The Iran nuclear deal took another nasty turn on Sunday after Iran took a further step to ignore its rules by taking its low-enriched uranium limit over the agreed threshold.
It was the second Iranian breach of the agreement in a matter of weeks, although Iran took only a relatively modest step by increasing enrichment from the agreed 3.7% level – enough to generate to civil nuclear power – to 5%, still well below the 20% threshold that is seen as putting Iran on course to developing a nuclear bomb.
But Tehran, in a new development, said it would keep reducing its commitments under the deal every 60 days unless European signatories to the pact protected it from US sanctions imposed by Donald Trump.
“We are fully prepared to enrich uranium at any level and with any amount. In a few hours, the technical process will come to an end and the enrichment beyond 3.67% will begin,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, referring to the limit set in the 2015 agreement.
So folks, as usual I have watched the evening news and have been left, once again, scratching my head.
I have two major questions. First, could someone explain this enrichment business in terms I can understand?
And second? What happens if we go to war with Iran?
So let’s tackle the first question. What is this enrichment business?
Iran has announced plans to enrich uranium beyond the levels allowed under the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. But how is uranium enriched?
Fresh out of the mine, uranium ore contains about 1% uranium oxide. This is the starting material and it needs some processing. It is treated with chemicals, often strong acids, to extract the oxide and make yellowcake, a powder that contains about 80% uranium oxide.
Before the uranium can be used in nuclear reactors or atomic bombs, it has to be enriched. This is because natural uranium contains too little uranium-235, the form of uranium that is easily split to release energy in the process known as fission.
Natural uranium contains only 0.7% uranium-235, with the remainder mostly made up of uranium-238.
To enrich uranium, yellowcake is first turned into a gas called uranium hexafluoride. This is pumped into centrifuges that spin so fast the ever-so-slightly heavier gas containing uranium-238 is forced to the outside, while the lighter gas containing uranium-235 stays in the middle.
In enrichment plants, thousands of centrifuges are connected in cascades. Each unit enriches the gas a little and then passes it on to the next centrifuge to enrich some more. The process produces two streams of gas: the enriched “product”, which is ultimately used to make fuel or bombs, and the “tails”, known as depleted uranium.
The uranium used in nuclear reactors is enriched to about 4% U-235. But for nuclear bombs it must be enriched to about 90%. Under the nuclear deal, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium to 3.67% but now intends to exceed that limit.
There is no technical barrier facing the Iranians. It is the early stages of enrichment that consume the most energy and the process becomes easier down the line.
Industry data shows that more than half of the effort needed to enrich uranium to 90% is spent getting from 0.7% to 4%. When enrichment reaches 20%, the threshold for what counts as “highly enriched uranium”, and a level Iran has produced at their facilities in the past, about 90% of the work towards weapons-grade uranium is done.
The process gets easier because less material has to be moved around at higher levels of enrichment. A plant that enriches uranium to 4% with 5,000 centrifuges may need only 1,500 to reach 20% enrichment.
From there, several hundred centrifuges are sufficient to reach the 90% needed for a nuclear bomb. Use 5,000 throughout and the rate of enrichment accelerates dramatically.
“It’s really hard at the start because you have very, very little of the uranium isotope you want. Natural uranium is almost all U-238 and initially getting that little bit of U-235 out is really difficult. But the more refined you make it the faster the refinement process happens,” said Anne Harrington, a lecturer in international relations at Cardiff University.
The more enriched the uranium, the less is needed for a weapon. At 20% U-235 enrichment, the critical mass is about 400kg, but at 90% enrichment the mass drops to about 28kg. The precise amounts depend on bomb design and that will be the bigger barrier should Iran want to become a nuclear state.
The three European powers that are signatories to the Iran Nuclear deal – Germany, France and the UK – all condemned the Iranian move, but it is likely that Europe will not yet put the alleged violation into the nuclear deal’s complicated dispute mechanism.
They are likely to wait until there has been a further chance for European diplomats to meet their Iranian counterparts to reassure Tehran itself wants to preserve the deal, also known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA).
That meeting is due to happen by 15 July. The EU – whose diplomats see the deal as the premier diplomatic achievement of the 21st century – will be looking for technical confirmation about the steps Iran is taking.
Tehran has long signaled that it had lost patience with Europe’s perceived failure to find an effective way to compensate Iran for the impact of secondary US sanctions as well as Washington’s attempt to block all Iranian oil exports.
The EU was expecting the breach of the enrichment limits, but did not know its scale until this weekend and had no knowledge of the plan to ratchet up the breaches further every two months.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, condemned the Iranian announcement, saying the decision was a “violation” of the agreement.
A German foreign ministry spokesman said: “We had called upon Iran not to take further measures that undermine the nuclear deal. We strongly urge Iran to stop and reverse all activities inconsistent with its commitments under the deal, including the production of low-enriched uranium beyond the agreed to stockpile limit.”
A British Foreign Office spokesman said: “Iran has broken the terms of the deal. While the UK remains fully committed to the deal, Iran must immediately stop and reverse all activities inconsistent with its obligations. We are coordinating with France and Germany regarding the next steps under the terms of the deal, including a joint commission.”
The British foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said: “We would still like to find a way to make this deal work … We will wait for independent verification by the relevant international body before deciding what next steps [to take]. But obviously if Iran is breaching this deal, there will be very serious consequences.”
Trump has already accused Iran of nuclear blackmail, but Tehran counterattacked by accusing the US of economic blackmail and unilaterally tearing up the terms of the original deal signed by the former US president Barack Obama. On Sunday night, asked about the issue by reporters, Trump said Iran “better be careful”.
The Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, had earlier tweeted that all measures taken by Iran to scale back its commitments to the nuclear deal were reversible if the European signatories of the pact fulfilled their obligations.
Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator, told a news conference in Tehran that European countries had failed to uphold their commitments and that they too were responsible. “The doors of diplomacy are open, but what matters are new initiatives which are required,” he said.
European diplomats say Tehran has so far been vague about the specific new commitments sought by Iran and claim that among the remaining signatories to the deal it is primarily China that has a responsibility to continue to import Iranian oil.
Some officials put Iranian oil exports down to 200,000 barrels per day, well below the level required to prevent the Iranian budget from going deep into debt.
The UK does not oppose other countries importing Iranian oil unless they are subject to separate sanctions.
But Iran would like the EU to set up a larger credit line for countries to buy Iranian oil, something Europe has so far resisted. Europe seems reluctant to put large sums into a any credit line designed to increase its trade with Iran.
The clearest condemnation of the Iranian move came, unsurprisingly, from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He said the step was extremely dangerous and called on Europe to impose punitive sanctions, raising the prospect of fresh regional tensions. “The enrichment of uranium is made for one reason and one reason only: it’s for the creation of atomic bombs,” he said.
So now to the second question I have. What happens if we go to war with Iran?
It would start with a deadly opening attack. Nearly untraceable, ruthless rivals spreading chaos on multiple continents. Costly miscalculations. And thousands — perhaps hundreds of thousands — killed in a conflict that would dwarf the war in Iraq.
A US-Iran war, would have the potential to be one of the worst conflicts in history.
Washington and Tehran have remain locked in a months-long standoff with no end in sight.
The US has imposed crushing sanctions on Iran’s economy over its support for terrorism and its growing missile program.
Iran has fought back by violating parts of the nuclear agreement and downing an American military drone.
To hear President Donald Trump tell it, that last incident brought the US within 10 minutes of launching warplanes and dropping bombs on Iran. Had Trump gone through with the planned strike, it’s possible both nations would now be engaged in a much more violent, much bloodier struggle.
Importantly, both country’s leaders say they don’t want a war. But the possibility of one breaking out anyway shouldn’t be dismissed, especially since an Iranian insult directed at Trump last month led him to threaten the Islamic Republic’s “obliteration” for an attack on “anything American.”
In other words, Tehran doesn’t have to kill any US troops, diplomats, or citizens to warrant a military response — it just has to try.
Which means the standoff between the US and Iran teeters on the edge, and it won’t take much to knock it off.
So to understand how bad it could get, I researched and found the comments of several current and former White House, Pentagon, and intelligence officials, as well as Middle East experts, how a war between the US and Iran might play out.
The bottom line: It would be hell on earth.
“This would be a violent convulsion similar to chaos of the Arab Spring inflicted on the region for years,” said Ilan Goldenberg, the Defense Department’s Iran team chief from 2009 to 2012, with the potential for it to get “so much worse than Iraq.”
US-imposed sanctions have tanked Iran’s economy, and Tehran desperately wants them lifted. But with few options to force the Trump administration to change course, Iranian leaders may choose a more violent tactic to make their point.
Iranian forces could bomb an American oil tanker traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the global energy trade aggressively patrolled by Tehran’s forces, causing loss of life or a catastrophic oil spill.
The country’s skillful computer hackers could launch a major cyber attack on regional allies like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates.
Our ally Israel could kill an Iranian nuclear scientist, leading Iran to strike back and drawing the US into the conflict, especially if Tehran responds forcefully. Or Iranian-linked allies could target and murder American troops and diplomats in Iraq.
That last option is particularly likely, experts say. After all, Iran bombed the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and killed more than 600 US troops during the Iraq War.
Taking this step may seem extreme, but “Iran could convince itself that it could do this,” Goldenberg, now at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington, stated.
At that point, it’d be nearly impossible for the Trump administration not to respond in kind. The recommendations given to the president would correspond to whatever action Iran took.
If Tehran destroyed an oil tanker, killing people and causing an oil spill, the US might destroy some of Iran’s ships.
If Iran took out another US military drone, the US might take out some of Iran’s air defenses.
And if Iranian-backed militants killed Americans in Iraq, then US troops stationed there could retaliate, killing militia fighters and targeting their bases of operation in return. The US could even bomb certain training grounds inside Iran.
It’s at this point that both sides would need to communicate their red lines to each other and how not to cross them. The problem is there are no direct channels between the two countries and they don’t particularly trust each other. So the situation could easily spiral out of control.
The US strategy would almost certainly involve using overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission early on. “You don’t poke the beehive, you take the whole thing down,” Goldenberg said.
The US military would bomb Iranian ships, parked warplanes, missile sites, nuclear facilities, and training grounds, as well as launch cyber attacks on much of the country’s military infrastructure. The goal would be to degrade Iran’s conventional forces within the first few days and weeks, making it even harder for Tehran to resist American strength.
That plan definitely makes sense as an opening salvo, experts say, but it will come nowhere close to winning the war.
“It’s very unlikely that the Iranians would give up,” Michael Hanna, a Middle East expert at the Century Foundation in New York, stated. “It’s almost impossible to imagine that a massive air campaign will produce the desired result. It’s only going to produce escalation, not surrender.”
It won’t help that a sustained barrage of airstrikes will likely lead to hundreds of Iranians dead, among them innocent civilians.
That, among other things, could unify Iranian society against the US and put it firmly behind the regime, even though it has in many ways treated the population horribly over decades in power.
There’s another risk: A 2002 war game showed that Iran could sink an American ship and kill US sailors, even though the US Navy is far more powerful.
If the Islamic Republic’s forces succeeded in doing that, it could provide a searing image that could serve as a propaganda coup for the Iranians. Washington won’t gain the same amount of enthusiasm for destroying Iranian warships — that’s what’s supposed to happen.
Trump has already signaled he doesn’t want to send ground troops into Iran or even spend a long time fighting the country. That tracks with his own inclinations to keep the US out of foreign wars, particularly in the Middle East.
But with hawkish aides at his side, like National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there’s a chance they could convince him not to look weak and to go all-in and grasp victory.
But the options facing the president at that point will be extremely problematic, experts say.
The riskiest one — by far — would be to invade Iran. The logistics alone boggle the mind, and any attempt to try it would be seen from miles away. “There’s no surprise invasion of Iran,” according to Eric Brewer, who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington.
Iran has nearly three times the amount of people Iraq did in 2003, when the war began, and is about three and a half times as big. In fact, it’s the world’s 17th-largest country, with territory greater than France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal combined.
The geography is also treacherous. It has small mountain ranges along some of its borders. Entering from the Afghanistan side in the east would mean crossing two deserts.
Trying to get in from the west could also prove difficult even with Turkey — a NATO ally — as a bordering nation. After all, Ankara wouldn’t let the US use Turkey to invade Iraq, and its relations with Washington have only gotten worse since.
“It’s almost impossible to imagine that a massive air campaign will produce the desired result. It’s only going to produce escalation, not surrender.” —according to Michael Hanna, a Middle East expert at the Century Foundation
The US could try to enter Iran the way Saddam Hussein did during the Iran-Iraq war, near a water pass bordering Iran’s southwest. But it’s swampy — the Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet there — and relatively easy to protect. Plus, an invading force would run up against the Zagros Mountains after passing through, just like Saddam’s forces did.
It’s for these reasons that the private intelligence firm Stratfor called Iran a “fortress” back in 2011. If Trump chose to launch an invasion, he’d likely need around 1.6 million troops to take control of the capital and country, a force so big it would overwhelm America’s ability to host them in regional bases. By contrast, America never had more than 180,000 service members in Iraq.
And there’s the human cost. A US-Iran war would likely lead to thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead. Trying to forcibly remove the country’s leadership, experts say, might drive that total into the millions.
That helps explain why nations in the region hope they won’t see a fight. Goldenberg, who traveled last month to meet with officials in the Gulf, said that none of them wanted a US-Iran war.
European nations will also worry greatly about millions of refugees streaming into the continent, which would put immense pressure on governments already dealing with the fallout of the Syrian refugee crisis. Israel also would worry about Iranian allies targeting them.
Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China — both friendly to Iran — would try to stop the fighting and exploit it at the same time, the Century Foundation’s Hanna stated.
China depends heavily on its goods traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, so it would probably call for calm and for Tehran not to close down the waterway.
Russia would likely demand restraint as well, but use the opportunity to solidify its ties with the Islamic Republic.
So folks, there you have the answers to my two big questions. I’m sure you have questions as well.
So what do we do? Should we sit back and appease Iran while they continue to build their war machine like the Europeans did with Hitler?
Or should we step in now and risk a world war to put a stop to Iran once and for all?
Skip to content
