Trump Launches War On Iran

[Pound4abrown]

Intel changes

Yes I voted for Donald Trump and I'm not sorry. I don't know enough about the situation in Iran's to believe you. And since your argument consists of nothing but orange man bad you're not trustworthy.

So it is your argument that 2wks ago Iran wasn't making Nukes, and then presto chango they were?
I really hope that is your stupid theory.

 

[ElChupacabra]

He isn’t wrong. Iran has everything it needs to make a bomb. The only thing they lack is the confidence that they won’t blow themselves up by using the wrong plutonium isotopes.

So they're not suicidal nutters willing to risk annihilation by using one even of they had it. Good to know.

 

[eohrnberger]

Link.

You are demanding a link from me that I don't consume NewsMax?
Seriously?

 

[soap box]

The are a number of implicit and flawed assumptions in the declaration that the JCPOA was working.

• The JCPOA assumed Iran would dismantle excess centrifuges, halt enrichment at Fordow, and redesign the Arak reactor to prevent plutonium production, all verified by IAEA inspections.
  It presumed Iran’s political will to comply, driven by sanctions relief incentives (e.g., $100 billion in unfrozen assets, per The New York Times).
  
  Assumption: The IAEA would have unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, including military sites like Parchin, to verify compliance through continuous monitoring, real-time cameras, and the Additional Protocol (enhanced safeguards). This assumes Iran would provide “full and timely cooperation” on undeclared activities and allow experienced inspectors to operate freely.
  
  Details: The JCPOA mandated 24/7 IAEA access to Natanz, Fordow, and other sites, with 130–150 inspectors deployed. The Additional Protocol required Iran to declare all nuclear activities and allow snap inspections.
  The assumption hinged on Iran’s transparency and the IAEA’s ability to detect any covert weaponization efforts.
  
  
• International Cooperation and Enforcement
  Assumption: The P5+1 would maintain unified pressure on Iran to comply, with mechanisms like the U.N. Security Council’s “snapback” sanctions (Resolution 2231) to deter violations. It assumed continued U.S. participation and European commitment to sanctions relief, ensuring Iran’s economic incentive to adhere.
  
  
• Long-Term Sustainability of Restrictions
  Assumption: The JCPOA’s phased restrictions (e.g., 10–15-year limits on enrichment, centrifuges, and Arak) would delay Iran’s nuclear capability long enough to build trust, leading to permanent non-proliferation commitments. It assumed Iran would not resume enrichment post-restrictions (e.g., after 2030).
  
  Details: The deal’s “sunset clauses” allowed Iran to expand nuclear activities after 2025–2030, assuming compliance would foster diplomatic normalization.
  
  
• It presumed ongoing U.S. and P5+1 engagement to negotiate follow-on agreements.
  Critical Analysis
  Flawed Assumptions: The JCPOA’s reliance on Iran’s compliance, robust IAEA access, and P5+1 unity faltered post-2018 U.S. withdrawal, as Iran’s 60% enrichment and restricted inspections (your IAEA question) demonstrate. The assumption of non-weaponization intent is questionable given unresolved pre-2003 activities and recent advances (web:14).
  
  
• Enforcement Weakness: Snapback sanctions require Security Council consensus, unattainable with China and Russia’s opposition (GOV/2025/24). Iran’s economic isolation reduced compliance incentives, as sanctions relief didn’t materialize fully, per Reuters.
  
  Current Risks: Iran’s breakout time is now weeks, not a year, per the IAEA, with 233 kg of weapons-grade uranium possible in three weeks.

There's only one reason for a regime to enrich uranium beyond what is needed for peace time nuclear uses (between 3% and 6% if I recall) . . . and that's to build a bomb. Iran was enriching to something like 60%, with the last step to full weapons grade being far easier and quicker than getting to 60% enrichment.

Trump had to do what needed to be done.

You do some ****ing homework.

Friendly reminder,
Portions of a post that use AI generated material need citations by rule 9a. I would hold it to a higher standard where posting AI results would include the prompt that preceded the answer.

 

[Napoleon]

So they're not suicidal nutters willing to risk annihilation by using one even of they had it. Good to know.

No, they may very well use it when they make one. They haven’t spent almost 20 years manufacturing ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads for nothing.

 

[stealthycat]

Right. Then based on that, what the **** are you crying about?

I'm not crying

I'm pointing out how liberals/Democrats supported strong talks on Iran ..... how Obama and Biden has no problems bombing areas in other countries.

That's facts.

Now, its also facts Trump ran on a "lets get out of wars and not into wars" campaign. Obviously, that's 100% NOT what's happened.

 

[eohrnberger]

Maybe they started "cheating" after Trump reneged? What good is a deal with the US (who would bomb them) not being involved?

I've posted the factual constraints and suspect assumption under which the JCPOA was operating in post #2,838.
Some of those constraints impacted its effectiveness, and the assumptions don't appear to have been overly optimistic, based on the experience over the years.

 

[Tangmo]

Iran hasn’t attacked us. Their is proper use for a country. If they violate their treaty under International wits up to the Hague to deal with it, not us. We signed an agreement with Iran under Obama. It would have allowed inspectors. Trump withdrew from the agreement meaning we no longer had the right to involve ourselves.
You seem to not realize that Iran uses nuclear energy for electricity.

Wrong. Iran's use of nuclear energy for electricity is not at issue here.

Your posts seem to not realize a lot about international relations. Your posts are high school sophomoric but not open to further learning.

Your post is rejected because it is oblivious to USA interests in a still globalize world. And because you deny international relations that are historically proved to be necessary and beneficial across ideologies, religions, ethnicities and language. To include war and peace of which you posts know nothing.

 

[BirdinHand]

It's official state policy since 1979 when the ayatollahs took charge of Iran.

The rejection of Israel's legitimacy has remained consistent across both hardline and moderate Iranian leaderships. Supreme Leaders Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei have both repeatedly referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" and publicly called for its elimination. Even reformist leaders and moderate clerics have supported this stance. While the Iranian regime maintains that its opposition is directed at Zionism rather than at Jews or Judaism, official propaganda has frequently blurred this distinction, at times incorporating Holocaust denial and invoking antisemitic tropes.

Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The presumptive burden to prove so called moderate clerics would change this to accept Israel is a heavy weight to pull and over a long haul.

If there's a military coup it would be by the Revolutionary Guard who would place a 2-star in as president and supreme leader. The Revolutionary Guard hates Israeli guts. An IRG coup is reasonably likely given the ayatollahs have presided over the decimation of Hamas and Hezbollah, the defeat of Iran backed militias in Syria where their guy Assad was chased out to Moscow, and Israel getting the US to bomb nuclear program sites to wreck the equipment and technologies. Israel has killed off nuclear scientists and IRG high ranking chiefs and commanders. Indeed, the ayatollahs have nothing left in 'em. The IRG has to intercept this runaway train of major disasters.

Thank you.

I’m trying to learn more about the dynamics in Iran (and remember what I’ve forgotten)

 

[ElChupacabra]

Iran never got a working weapon. Israel destroyed their illegal nuclear program before they could develop one.

What about all of the years prior when they were two weeks away as well?

The main threat of Iranian nukes is that they would use them to deter against efforts to uphold international law.

Sure, and that's an understandable concern. The question is why haven't they developed them in all of the years they were supposedly close to having one.

The secondary threat is that letting everyone in the world have nukes means an inevitable nuclear war that will destroy civilization.

So we hear, but what the nuclear arms race has taught us is the desire for self preservation still supersedes any ambition to use nuclear weapons offensively because of the chain reaction it would cause and almost certainly lead to the destruction of the nation that uses them. We had two super powers armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons yet neither used them for this purpose because they understand the implications. The same is true for other nuclear powers because they know global alliances will trigger similar attacks against any aggressor using these weapons.

Moving the centrifuges would be a pretty significant operation that would have been noticed.

No one is sure is the only thing that can be said with any certainty. Some speculate the trucks seen outside Fordo a day or two before the strike could mean they were there to help reinforce the facility or potentially transport the material out.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, they may very well use it when they make one. They haven’t spent almost 20 years manufacturing ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads for nothing.

That's a lot of speculation. We have scores of missiles capable of the same, yet have yet to use them, the same goes for Russia and China. Iran may very well use it or do what other nuclear powers do and have them as a means of deterrence.

 

[Fletch]

They knew Trump couldn't resist. Is it possible they moved their stuff? Are we sure those sites weren't just facades at the time of the bombing?

Not sure why you would spend the energy building a site 300 feet underground to act as some 'facade.' Was Iran planning on developing nukes? I have no idea. But if you are smart, you dont allow a nation that runs around screaming 'death to America' to develop the means to do so.

 

[Napoleon]

That's a lot of speculation. We have scores of missiles capable of the same, yet have yet to use them, the same goes for Russia and China. Iran may very well use it or do what other nuclear powers do and have them as a means of deterrence.

What speculation?

 

[Fletch]

I’ve been hearing about nuclear war and how awful it would be if XYZ country had nukes…or how XYZ country that has nukes is bad my entire life.

And in that same lifetime, my country - the US - has engaged in how many different wars in the Middle East?

WMDs, nukes, terrorism, etc…all being the “reason”

And every.single.time we get told THIS TIME will mean peace.

Iran is and has been the central source for terrorism in the Middle East. If they developed a nuke would they use it? I doubt it. But that doesnt mean that they wouldnt arm one of its many proxies with one. Now, we no longer have to worry about that.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

How do you know, when Israel won't confirm or deny they even possess nukes?

I checked to see if Israel had signed the Non Proliferation Treaty.

The '67 war was preempted by Israel.

Good for Israel!

You haven't got a clue. Read, learn:

My facts are all in order.

 

[Airyaman]

Lol, Trump is "warning" people to not raise oil prices.

I'm sure that will work!

 

[HumblePi]

Ali Khamenei has been the Supreme Ruler of Iran since 1989. Regime change will only be possible if the people of Iran make that change happen. A growing number of Iranians are not happy with the existing ruler and are protesting, they want change. Some Iranians want a more democratic government, and many see the current situation with Israel as unsustainable.

However, the majority of Iranians inside Iran are satisfied with the stability of the current political system and, up until a couple of days ago, peaceful and safe relative to their neighborhood.They want to maintain that. Then, there are some who want to see reforms but not a counter revolution. Most real opposition is either quiet, in jail or have fled.

Since the Islamic revolution so far, Iranians have uprisen against Islamic regime many times, but IRG forces and police have severely suppressed all the objections.

 

[What if...?]

Personal insult backed with fiction. Standard MO

So “Nuh-uh!”

Got it.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

whining about Iran's potential nukes is laughably ironic coming from a country which has used them twice, and for no good reason other than to impress Uncle Joe.

Wow! I almost missed this because I am focusing mostly on replies directly to me. (This thread moves so damn fast.)

We nuked Japan because we were at the height of the most brutal war in human history. And at the time most people did not understand how devastating nukes are.

And don't give me any crap about 'millions of soldier's lives saved' by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had already been firebombed and starved into submission, and was in no position to continue fighting on any meaningful scale.

That is incorrect. Japan had millions of soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to fight to the death when we invaded. Invading Kyushu would have been an entire D-Day invasion all over again, and invading the Tokyo Plain would have been an entire third D-Day invasion.

 

[eohrnberger]

I asked the source of your post. What is it?

Being a summary of a number of different documents and articles, there isn't a single 'source'.

And I asked you:
"You have issue with the outlined constraints on the effectiveness of the JCPOA?
On what basis?"

 

[Airyaman]

Hey, didya know Trump was the one to come up with the motto "Peace through strength"?

Me neither!



Leavitt's first promise was to never lie and she's been lying ever since.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Was Iran planning on developing nukes? I have no idea.

Maga, ladies and gentlemen!

 

[What if...?]

No. Israel's nuclear weapons are legal.



My facts are all in order.



That is incorrect. The Arabs massively invaded Israel with the goal of destroying them. Israel was only defending themselves.

Have you ever looked up the map of “Eretz Israel”?

The original Israeli declaration of statehood used that term.

It includes dirt that belonged to all of the countries that attacked Israel.

 

[eohrnberger]

For example? Don't hold back. Trump reneged on JCPOA while European nation continued to support it. That's a fact, not assumption.

Iran deal: Trump breaks with European allies over 'horrible, one-sided' nuclear agreement

President says he will impose ‘highest level of economic sanctions’ on Iran as Tehran vows: ‘We won’t allow Trump to win’

www.theguardian.com

Europe punches back after Trump’s Iran decision

Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions angers Europe and spooks companies.

www.politico.eu

Given the constraints, limitations, and questionable assumptions the JCPOA can't escape (which I've posted), it was appropriately categorized as a bad deal, and it wouldn't have prevented that Islamic extremist theocracy from enriching and building their way to a nuclear weapon.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Iran hasn’t attacked us.

That is incorrect. Iran attacked us in 1979 when they invaded our embassy and then held people hostage for a year.

Iran attacked us when they massacred our forces in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

Iran attacked us when they kidnapped people in Lebanon throughout the 1980s.

Iran deserves every single thing that we decide to do to them.

If they violate their treaty under International its up to the Hague to deal with it, not us.

Israel is in charge of enforcing Iran's compliance with international law.

You seem to not realize that Iran uses nuclear energy for electricity.

Nonsense!

Iran was not enriching U235 to 60% or building a heavy water reactor to produce electricity.