\u00b9This is a technical story with stunning strategic implications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is quite possible the US launched a massive war because Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff lacked the technical expertise to even understand what the Iranians were offering in negotiations. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Absolute idiocy\u00b3.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b2The Trump administration has cited Iran\u2019s Tehran Research Reactor as a central justification for its military strikes, but has provided no evidence that the facility \u2014 built by the United States and used for civilian research for nearly six decades \u2014 was being used to develop nuclear weapons. Multiple nuclear scientists and nonproliferation experts told MS NOW that the reactor does not have the capacity to serve as an easy conduit to a bomb as asserted by the administration.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The gap between the administration\u2019s numerous claims about Iran and the available evidence has become a focal point of criticism as questions mount over the decision to launch strikes rather than continue negotiations. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Just 36 hours before the United States opened its military assault, Iran\u2019s nuclear negotiators, along with Oman\u2019s foreign minister as mediator, presented the U.S. with a seven-page proposal for a potential nuclear deal, according to U.S. negotiator Steve Witkoff. But the American negotiators, Witkoff and Jared Kushner \u2014 who, according to a senior Middle East diplomat with knowledge of the talks, chose not to include nuclear technical experts in the negotiations \u2014 balked at Iran\u2019s request to continue using 20%-enriched uranium at the reactor, a facility for civilian nuclear development that the U.S. first built and provided to Iran in 1967.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe claim that they were using a research reactor to do good for the Iranian people was a complete and false pretense to hide the fact that they were stockpiling there,\u201d a senior Trump administration official told reporters during a briefing on Tuesday, three days after the attacks began. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n But the Trump administration has yet to provide evidence or intelligence \u2014 to the public or to Congress \u2014 demonstrating that Iran intended to use the uranium at the Tehran Research Reactor for weapon development or that the facility was being covertly used for stockpiling purposes. In two classified briefings provided to lawmakers since the attacks, administration officials made no assertion that the reactor was being used for stockpiling purposes for a potential weapon, according to two people familiar with their comments.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe [International Atomic Energy Agency] had evidence that they were stockpiling there and they had enough fuel to run TRR for the next seven or eight years without any additional fuel being delivered,\u201d Witkoff said on \u201cThe Mark Levin Show.\u201d \u201cThey were stockpiling again at the 20% level.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Witkoff alleged that the International Atomic Energy Agency director general, Rafael Grossi, who was a part of the final round of talks just before the military incursion, told Iran that it had stopped \u201cburning anything\u201d at the reactor and, instead, claimed that \u201call of the fuel is stockpiled.\u201d Witkoff said it was their \u201c\u2018Perry Mason\u2019 moment.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The IAEA and Grossi did not respond to MS NOW\u2019s requests for corroboration of Witkoff\u2019s statement over the last four days. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs the IAEA has publicly affirmed, Iran was stockpiling near-weapons grade enriched uranium while refusing to participate in serious negotiations with the United States,\u201d White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement to MS NOW. \u201cThankfully, President Trump will never stand back and allow a country that chants \u2018Death to America\u2019 to ever obtain a nuclear weapon, and Operation Epic Fury is effectively taking out their capabilities of doing so.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the week since the start of the U.S.-Israeli attacks, the IAEA and the White House have issued conflicting statements as to how close Iran was believed to be toward the production of a nuclear weapon.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis is spin, it just isn\u2019t true, and the conversation that did take place with Director General Grossi present has been taken completely out of context by Mr. Witkoff,\u201d a Persian Gulf diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations said in response to the claim. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Confusing and misleading\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Several nuclear experts who spoke to MS NOW questioned the extent to which Witkoff and Kushner \u2014 who led the nuclear negotiations and described the Iranian position to Trump \u2014 understood the technical details of the enrichment programs at the heart of the deliberations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Elena Sokova, the executive director of the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, called the administration\u2019s assessments of the Tehran Research Reactor \u201cconfusing and misleading\u201d and riddled with \u201ctechnical errors.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt mixes up different elements of the nuclear program and their potential proliferation capabilities,\u201d Sokova said. \u201cResearch reactors are not capable of doing enrichment of uranium, whether for civil or military purposes.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Witkoff and Kushner did not bring technical experts from the U.S. to sit in on their talks in Geneva, according to a senior Middle East diplomat with knowledge of the talks, and the White House opted to forgo scheduled technical talks set for this past Monday in Vienna, where more detailed nuclear details were expected to be addressed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen it comes to nuclear nonproliferation discussions, the details matter,\u201d said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. \u201cAnd working out the details requires time and technical expertise, and the administration was not patient enough to apply either to this effort.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Witkoff defended his credentials last week to lead the nuclear talks.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI wouldn\u2019t tell you I\u2019m an expert in nuclear, but I\u2019ve learned quite a bit, and I\u2019ve studied it and have read quite a bit about it, and I\u2019m competent to sit at the table and discuss it, and Jared [Kushner] is as well,\u201d Witkoff said on \u201cThe Mark Levin Show.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A 60-year-old facility<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. first built and provided the Tehran Research Reactor to Iran in 1967 as part of the \u201cAtoms for Peace\u201d program that began under President Dwight Eisenhower. The initiative aimed to expand civilian nuclear capabilities for electricity, medicine and other domestic purposes. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The reactor requires 20%-enriched fuel and a relatively minimally enriched amount compared with the material required for the production of a nuclear weapon. Under the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, known as the JCPOA, the reactor would have access to no more than 5 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium at a time, supplied from outside the country and monitored by inspectors.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The reactor has not come under IAEA scrutiny for suspected nuclear development in more than 25 years, according to Katariina Simonen, a board member of Pugwash Conferences of Science and World Affairs and an adjunct professor at the Finnish National Defence University.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTRR is not ideal for any other activity than what it is designed for \u2014 i.e., civilian use (isotopes, research, training),\u201d Simonen told MS NOW. \u201cIt is a small, light-water reactor supplied by the U.S. under the Atoms for Peace program.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute over 20% enrichment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the heart of the Trump administration\u2019s case is the 20%-enriched uranium that Iran uses at the Tehran Research Reactor. In the seven-page proposal presented at negotiations in Geneva last week, the Iranians sought to maintain a certain level of enrichment at 20% for the purposes of producing radioisotopes and medicine \u2014 standard civilian applications \u2014 at the facility.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Witkoff argued that the 20% enrichment level gave Iran \u201cfive times the level that the JCPOA would have allowed,\u201d referring to the Obama-era agreement\u2019s cap of 3.67% for Iran\u2019s broader enrichment activities. But the JCPOA separately provided for 20%-enriched fuel to be supplied from outside Iran specifically to meet the reactor\u2019s needs, capped at 5 kg at any given time and subject to international monitoring by inspectors.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe TRR reactor requires 20% fuel \u2014 that\u2019s how the reactor is designed,\u201d said Kimball of the Arms Control Association. \u201cIs [the TRR] all a cover for nuclear weapons? One can make that claim. But at the same time, Iran was in the talks describing what they think their future nuclear energy needs might be and why, at some point in the future, they want to have the option to enrich uranium.\u201d <\/strong>\u00b9https:\/\/x.com\/i\/status\/2031359553984479612<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n