ทวิตเตอร์ | ค้นหา | |
Inst for Science
Think tank focused on nuclear nonproliferation. Employing science in pursuit of peace since 1993.
17,004
ทวีต
501
กําลังติดตาม
9,776
ผู้ติดตาม
ทวีต
Inst for Science ถูกรีทวีต
Henry Rome 5 ชม.
Indeed — waiver cancellation provided a clever talking point but is not somehow responsible for the planned stockpile limit violation
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 3 ชม.
Trump Admin to Sanction Iran’s Last European Lifeline l Wash Free Beacon
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 3 ชม.
Turkey, China, Russia to join INSTEX - Iran's official l Trend News Agency
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 3 ชม.
U.S. Calls For International Response To Iran's 'Nuclear Blackmail' l Radio Farda
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 4 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz @BrunoTertrais @laurnorman
The departure wasn’t engineered from start as you seem to be saying or due to Bolton as others have asserted. They got close and Trump’s decision was unfortunate but the E3 shares some of blame for not getting to a fix. They certainly had some counterproductive, dogmatic views 2/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 4 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz @BrunoTertrais @laurnorman
Certainly we would contest what you are saying. Under McMaster, the whole thing was coordinated and planned out of White House with Trump fully informed. In the end, Trump made the decision to drop out of nuclear deal. 1/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 13 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
That statement is false. Please do not try to rewrite history, which we know since we participated in it.
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 20 ชม.
Breakout timelines as Iran increases its stock of low enriched uranium are not simple to calculate. The stock will depend on whether Iran also re-deploys banned centrifuges. See below our quick analysis from a few weeks ago.
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 21 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @BrunoTertrais
The term “fix” was used by E3 officials, who recognized that JCPOA should not run its course. Once deal ran its course, it would be far too late to stop a nuclear weapons breakout.
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 21 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
E3 should have continued to insist on fixing the nuclear deal rather than dropping that approach for their current one. 4/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 21 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
In fact, it will likely be a military nuclear effort at its core, which they will have few ways to oppose. Some will blame Trump for putting the E3 in this unfavorable position, but the E3 shares the blame. 3/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 21 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
Unfortunately, by locking themselves into preserving the JCPOA, E3 will have little choice but to support Iran’s centrifuge buildup, if the JCPOA is preserved, even though they know how dangerous that buildup will be. 2/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 21 ชม.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
Not the same. E3 and JCPOA “rejoiners without conditions” are not likely to tell Iran to stop its uneconomical, dangerous centrifuge buildup under the JCPOA schedules. E3 at least knows better but is trapped by its current agenda to preserve the deal. 1/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science ถูกรีทวีต
FDD 17 มิ.ย.
is failing to adhere to standards. , , & explain in :
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 23 ชม.
Xi Jinping Will Make First Visit to North Korea Ahead of Meeting With Trump l NYT
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 17 มิ.ย.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @TheGoodISIS
If Iran has not increased its number of installed centrifuges and if it does not produce near 20 percent enriched uranium, its breakout timeline at that point in time, e.g with that amount of LEU, would drop to approximately five or six months, plus or minus a month. 2/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 17 มิ.ย.
A key point to watch is if or when Iran accumulates about 1,000-1,500 kilograms of 3.5 percent enriched uranium. Using only its currently allowed stock of IR-1 centrifuges, this would take more than a year, perhaps as long as two years. 1/
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 17 มิ.ย.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
Germany’s statements on maintaining JCPOA are particularly hypocritical, given that it is against nuclear power and its people would never tolerate an Iran building a nuclear power plant anywhere near its border. Germans are upset about Tihange nuclear power plants in Belgium.
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 17 มิ.ย.
กำลังตอบกลับถึง @MarkTFitz
It is implicit to maintaining the JCPOA.
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ
Inst for Science 17 มิ.ย.
Breakout Timelines Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, by David Albright, famed centrifuge expert Houston Wood, & : our 2015 report's findings are relevant today as Iran reduces its JCPOA commitments.
Reply Retweet ชื่นชอบ