Minggu, 01 Desember 2013

MAIN POINTS AND THE OBJECTIVE OF IRAN NUKLEI DEALS...?? IS IT ...Finally, an atomic weapon is fission-based such as U-235 and Pu-239 whose nuclei split to change a bit of matter into a huge amount of energy. These are what was dropped during WWII, what Iran was working towards with U, and what North Korea has developed with Pu. In contrast, a nuclear weapon is fusion-based such as a hydrogen bomb, whose nuclei fuse to change a bit of matter into even more energy...>>> This Thanksgiving had an extra reason to be thankful – the new deal between Iran and six superpowers. Last week, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China (the P5+1 group) reached an interim deal with Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Four key provisions were obtained in this deal: 1) no enrichment of U above 5% U-235, and all highly-enriched materials, some as high as 20% U-235, must be blended down to less than 5% or altered to a form not usable for weapons....>>> The comments come after Iran agreed to freeze part of its nuclear program in return for Western powers easing crippling economic sanctions. The deal requires Iran to cap its uranium enrichment level at 5 percent, far below the 90 percent threshold needed for a warhead. That 5 percent uranium can be used at nuclear power plants. Iran also pledged to "neutralize" its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium — the highest level acknowledged by Tehran — by either diluting its strength or converting it to fuel for research reactors, which produced isotopes for medical treatments and other civilian use...>>>

PERJANJIAN NUKLIR IRAN, JALAN DAMAI ATAU PERANG?

http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/11/perjanjian-nuklir-iran-jalan-damai-atau.html#more

Baru 2 hari perjanjian nuklir Iran ditandatangani oleh pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam perundingan di Genewa, namun "perselisihan" antara Amerika dan Iran sudah terjadi kembali.

Pada hari Selasa (26/11) Iran mengecam intepretasi perjanjian yang dirilis Amerika melalui situs resmi Gedung Putih dengan menyebutnya sebagai pernyataan pers yang "invalid".

“Apa yang telah dirilis oleh situs resmi Gedung Putih sebagai "lembar-lembar nyata" merupakan intepretasi sepihak dari teks sebenarnya yang ditandatangani di Geneva dan sebagian dari penjelasan dan kalimatnya bertentangan dengan teks "Joint Plan of Action", dan disayangkan lembaran-lembaran itu telah diterjemahkan dan dirilis oleh beberapa media massa sebagai Perjanjian Genewa, yang sebenarnya tidak benar,” kata jubir kemenlu Iran Marziyeh Afkham di Teheran, Selasa (26/11).


"Perselisihan" kecil itu sontak membuat "kesadaran" saya kembali tergugah, bahwa sebuah "konspirasi" kemungkinan telah dijalankan dalam perundingan nuklir Iran tersebut. Pikiran saya pun kembali ke sekitar bulan September dan Oktober, ketika Amerika secara tiba-tiba membatalkan rencana serangan militer terhadap Syria yang telah dipublikasikan besar-besaran. Sebulan kemudian Presiden Barack Obama menelpon Presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani dalam satu momen yang dianggap sebagai "momen paling penting tahun ini". Dilanjutkan kemudian dengan ke-aktifan Amerika dalam perundingan nuklir Iran di Genewa yang ditandatangani Minggu lalu (24/11).

Semua itu pun secara efektif berhasil mengubah Amerika, dari sosok yang gila perang, menjadi pecinta perdamaian nomor satu di dunia.

Kemudian muncul sebuah artikel di blog Land Destroyer yang dimuat ulang di situs thetruthseeker.co.uk tgl 27 November 2013, atau sehari setelah pernyataan pers kemenlu Iran tersebut di atas. Artikel itu berjudul "Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”" yang ditulis oleh kolumnis Tony Cartalucci. Dalam tulisan itu dicantumkan satu teks dari laporan tahun 2009 lembaga kajian yang dekat dengan kalangan neokonservatif Amerika, Brookings Institution, berjudul “Which Path to Persia?”:

“…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

Secara ringkas teks tersebut menyebutkan bahwa "untuk memerangi Iran diperlukan satu kondisi yang dipercayai oleh publik dunia bahwa Amerika telah memberikan kepercayaan yang tulus kepada Iran mengenai program nuklirnya, namun dikhianati oleh Iran yang ternyata berambisi untuk memiliki senjata nuklir".

Ditulis tahun 2009, ketika US bersama Saudi Arabia dan Israel tengah aktif mempersiapkan serangan terhadap sekutu utama Iran, Syria, dengan menggunakan unsur-unsur teroris Al Qaeda. Serangan itu merupakan serangan pendahuluan untuk melemahkan Iran sebelum serangan langsung terhadap Iran akhirnya tidak bisa dielakkan.

Isu tentang senjata nuklir Iran sebenarnya tidak berdasar sama sekali. Program nuklir Iran sepenuhnya dalam pengawasan IAEA untuk keperluan damai. Sama seperti program nuklir damai di negara-negara lain. Bahkan beberapa negara lain yang secara diam-diam memiliki senjata nuklir tanpa persetujuan PBB, aman tidak tersentuh: Jepang, Brazil, Afrika Selatan, Korea Utara, Pakistan, India dan Israel. Namun isu senjata nuklir Iran diperlukan Amerika karena Iran, yang salah satu landasan idiologinya adalah pembebasan Palestina dari pendudukan Israel, dianggap sebagai musuh nyata bagi dominasi Amerika-Israel.

Jadi buat apa, setelah bersusah payah selama bertahun-tahun menciptakan ketegangan isu senjata nuklir Iran, Amerika tiba-tiba saja mau repot-repot berdamai dengan Iran?



REF:
"Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”"; Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer; 26 November 2013

"Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House"; Fars News Agency; 26 November 2013


2 komentar:

edi TarwoTo mengatakan...
masih ingatkah anda dialog ini beberapa bulan lalu:
"Saya tidak tahan Netanyahu, dia pembohong," kata Sarkozy
Obama, (mungkin) menyadari bahwa mikrofon di ruang pertemuan mereka telah diaktifkan, memungkinkan wartawan di lokasi terpisah untuk mendengarkan dengan terjemahan simultan.
namun oba tetap menimpali
"Kau muak dengan dia, tapi aku harus berurusan dengan dia bahkan lebih sering daripada Anda," jawab Obama, menurut juru Prancis.
tugas yang bisa kita lakukan adalah berdoa dan bekerja
Gedung Putih Minta Restu Yahudi Soal Nuklir Iran
Headline
IST
INILAH.COM, Washington – Gedung Putih setidaknya dua kali menelepon para pemimpin komunitas Yahudi soal pencabutan sebagian sanksi dalam perjanjian nuklir antara Iran dan enam kekuatan dunia. 

Dalam percakapan konferensi telepon pada Senin kemarin (25/11/2013) dengan Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations dan Jewish Federation for North America adalah Tony Blinken yang juga wakil penasihat kemanan nasional, dan David Cohen, pejabat top di kementerian keuangan AS yang bertanggung jawab dalam soal pelaksanaan pengenaan sanksi.

Konfernsi telepon yang “off the record” ini merupakan signal penting bahwa pemerintah AS masih terus pro-Israel dalam perundingan nuklir pekan lalu di Jenewa,

Banyak pertanyaan yang muncul menekan para pejabat AS soal sejauh mana kesepakatan Jenewa itu berdampak terhadap sanksi terhadap Iran dan apakah konsesi yang diberikan kepadaIran bakal dicabut bila Iran melanggar.

Para pejabat bilang pencabutan sebagian sanksi terhadap Iran akan berdampak kecil terhadap perekonomian Iran, dan sanksi utama yang membidik sektor energi dan finansial Iran akan tetap berlaku.

Para pejabat Gedung Putih bersilang pendapat dengan Israel. Perdana Menteri Benjamin Netanyahu menyebut kesepakatan Jenewa itu “sangat buruk”, namun akhir cerita, ini yang paling penting, pokoknya bisa mempreteli kemampuan nuklir Iran, menurut para partisipan konferensi telepon ini.[tjs]

http://web.inilah.com/read/detail/2051125/gedung-putih-minta-restu-yahudi-soal-nuklir-iran#.UpwY8SeN6So

The Iranian Nuclear Deal Is A Good One

Key nuclear facilities in Iran, most of which are impacted by their latest deal with the six superpowers. After the International Institute of Strategic Studies (http://www.iiss.org/)
Key nuclear facilities in Iran, most of which are impacted by their latest deal with the six superpowers. After the International Institute of Strategic Studies (http://www.iiss.org/)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/11/30/the-iranian-nuclear-deal-is-a-good-one/

This Thanksgiving had an extra reason to be thankful – the new deal between Iran and six superpowers. Last week, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China (the P5+1 group) reached an interim deal with Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Four key provisions were obtained in this deal:
1) no enrichment of U above 5% U-235, and all highly-enriched materials, some as high as 20% U-235, must be blended down to less than 5% or altered to a form not usable for weapons.




2) no additional centrifuges are to be installed or produced, and three-fourths of the centrifuges at Fordow and half of the centrifuges at Natanz will be inoperable,
3) stop all work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak, provide design details on the reactor (which could be used to produce Pu for the other type of atomic weapon) and do not develop the reprocessing facilities needed to separate  Pu from used fuel,
4) full access by IAEA inspectors to all nuclear facilities, including daily visitation to Natanz and Fordow, and continuous camera surveillance of key sites.

Despite all the rhetoric of horror and claims that this deal is a mistake, this deal is just what we all hoped for as the first step to resolving the Iranian nuclear weapons issue, the structure of which we’ve been proposing for years. It is the first step to bringing Iran into the world’s nuclear community as a partner instead of an adversary, making Iran a compliant signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While this may make some of its neighbors nervous, there is no real alternative that does not involve lots of destruction and death.

Old orders are falling in the Middle East. The region is in upheaval, Shia and Sunni are as far apart as ever, and Iran’s theocracy, embodied by their new President Hassan Rouhani, has decided that the cost/benefit of maintaining an expensive, useless nuclear program that is still a long way from producing a reliable weapon, while being starved by a barrage of sanctions, on the heels of a global economic meltdown, has now gone into the too-much-cost-and-not-enough-benefit category.

Thus, there is now an opening to change the game.

This deal is not about trust, as the last point above about access addresses. No one trusts governments, even supposedly good ones. There must be unfettered access to verify that the nuclear facilities are not being used to produce weapons and that is what this deal allows, and it will be easy to determine when Iran breaks this deal (The Economist; The Guardian; Fox News).

But the facilities can, and will, be used to support nuclear power, as was the original purpose of Iran’s nuclear program when the United States set it up under the Shah in the 1960s, and that is the actual end point of this whole deal. Not the end of Iran’s nuclear program or the destruction of their facilities, their country or their people.
I’m not sure what the naysayers of this deal think the sanctions were suppose to do. The purpose of sanctions is to get a specific party to the negotiating table. Sanctions are not meant to destroy a nation, cause widespread poverty of its people and destruction of their economy, or topple governments. The fear of these happening, not the reality of them, is what gets a government to the table.

As much as some leaders in Israel and Saudi Arabia want to use the U.S. to decapitate their nemesis, this is not the point of these talks. And what happens here goes far beyond just Iran. We need nuclear energy to spread around the world without proliferating weapons. How we handle Iran will determine the future of nuclear energy in many countries outside of the developed world, and we better get it right. There will always be pressures to develop weapons and we need strategies and experience in diverting these programs away from weapons.

Besides, the art of diplomacy is the art of finding a win-win for all parties. It’s significant that the Obama Administration knows how to use diplomacy the way only the U.S. can. It is in both our and the world’s best interest, to find a solution that allows Iran nuclear energy without weapons.

All other rhetoric is posturing. Isolation is the worst strategy for bringing a country into the civil world’s fold. Just look at North Korea. Rouhani has to move forward in a way that does not shame Iran. The celebration in Iran over this deal is a strong indication of the win-win nature of this deal, not the ridiculous charge of the opposition that the U.S. was taken for a ride. Iran wants to, and according to international law can, have a nuclear energy program, including enrichment and production, as long as it falls under the appropriate international controls and is not producing weapons.

It is no wonder that Iran wants this deal as badly as it seems. It is a way out of a very tricky and dangerous situation. Countries having the bomb never seem to get attacked, but those that give up their nuclear programs completely tend to end badly. Just ask Iraq and Libya. To avoid this fate, Iran has to back away from nuclear weapons while retaining a nuclear energy program.

The U.S. understands that this deal is a good step toward that end. A final deal will include a structure that precludes the ability to make a weapon, such as abandoning or altering the reactor at Arak, and closing the Fordow enrichment facility because it is basically immune from attack being under a mountain. But the whole deal doesn’t have to be done all at once.

All things considered, this deal with Iran is a good one for the world.

Technical Endnotes – Just a few technical clarifications since science rarely enters media coverage of nuclear issues, yet is extremely important. The original level of U-235 in the uranium ore, that is mined like any other ore, is 0.7% U-235.  5% U-235 is the level of enrichment for nuclear fuel for power reactors. Although some reactor designs can use anything from natural uranium to highly-enriched material, most power reactor fuel is between 3% and 5% enriched as is used in Iran’s Bushehr reactor, a reactor no one cares much about for this reason. You can’t make a bomb out of these materials. This is the basis for the first key provision of the deal.

And while discussions focus on 20% U-235 as sufficiently enriched to make an atomic weapon, that is only theoretically correct. No one has made a weapon from such lowly-enriched materials and no one ever will.

Enrichment needs to be >90% to make a reliable weapon. Reliability in this case is not like having a reliable flashlight. Reliable in this case means the atomic weapon will work when you want it to. It’s why there’s so much testing associated with a weapons program. If you’re going to make the fatal decision to field a nuke, it better work, and everyone knows it has to be over 90% U-235 to be really useful.

Finally, an atomic weapon is fission-based such as U-235 and Pu-239 whose nuclei split to change a bit of matter into a huge amount of energy. These are what was dropped during WWII, what Iran was working towards with U, and what North Korea has developed with Pu.  In contrast, a nuclear weapon is fusion-based such as a hydrogen bomb, whose nuclei fuse to change a bit of matter into even more energy.

Report: Iran Needs More Nuclear Power Plants

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's nuclear chief said Sunday that the Islamic Republic needs more nuclear power plants, the country's official news agency reported, just after it struck a deal regarding its contested nuclear program with world powers.
Ali Akbar Salehi said the additional nuclear power would help the country reduce its carbon emissions and its consumption of oil, IRNA reported. He said Iran should produce 150 tons of nuclear fuel to supply five nuclear power plants.
"We should take required action for building power plants for 20,000 megawatts of electricity" in the long term, Salehi said.

The comments come after Iran agreed to freeze part of its nuclear program in return for Western powers easing crippling economic sanctions.

The deal requires Iran to cap its uranium enrichment level at 5 percent, far below the 90 percent threshold needed for a warhead. That 5 percent uranium can be used at nuclear power plants.

Iran also pledged to "neutralize" its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium — the highest level acknowledged by Tehran — by either diluting its strength or converting it to fuel for research reactors, which produced isotopes for medical treatments and other civilian use.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Western powers fear Iran could use its nuclear program to make atomic weapons.

Iran's only nuclear power plant, near the southern port of Bushehr, produces some 1,000 megawatts of electricity. The plant came online with help from Russia, which will provide fuel for it through 2021.

Salehi said Iran is in talks with several countries — including Russia — to build four more nuclear power plants to produce 5,000 megawatts of power in the near future. He said he asked moderate President Hassan Rouhani to include a line of credit in next year's budget for expanding nuclear power plants.

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar