter. No nation has ambitions of starting a nuclear war with it's weapons. These weapons are meant as a defensive threat only and have likely saved humanity from a WW3 for over 75 years.

Opinions?

Since when? Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the Middle East for decades.

 

[Montgomery]

Yes, there are many views of this issue but really only one fact. That fact is: if you have nuclear weapons, you are more likely to be left alone (Pakistan) than interfered with (Iran).

Quite true, but there is another factor that's started to enter into the question, and that is the question of whether or not any small countries really need the nuclear deterrent. Most small countries will soon fall under the protective wings of one of the large nuclear powers.

The US protection of the ME's apartheid regime could serve as an example. Do they really have nuclear weapons? There's no simple answer for that question. But there's a simple answer for the question of whether the US will protect them!

In addition to that, does NK have nuclear weapons? Or do they fall under the protective wings of China?

In Iran's case, they have become large militarily and powerful enough to annihilate the apartheid regime with just their conventional weapons. The US going nuclear on their behalf would be no more than symbolic and too late to save their country.

There's a lot to discuss here!

 

[swing_voter]

Religious crazies don't want to be told what to do.

Only God tells them what to do. In whispers.

 

[Allan]

Iran has proven itself to be a peaceful nation that should have nuclear weapons if it chooses to have them for it's own protection.

No they aren't, no they don't. Iran unveiled a missile with a 'Death to Israel' banner on it. Countries that do that don't get to join the nuclear club. For the same reason you don't give a toddler with an attitude problem a gun.

However, Iran has declared that it is against their religious beliefs to keep nuclear weapons

Oh well then, let them go to town

It's time for a rational discussion on the matter. No nation has ambitions of starting a nuclear war with it's weapons. These weapons are meant as a defensive threat only and have likely saved humanity from a WW3 for over 75 years.

The closest we've come to nuclear war since WWII was India vs. Pakistan. Both sides would have claimed defensive need when they launched. Iran will do the same.

 

[Montgomery]

RT News (RT.Com) - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Get another source.

If you object to something in RT's story that you feel is untrue or controversial, let me know and I'll find another link for the story that will neutralize their spin.
Is there something you find objectionable or are you just barking for no reason?

 

[Felis Leo]

Iran will enrich uranium up to 60% if it wants to, Khamenei warns amid discontent over IAEA deal

If Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would have them, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared, suggesting Tehran may continue enriching uranium up to 60 percent. The statement followed outcry over President Hassan Rouhani’s IAEA deal.

www.rt.com

Iran has proven itself to be a peaceful nation that should have nuclear weapons if it chooses to have them for it's own protection. However, Iran has declared that it is against their religious beliefs to keep nuclear weapons and so most likely won't, unless they become seriously threatened with nuclear war with the ME's apartheid regime.

It's time for a rational discussion on the matter. No nation has ambitions of starting a nuclear war with it's weapons. These weapons are meant as a defensive threat only and have likely saved humanity from a WW3 for over 75 years.

Opinions?

Yes, I have an opinion. And it is that Iran is a tyrannical actual-apartheid terrorist state which should not be allowed to attain nuclear weapons. And if they continue this way, their main nuclear reactor at Bushehr should be reduced to a radioactive crater.

 

[Montgomery]

Since when? Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the Middle East for decades.

That's certainly the right spin on the issue from a US point of view!
But will that spin stand up to careful and unbiased scrutiny?
A good starting point would be the affair with the Shah of Iran.

I'll assign the job to you if you care to have it?

 

[Fledermaus]

Quite surprising! There are 30 views of this topic but nobody wants to go there. This could be an indication of Americans' resolve to punish Iran being broken. It could also be something to do with confusion over what Biden intends to do?

You haven't explained why Iran wants enriched Uranium.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Thank god Trump’s admin contained Iran and saved us from them getting a nuke.

Thank god.

 

[Felis Leo]

You haven't explained why Iran wants enriched Uranium.

Peaceful purposes. That is why the Revolutionary Guard Corps was put in charge of it. Because they are the sane peace-wing of the Iranian government.

 

[Montgomery]

Yes, I have an opinion. And it is that Iran is a tyrannical actual-apartheid terrorist state which should not be allowed to attain nuclear weapons, and if they continue this way, their main nuclear reactor at Bushehr should be reduced to a radioactive crater.

Your opinion would be a very popular one with Americans. Please see my reply to Tigerace so I don't have to repeat it.

Otherwise, I'll just submit for a start that the US is the world's most prolific terrorist state. I think that's a totally fair starting position and so it's not saie with the intention of inflaming.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yes, I have an opinion. And it is that Iran is a tyrannical actual-apartheid terrorist state which should not be allowed to attain nuclear weapons. And if they continue this way, their main nuclear reactor at Bushehr should be reduced to a radioactive crater.

I feel the same about Israel. I think what we need to do is stop picking winners and losers in that region.

 

[Montgomery]

No they aren't, no they don't. Iran unveiled a missile with a 'Death to Israel' banner on it. Countries that do that don't get to join the nuclear club. For the same reason you don't give a toddler with an attitude problem a gun.


Oh well then, let them go to town


The closest we've come to nuclear war since WWII was India vs. Pakistan. Both sides would have claimed defensive need when they launched. Iran will do the same.

All of a sudden this thread is swamped with comments and so even though I would like to pay a lot of attention to 'your' comments, I'm strapped for time.
So my general reply has to be that you're only repeating US and Israel propaganda. Israel is guilty of much more crimes against humanity than Iran.

 

[Montgomery]

Peaceful purposes. That is why the Revolutionary Guard Corps was put in charge of it. Because they are the sane peace-wing of the Iranian government.

You're not making any point with that comment. Pull up your socks if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[Felis Leo]

I feel the same about Israel. I think what we need to do is stop picking winners and losers in that region.

I think you are wrong in your assessment, Aunt Antifa. Israel is a law-governed democracy that does things you dislike. Which doubtless can be said of most democracies. But as a democracy it has the ability to change based on the will of a majority of Israelis and it has done so. And the majority of Israelis cannot have their wishes overturned by a religious supreme leader who is backed up by a paramilitarized secret police answerable only to him. Iran meanwhile is under the rule of a theocratic autocrat and its paltry democratic representation is a fraud, because the only people who are allowed to run for office are those allowed to run by a council hand-picked by...wait for it...the same theocratic autocrat. It is a joke. Unlike Israel, Iran cannot change unless the theocratic autocrat and his paramilitarized secret police want the country to change.

 

[Montgomery]

I feel the same about Israel. I think what we need to do is stop picking winners and losers in that region.

Thank you for your neutral voice on the question!
I hope you can eventually expand on your comment on 'winners and losers'.

 

[Montgomery]

Thank god Trump’s admin contained Iran and saved us from them getting a nuke.

Thank god.

Good for you, but sometimes rising above the rabble causes them to miss the point!

 

[Tigerace117]

That's certainly the right spin on the issue from a US point of view!
But will that spin stand up to careful and unbiased scrutiny?
A good starting point would be the affair with the Shah of Iran.

I'll assign the job to you if you care to have it?

Nope, it’s simple fact. The regime in Tehran has never been “peaceful“.

Gee, you mean when the regime allowed the storming of an embassy and the kidnap and torture of diplomats for months? That’s not “peaceful“ in the slightest.

 

[phoenix2020]

I dunno. What I cannot reconcile: Pakistan exports terrorism all over the place, actively exported nuclear weapons technologies and sheltered bin Laden among many, many other actions. In exchange, we sell them weapons and send them cash. Iran, we sanction and threaten with ruin.

 

[Allan]

All of a sudden this thread is swamped with comments and so even though I would like to pay a lot of attention to 'your' comments, I'm strapped for time.
So my general reply has to be that you're only repeating US and Israel propaganda. Israel is guilty of much more crimes against humanity than Iran.

Not propaganda at all. I made three points but the two that are most relevant are 1) Iran unveiled a rocket with a banner 'Death to Israel' on it. That was widely reported at the time, and 2) India and Pakistan came close to nuclear war in 1983 and again in 2019. Modi himself said he would have launched if Pakistan didn't return the pilot of a jet they shot down. Neither of those actions would have been defensive, so don't go on about nuclear missiles being used only for defensive purposes. In the wrong hands (and they are in the wrong hands of several countries now) they are going to be used offensively.

 

[Fledermaus]

You're not making any point with that comment. Pull up your socks if you wish to be taken seriously.

He made a very real point.... You refuse to acknowledge it.

Why are they enriching to weapons grade?