Comments
By cypherpunks01 2025-06-2317:383 reply Someone should really investigate what happened to the 15-year Iran nuclear agreement that set limits on stockpile size and enrichment levels, and allowed international inspector verification.
I remember the fate of Iraq's WMD (chemical) -- they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. It was all way too suspicious, but their biggest trick was that when UN approved a military intervention, no WMDs were actually found. That put US in a very bad position because they couldn't prove WMDs existense. Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs (or just hidden well).
However, unlike chemical substances, radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace, so I bet they won't be lost for long. The only way to actually hide them is to contaminate the whole area with the same materials.
By perihelions 2025-06-2322:071 reply > "radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace"
This is quite untrue. Uranium is only marginally radioactive.
By gh02t 2025-06-244:02 Indeed it is not, however it's quite difficult to scrub anything sufficiently to hide them from IAEA environmental sampling (most of which is chemical based, primarily micro scale spectroscopy). Enriching uranium is a nasty, dirty process at all steps that leaves a lot of sticky, messy, and hard to get rid of traces, and IAEA has access to some of the most sophisticated analytical laboratories on the planet and a lot of practice.
If the inspectors are given sufficient access to do their inspections.
By ToucanLoucan 2025-06-2321:282 reply We're so back. Another quagmire war in the middle east. Exactly what we needed.
For whatever you feel about WMDs or the justification for the Iraq war, the facts are we spent almost two decades in the first go round, found no WMDs, killed a dictator we installed, blew up a shit ton of infrastructure, rebuild a shit ton of it, killed probably millions of innocent people, absolutely blew up the Taliban and later ISIS's recruitment numbers, made ourselves look fucking stupid on the global stage, then pulled out, leaving billions in military materiel to be claimed by the people we were ostensibly there to stop.
An utter fucking farce, and we have learned absolutely nothing. Time to send more young men to die.
By stickfigure 2025-06-2321:374 reply Why do you assume the US will invade?
By whatshisface 2025-06-2322:062 reply The actions on the US-Israel side so far (deeply cutting non-defense discretionary spending, decoupling from international trade, assassinating secular leaders who can be replaced, bombing three locations which can be rebuilt) only make sense as the near-term prelude to a major ground invasion. If the invasion doesn't happen the US will be left with a self-inflicted economic growth wound and no way to explain it, and Israel will be left with an adversary that believes itself to be facing an existential risk, that is able to enrich uranium, and that would not trust any treaty negotiations.
By stickfigure 2025-06-2323:051 reply If the ground invasion doesn't happen, will you come here and openly admit "I was wrong and need to adjust my priors"?
By Eddy_Viscosity2 2025-06-240:302 reply Did you believe Trump and his people when they campaigned on not attacking Iran while claiming repeatedly that Harris would if elected. If so did can you admit you were wrong and need to adjust your priors?
By biofunsf 2025-06-244:07 Was this really a Trump campaign promise? Can't find it online credible and genuinely curious. Also tried here https://archive.ph/76zVk
By stickfigure 2025-06-244:07 I have never believed a word that comes out of Trump's mouth. My priors are holding up just fine.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2322:442 reply The self-inflicted economic wound is nothing more than Trumpnomics. If the numbers look bad he will just say they are fake or solved by GDP growth or tariff revenue.
Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them. Nothing has changed with these strikes.
Bombing nuclear facilities and killing scientists kicks the can down the road and that has worked for decades. But the US/Israel coalition is also trying to negotiate or orchestrate regime change, which could provide a more lasting impact.
> But the US/Israel coalition is also trying to negotiate or orchestrate regime change, which could provide a more lasting impact.
Are there any credible signs of this?
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-241:58 I don't think anyone has said so beyond, of course, "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"
Considering how far Israel has gone in Gaza, I wouldn't rule out them pursuing maximized goals in Iran.
By ToucanLoucan 2025-06-2322:522 reply > Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them.
Every respected strategist said the exact same fucking thing about Iraq before we killed 17 years there. Didn't stop us from trying and failing.
By InitialLastName 2025-06-2323:50 The population of Israel is 1/9 the population of Iran. The population of the US in 2003 was 10x the population of Iraq. Huge difference in what it takes to actually attempt to occupy a foreign country with a hostile populace.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2323:112 reply You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah?
By amy214 2025-06-242:49 >You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah?
Well, the hand and the head are different body parts, but one controls the other
By ndsipa_pomu 2025-06-2410:22 > You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah?
citation needed
By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-06-2322:04 While I am first to admit that my basic assumptions have been severely tested by the last news cycle, I do think it is very naive to think this is the end of hostilities.
By platevoltage 2025-06-2321:461 reply Because we've all been here before. This time we are led in by someone who is just as stupid, but with several times more malicious intent.
By stickfigure 2025-06-2321:51 We've also bombed places without invading. I share your opinion of Trump, but even a stopped clock...
Both the US and Israel currently have leaders that have to be seen as "wartime leaders" to extend their rule beyond what their respective country's laws usually permit, because otherwise they both very likely will end up in prison.
This is not true of Bibi. No law limits how much he can serve. The only legal block for him remaining in power is that he's undergoing various criminal trials, which may or may not end with him being found guilty.
There is, of course, a lot of pressure for him to resign or for various other things to happen that he is currently managing to put on hold due to the war, but that's legal, and doesn't require wartime.
Absent all that, he faces elections in 2026.
By leptons 2025-06-245:52 It is true of Bibi that he should be in prison instead of leading Israel, for many reasons. There's speculation that he knew about Oct 7th before it happened, and let it happen so that he could maintain his power. Now it's war with Iran. I'm really not sure how far he would go to stay in power.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2322:022 reply Bibi, yes. Trump is in the clear. The immunity decision means that successfully prosecuting a president will take years.
By ToucanLoucan 2025-06-2322:531 reply I genuinely think hell will freeze over before we see an American president face justice.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2323:131 reply We would have if he hadn't been reelected or if some of the prosecutions were not so ambitious.
By ToucanLoucan 2025-06-2412:511 reply I admire your faith in the system. Neither party wants to see presidents prosecuted, because basically every president remaining alive could be easily convicted of a slough of war crimes and other crimes against humanity for their actions in perpetuating the American Empire.
This isn't even to say they are individually imperialists, but every last one, as soon as they take the oath of office, immediately begins getting their hands soaked, drenched in blood. They can't not. That's what the system does and that's all it can do. And the few candidates who ran on the idea that that should be changed were roundly rejected by their associated party, and an independent has received, at most, 5% of the vote?
Nah. Trump was never going to see anything, even for his particularly egregious offenses. I knew it in 2018 and I still know it. If he ever faces the most meager iota of consequences I'll eat my favorite hat, and post video here.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2414:371 reply Except that Trump was being actively prosecuted when he was re-elected. By the DOJ, by a special prosecutor, and by the Atlanta DA. None of these were performative, none were condemned by the party in charge, all had a fairly high probability of eventual conviction.
"War crimes" and "crimes against humanity" sound a lot like offenses to so-called international law (cough, treaties).
By ToucanLoucan 2025-06-2414:522 reply > By the DOJ, by a special prosecutor, and by the Atlanta DA. None of these were performative, none were condemned by the party in charge, all had a fairly high probability of eventual conviction.
What does that matter when getting elected was apparently all he needed to dodge the entire thing? There's no evidence at all that said prosecution will resume when (if?) he leaves the White House, he's had free reign to demolish the case against him while in power, and again, all of this hinges on the Justice system actually holding a president accountable for crimes, international or otherwise, which has yet to be done, ever.
Even NIXON didn't actually get prosecuted for anything and (at least before Trump) he was the most crooked president ever, and his crooked actions in office persist to this day in the form of the war on drugs. When you're president, apparently, crime is just legal. It was for Nixon, and it has thus far for Trump.
By AnimalMuppet 2025-06-2416:24 Nixon was going to be impeached and removed from office. The House Judiciary Committee had already voted to impeach, so the motion to impeach was headed for the full House. He resigned because he knew he couldn't stop it.
It's true that he wasn't going to be imprisoned, but he wasn't going to "dodge the entire thing". I don't know whether he would have been prosecuted or not; Ford pardoned him before we got a chance to find out.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2416:201 reply > What does that matter when getting elected was apparently all he needed to dodge the entire thing?
Well it is relevant to your statement that neither party wants to see a president get convicted. And understanding there is some wiggle room in your exact phrasing, the dems presumably wouldn't have permitted or endorsed the prosecution if they didn't want a conviction.
> getting elected was all he needed
I mean, getting elected president of the United States is probably one of the hardest things to do. I don't like that he has immunity while holding office but the voters used their authority over the justice system to excuse him. It sucks, but it means the DOJ and Atlanta DA office didn't get their day in court. Well, DA Willis kinda shot herself in the foot, but that's beside the point.
> There's no evidence at all that said prosecution will resume
That doesn't change the fact that he was being prosecuted and in all likelihood would have been convicted of numerous felonies. None of the facts will change in four years except that Trump will either be dead or pardon himself.
> Even NIXON didn't actually get prosecuted for anything
He wasn't convicted because he was pardoned. This is a good example to your earlier point of the US not wanting to suffer the disgrace of a president being convicted. But that has limits that we witnessed with Trump. It's unfair to say the justice system won't hold presidents accountable when it doesn't actually get the opportunity due to a pardon from the executive or, in Trump's case, the will of the electorate.
By AnimalMuppet 2025-06-2416:301 reply I suspect the Biden DOJ miscalculated badly. They wanted to let Trump be the convicted as late in the 2024 election cycle as possible, in order to mess up the Republican campaign. (Almost a mirror image of what happened to the Democrats when Biden decided not to run.) But Trump was able to delay the process until it was too late.
If my suspicion is right, that was one of the more spectacular political miscalculations in American history. If I'm wrong... well, maybe the DOJ was investigating and stuff, but from the outside it looks like they wasted a year that they really could have used.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2417:27 It would be completely on-brand for the dems to slow roll the prosecutions only to have the entire thing blow up in their faces and let a criminal off the hook.
That said, the Jan 6 prosecutions followed the traditional, deliberate bottom-up approach. The classified documents case was derailed by a maverick Trump judge but would eventually see a jury. The Georgia state charges were hamstrung by their chosen RICO path and Willis's ill-advised romantic entanglement. It could be that Biden and the DNC stayed out of it in a deliberate attempt to take the high road and/or avoid handing Trump a political defense.
On January 7 everyone thought Trump's political career was over and that he could only delay justice. Alas, he set up a very large inflation time bomb in 2020 and the rest is history.
Trump has been suggesting he deserves a 3rd term. The codified limit is 2 terms.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2414:39 He says he deserves a lot of things.
By deepsun 2025-06-2415:29 Another quagmire war is underway, you forgot Russia. Tortures, genocidal propaganda, cutting body parts. And the soldiers doing that are not prosecuted, but awarded.
I feel about Iran war the same way: yes it's going to happen whether we want it or not, there's nothing we can do. If you persuade everyone to not interfere, Iran would just drop nukes on other countries, so there will be nothing to interfere into later.
Saudi Arabia always declared that if Iran gets nuclear, they will do too, and they have unlimited money to do that.
By timewizard 2025-06-2321:28 > they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years.
For many years the IAEA vacillated between praising and and admonishing the Iraqi's for their cooperation or lack thereof.
> It was all way too suspicious
Yea, for _both_ sides. There was clearly more politics being played in these deals than anyone let be known.
> Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs
There really were no WMDs. They have a shelf life. They expire. There was some evidence they did exist but were likely long gone. Hans Blix was pretty clear on this. This angered the CIA so greatly they made him a target to undermine him. It didn't work.
This is recent history and how quickly it is forgotten.
even if Iran was honestly complying, it seems that 60% level left them enough wiggle room for "accidental enrichment" Ooopps :
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/iran-denies-enrichi...
" Iran has denied that it has intentionally enriched uranium to a purity of 84 percent ...
US-based financial news agency Bloomberg reported on Sunday that inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had found uranium enriched to a purity of 84 percent — just below the 90 percent required for a bomb — and are trying to determine if it was produced intentionally."
Peaceful energy requires well under 10%. Enriching any noticeable amount (i.e. >> research/medical quantities) beyond that level has only one purpose - weapons (and you can make a weapon even with slightly sub-90%, and 84% does sound there, it is just a bit more technically complex and yield may be less, yet who measures ...)
The JCPOA limit was 3.67%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
So, if 3.67% was enough for them (like for anybody else doing peaceful nuclear energy), why they have produced so much of 60%?
Edit: judging by the answers the word "why" happened to be misunderstood in my question. I'll restate it - what purpose Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% for?
So far the only plausible answer has been - weapons.
So, Iran:
I.e. Iran presented credible existential threat to Israel and US, and thus is getting bombed in response.- claimed intention of destruction of Israel and US, - started the actual, not by proxy, war with Israel by missile attack on October 2024, - and made all the practical steps toward obtaining nuclear weapons (and does have ballistic missiles to carry them)By zzzeek 2025-06-2322:05 because the US pulled out of the deal and reinstated the sanctions which were the whole reason Iran joined the JCPOA in the first place.
This is like asking why your employee stopped showing up for work after you fired them.
No, it's like asking why you spent a billion dollars renovating your house, then claimed you were never planning to live in it.
By owebmaster 2025-06-2413:22 Knock knock. It's the world police.
By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-2322:08 Iran complied with the <4% limit throughout the entire period that the United States remained party to the JCPOA.
The US (specifically Trump at the behest of Netanyahu) broke the agreement, no one else.
By pharrington 2025-06-2322:21 Yes, that happened 5 years after Trump unilaterally destroyed the Iran nuclear weapons ban deal.
this is a misunderstanding of the full context. The US abandoned the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 under Trump's order to withdraw from the agreement (which was, IMO, strictly part of his package to ruin the legacy of Obama, who he despises deeply). This essentially killed the primary reason Iran agreed in the first place, which was relief from sanctions. However the agreement remains in force to this day and is still monitored by the IAEA. So it's not very surprising that Iran resumed their enrichment activities [1] and Trump's actions in 2018 has led to vastly higher tensions between the US/Iran/Israel.
It is well established by the IAEA itself that Iran fully honored the terms of the JCPOA up until Trump intentionally ruined the agreement by pulling the US out of it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
By perihelions 2025-06-2322:431 reply That's quite something to read again with the perspective of hindsight. It's highly ironic that the European Commission called the US sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program illegal (and took actions against them); those same ballistic missiles are being used against Europe today, in Ukraine.
That was in 2018; the EU ended up themselves sanctioning Iran for ballistic missiles in 2024,
> "In a statement dated 13 September 2024, the EU strongly condemned the recent transfer of Iranian-made ballistic missiles to Russia, considered as a direct threat to European security [sic!] and as a substantive material escalation from the provision of Iranian UAVs and ammunition, which Russia had used in its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. The High Representative stated that the EU would respond swiftly and in coordination with international partners, including with new and significant restrictive measures against Iran."
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024...
> "The European Union on Monday imposed sanctions on Iran’s deputy defense minister, senior members of its paramilitary Revolutionary Guard and three airlines over allegations that they supplied drones, missiles and other equipment to Russia for use in its war against Ukraine."
https://apnews.com/article/eu-russia-drones-missiles-iran-sa...
By dmurray 2025-06-246:59 It's not that ironic to have the view that a country is entitled to weapons to defend itself, while still complaining later on when they sell them to your enemies. It's just too principled to make sense to Americans.
By rstuart4133 2025-06-2410:461 reply Yes, it looks pretty certain to me that Trumps 1st term policy changes are the root cause of this war:
https://theconversation.com/trumps-first-term-lies-at-the-he...
It's entirely in keeping with nature the man that he now claims to be the worlds peace maker.
Didnt want to say it in my comment above but I agree and I generally think even Oct 7 hamas attack might not have happened if iran were less isolated
but netanyahu wanted oct 7 to happen pretty badly as it's kept him out of jail for a couple of years now
By rstuart4133 2025-06-2422:18 Yes, Hamas played right into Netanyahu's hands, gifting him the rational he needed to deal crippling blow to Hamas itself, and inflict untold misery on the Palestinians who elected them. Possibly they did it with Iran's encouragement but in the end, sowing the seeds of Gaza's destruction was their choice to make.
While Trump took the first step down that lead to this path of destruction, but we would not have gotten to where we are now without the enthusiastic help of a cast of cretinous politicians just like him. A pox on all their houses.
By TiredOfLife 2025-06-2319:322 reply You mean the one Iran was constantly breaking and refusing access to inspectors?
I really thought Iran was breaking the deal too. Just did a google search and found articles from politico and AP fact checking and it seemed that Iran was complying with the deal.
Do you have any links or relevant sources to show that they weren't?
By stickfigure 2025-06-2321:344 reply Here's a good timeline:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d0...
The upshot is that the US terminated the deal in 2019 and then the Iranians started "racing" for a bomb.
Before you think the nuclear deal was good, I have to ask: Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"?
It seems a bit like holding the world hostage. There are other ways to stop the bomb program, as we have now seen. The diplomatic solution grants Iran permission to destabilize the region by funding Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.
I'm pretty ok bombing hostile religious fanatics trying to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
By crazygringo 2025-06-2321:45 > Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"
Lots of nations are "bad actors" in lots of ways. And sanctions come in many different shapes and sizes.
So yes, it is absolutely OK to sanction a country more because they are building a nuclear bomb, and then remove those extra sanctions if they stop.
Sanctions aren't all-or-nothing. The whole idea is that the more you go along with international norms, the less you're sanctioned. Otherwise they wouldn't work to change behavior, because change is always a matter of degrees. Iran isn't going to become Switzerland overnight. That's not how countries work.
I personally think that it's not ok that Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis.
I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites. I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war.
By mandmandam 2025-06-2410:55 > Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis.
Have you seen Israeli leaders plans for 'Greater Israel'?
> I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites.
A - Did they though?
B - Cheering on huge breaches of international law, spurring nations to develop their own nuclear weapons and ignore peace talks, seems rather short-sighted.
> I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war.
... That's quite the cherry on a remarkably ahistorical cake. Countries generally respond to people genociding and invading their neighbours, assassinating their negotiators and scientists, etc.
By unethical_ban 2025-06-2321:521 reply >Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"?
As Morpheus said, "Welcome to the real world."
I'm pretty okay bribing nations to verifiably not build nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-2322:091 reply According to these absolute la-la-land real politickers, states are supposed to just not build nuclear weapons — tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely.
Obviously you have to fucking bribe them! Bribing is infinitely better than bombing, where each marginal bombing increases the imperative for every other state to develop their own nukes by reaffirming they are permanently at the mercy of nuclear states!
> tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely.
Umm, what? There are plenty of countries that "have a seat at the table" without nuclear weapons. Depending on what you mean by "seat at the table", of course, but I'm not sure there's any way to define it that excludes 95% of countries.
By f33d5173 2025-06-244:29 Maybe if defined as "permanent member of the un security council".
By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-2413:32 When push comes to shove, 100% of those states are either victims or vassals of a nuclear state.
By zzzeek 2025-06-2322:04 only after Trump ruined the agreement by pulling the US out of it in 2018. Before then, Iran was complying.
Given the thoroughness of Israel's intelligence on Iran I doubt it would have been moved without detection. Even if they did manage to move it, the moment enrichment starts back up it will just be bombed again. If it looks like a new facility is being built even deeper underground then that will just be bombed before it starts up. Without air defenses Iran doesn't have a lot of options and Gaza has shown putting an enrichment facility in the basement of a school/hospital isn't going to stop a bombing either. I'm not a military strategist but to me it seems like Iran's first priority before anything else is regaining control of their own skies.
So it turns out dismantling an entire nation's nuclear infrastructure just requires a bit of coordination with foreign intelligence and a couple of well placed airstrikes. Who knew it was that simple?
No protracted negotiations, no international coalitions, no drawn-out sanctions, just precision and decisiveness. A button pressed here, a few planes there, and the problem vanishes. Permanently, of course.
And now, with Iran's nuclear ambitions supposedly neutralized in a single blow, we can all relax. The threat is gone. No strategic aftershocks, no long term consequences, no unintended escalation. Just peace, stability, and a region completely satisfied with the outcome.
One wonders what the last 15 years were for. Bureaucratic inertia? A lack of imagination?
Progress, it seems, is just a matter of revisiting the old playbook with a bit more confidence.
By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-2323:322 reply okay I give up! You've aced Poe's test! Is this sarcasm or no?
What's a Poe test? Is it related to Edgar Allen Poe? Couldn't find anything with a quick Google search
By detaro 2025-06-2411:40
I think this bit gives it up:
> And now, with Iran's nuclear ambitions supposedly neutralized in a single blow, we can all relax. The threat is gone. No strategic aftershocks, no long term consequences, no unintended escalation. Just peace, stability, and a region completely satisfied with the outcome.
Sounds like sarcasm to me.
Yeah, other than that paragraph I think it's a perfectly reasonable sentiment.
The threat is obviously not "gone". Just substantially reduced. And we can't relax, we need to be vigilant to make sure they don't rebuild. But this certainly does seem to have been a relatively simple solution to the problem of Iranian nuclear armament.
Diplomacy is of course still a better long-term solution. But even diplomacy is a lot easier when you get to start the negotiations from a position of "No, you can't have nukes, period, regardless of whether you agree to any sort of deal or not."
By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-2414:33 No, it's really not better to start negotiations from a position of "we may unilaterally withdraw from any agreements you sign and comply with, then bomb you regardless of whether you are pursuing nukes."
This has unambiguously increased the imperative for Iran (and every other country) to acquire its own nuclear deterrent.
By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-2321:52 Israel needed the US involved more than it needs to destroy any particular equipment. Even if their intelligence indicated it moved, they'd absolutely still tell Trump that he needed to bring the B-2s down on Fordo.
Give the guy a finish line to carry the baton over, even if you already know it's not actually the finish line.
That is why my bet is that no-fly zone is coming. It is already de-facto there, and just needs official announcement and commitment of resources.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2321:551 reply Is Israel going to enforce it from the other side of Iraq? Or is the US going to do it from bases in Iran's frenemy territories?
Of course Israel wouldn't be able to it on its own. I think the 3 US aircraft carrier fleets around will do the job.
By cosmicgadget 2025-06-2322:33 That would explain the Nimitz heading over there. And answer the question of if there will be additional American involvement.
By golemiprague 2025-06-2322:00 [dead]
By 1234letshaveatw 2025-06-2317:293 reply Sounds like the picture is getting clearer now https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/06/23/us-iran-nuclear-fordo-mu...
By croes 2025-06-2317:37 Moving it would have exposed it as an easy target
By adonovan 2025-06-2317:41 "We have the ability to destroy things that people think were undestroyable. And so we think we did a really good job."
Truest thing ever said by a Trump spokesmodel!
By techpineapple 2025-06-2318:242 reply Our intelligence didn't know that Iran was trying to build a Nuclear Bomb, so we had to do this attack, but now our intelligence definetly knows:
'They are claiming that they moved some material," Mullin said, referring to Israel and Iran, respectively. "Our intelligence report says they didn't," the Oklahoma Republican said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
By PaulDavisThe1st 2025-06-2321:361 reply > Our intelligence didn't know that Iran was trying to build a Nuclear Bomb
No, our intelligence services said they were not trying to build a nuclear bomb.
By techpineapple 2025-06-2322:39 Correct, I was alluding to the inconsistency in the administrative's messaging.
