Iran is ready to dilute highly enriched uranium to levels of 3.7% and 20%

最近のFX関連情報ニュース

  • Iran is ready to dilute highly enriched uranium to levels of 3.7% and 20%, according to Al Jazeera citing a source.
  • Washington refused to transfer the highly enriched uranium to Russia and instead suggested a third country receive it.
  • Iran refused to transfer uranium outside its territory and said it is prepared to dilute it under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
  • Washington demanded a halt to uranium enrichment for 20 years, but Iran rejected the proposal.
  • Washington also demanded that Iran abandon its highly enriched uranium at 60%.
  • Washington rejected a proposal to pay Iran reparations for war losses.

How does this compare to the JCPOA that Obama negotiated in 2015 and which Trump tore up in 2018.

Uranium enrichment levels

  • Current reported proposal:
    • Iran would dilute highly enriched uranium down to 3.7% and 20%.
    • The US reportedly wants Iran to give up uranium enriched to 60%.
  • JCPOA:
    • Iran was limited to enrichment of 3.67% for 15 years.
    • Iran was not permitted to accumulate 20% or higher enriched uranium.
    • The agreement effectively eliminated Iran’s stockpile of medium- and highly-enriched uranium at the time.

Uranium stockpile location

  • Current reported proposal:
    • Washington reportedly wanted enriched uranium transferred out of Iran, potentially to Russia or another country.
    • Iran rejected transferring uranium abroad.
  • JCPOA:
    • Iran shipped roughly 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile out of the country, mainly to Russia.
    • This was one of the central pillars of the agreement because it dramatically extended Iran’s breakout timeline.

60% enriched uranium

  • Current reported proposal:
    • The US reportedly demanded Iran abandon its 60% enriched uranium stockpile.
  • JCPOA:
    • Iran had no 60% enriched uranium under the deal.
    • Enrichment above 3.67% was prohibited.
    • The existence of 60% uranium today is viewed by Western powers as much closer to weapons-grade capability than what existed under the JCPOA.

Enrichment halt

  • Current reported proposal:
    • Washington reportedly sought a halt to enrichment for 20 years.
    • Iran rejected it.
  • JCPOA:
    • Iran was allowed limited civilian enrichment under strict caps and monitoring.
    • The JCPOA was not a total enrichment ban.
    • Key restrictions had “sunset clauses,” with several major limits lasting 10–15 years.

Monitoring and inspections

  • Current reported proposal:
    • Iran reportedly offered dilution under IAEA supervision.
  • JCPOA:
    • The IAEA had extensive monitoring powers, including:

      • Continuous surveillance of nuclear facilities
      • Monitoring of centrifuge production
      • Regular inspections
      • Oversight of uranium supply chains

Economic compensation and sanctions

  • Current reported proposal:
    • Iran reportedly sought reparations for war losses, which Washington rejected.
  • JCPOA:
    • The deal focused on sanctions relief:

      • Removal/suspension of nuclear-related sanctions
      • Release of frozen assets
      • Re-entry into global oil and financial markets
    • The JCPOA did not include war reparations as there was no war damage.

Key takeaway

The reported framework appears far more difficult to bridge than the original JCPOA because:

  • Iran now possesses 60% enriched uranium, which did not exist under the 2015 deal.
  • Iran appears unwilling to export enriched uranium stockpiles, while that step was essential to the JCPOA.
  • The US position described here appears stricter in some respects, including the reported push for a much longer enrichment halt.
  • The reported proposal resembles a partial rollback and containment framework more than a return to the original JCPOA structure.

History cannot be rewritten. Who knows where Iran would have been if the original deal was in place and not recinded in 2018. What we do know (most likely) is if Trump made a deal that was less than the 2015 agreement, it would be political fuel for the Dems against Trump and the GOP.

This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

最近のFX関連情報ニュース

Posted by 管理者