Trump's Iran bombing mission appears to have been a failure.

[Bullseye]

lol

time will tell

maybe it's prognostication

Yah, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Variant]

Well. Not exactly. Enough Uranium enriched to 60% would become critical on its own. Weapons grade is generally considered about 90% or better. According to the IAEA the Iranians had more than 400kg. They could make some bombs from that but they would be big and not very powerful compared to more enriched material.

It's difficult to get uranium to go critical because explosions tend to scatter rather than compact things, which is why building a bomb with the stuff requires complex timing fuses.

 

[Variant]

That’s not true

What are the risks of bombing a nuclear site? - BBC News

Destroying Iran's stores of enriched uranium would bring danger for people nearby but not trigger another Chernobyl.

www.bbc.com

A localized risk of radiation powdered enriched uranium escaping an explosion that would take place in an undergrown bunker simply isn't much of an issue in the grand scheme of things.

It's hard to get the stuff to travel because it's heavy, and to do so effectively, it needs more exposure to the air than you get in an underground explosion.

Essentially we're talking about in and around the cite itself maximum.

Also it needs to be 90% for a nuke

The only danger for wide spread problems is if you could somehow set off a real nuke, which would be very hard to do even if you were trying to.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

"The US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the country's nuclear programme and probably only set it back by months, according to an early Pentagon intelligence assessment of the attack," BBC.

Trump strongly disagrees with the DIA intelligence report.

He changes the subject. The report says, "The US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the country's nuclear programme and probably only set it back by months."

Trump talks about the targets bombed by the B-2's, not Iran's nuclear program. Clever.

"I think that Israel is going to be telling us very soon, because Bibi [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] is going to have people involved in that whole situation. We hear it was obliteration, it a was a virtual obliteration," Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump said the U.S. strikes had set back the Iranian nuclear program "basically decades." That's an opinion. Trump's opinions and those from his loyal cabinet are not supported by intelligence.

There is no argument that the targets hit by the B-2's were pretty much destroyed. The DIA did not question that. Their concern was Iran's nuclear program, just like the report said and ignored by Trump and his loyal band.

 

[Silenthunder]

Honestly, at this point, the effectiveness is unclear. I've read from reliable sources that the Intel community is very anti-Trump. It's been speculated that this was leaked by the anti-Trump crowd to undermine the operation. However, right now, there is no other source to verify the Pentagon assessment. So, until then, we have a mission with limited effectiveness.

 

[What if...?]

Iran Sees 75% Increase in Executions During First Four Months of 2025 over 2024 | Death Penalty Information Center

According to Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), there have been at least 343 executions in Iran in the first four months of 2025 — a 75%...

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Yup.

The young generation is over the old generation.

There isn’t really a “middle generation”. Most of it died in various wars.

Iran kills its young protesters.

But they keep protesting.

Now Israel the US have killed some of their loved ones and ****ed up their country.

So we likely lost some “hearts and minds”.

Good job, asshole.

 

[What if...?]

Near, far, wherever you are doesn’t change the reality that American military officers are incompetents. Your personal anecdote about who you had beers with decades ago is not a substitute for the real world outcomes.

So this is gonna be the angle?

That when it turns out to be a wasted effort that it’s the military and intelligence that screwed up.

Might wanna think about that for a bit. Not sure it’s gonna work like you’re hoping.

 

[Jack2aTee]

Trump's Iran bombing mission appears to have been a failure.​

How many bankruptcies does this make?

 

[Nickyjo]

I was thinking that if Trump’s efforts have Iran ceasing development of nuclear weapons and accepting inspections, we would have returned to the great status quo he inherited in 2017 and promptly got rid of. So in a way, he finally really is making America great again.

 

[What if...?]

Fordow took years to build and improve. Tribal thinking is assuming they just moved everything in a couple of days and are back in business same as before because you saw a few trucks nearby.


Oh right the US just woke up one day and decided to attack an innocent country. No different from Russia, right? Not like Iran had been attacking Israel, a publicly known US ally.

Didn’t Israel shoot first?

 

[Perotista]

US strikes set Iran's nuclear program back a few months, Pentagon assessment says

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied the report, saying U.S. bombs "obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons."

www.usatoday.com

As with most things that Trump, this one looks like another abysmal "Trump failure".
Given that Iran likely had moved their material ahead of the bombing campaign, the bombs still failed to reach the necessary depths.
Now we can watch the Trump propaganda department try and cover up this massive Trump screw-up.
As we watch the Trump "liefest" that will ensure, we can all sit back and watch gas prices rise.

I’ve seen reports that said the bombing was an utter failure and other reports that say the bombing was a glowing success. Which one is true and which is false or is the truth somewhere in the middle? Then there’s the posters here, threads that point out to the bombing being a huge success and other posts, threads on how the bombing failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. I can only conclude that none of us knows the truth and probably won’t for a year or two or three. That we let our partisanship decide for us, success or failure. Personally, I hope the bombing was 100% successful, but I don’t trust those who are telling me it was. The same as I don’t trust those telling me it wasn’t. Time will provide the answer as to how successful or not this bombing was.

 

[Pyrite]

If it’s US intelligence then you can generally count on it being wrong so I don’t blame him for not trusting it.

Post #108


Yet the same intel is now credible?

 

[What if...?]

This^^^^
and 14 of their Nuclear engineers died in their sleep.

Along with everybody else in the apartment building.

 

[SavannahMann]

It's difficult to get uranium to go critical because explosions tend to scatter rather than compact things, which is why building a bomb with the stuff requires complex timing fuses.

Sort of.

 

[Cordelier]

Well. Not exactly. Enough Uranium enriched to 60% would become critical on its own. Weapons grade is generally considered about 90% or better. According to the IAEA the Iranians had more than 400kg. They could make some bombs from that but they would be big and not very powerful compared to more enriched material.

Good enough for a bunch of dirty bombs.

 

[Cosmo]

Didn’t Israel shoot first?

Depends on when you start keeping score. Iran launched rockets at Israel in 2024.

 

[Threegoofs]

I’ve seen reports that said the bombing was an utter failure and other reports that say the bombing was a glowing success. Which one is true and which is false or is the truth somewhere in the middle? Then there’s the posters here, threads that point out to the bombing being a huge success and other posts, threads on how the bombing failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. I can only conclude that none of us knows the truth and probably won’t for a year or two or three. That we let our partisanship decide for us, success or failure. Personally, I hope the bombing was 100% successful, but I don’t trust those who are telling me it was. The same as I don’t trust those telling me it wasn’t. Time will provide the answer as to how successful or not this bombing was.

True, but the person I trust the least is telling me it’s been ‘obliterated’.

 

[Callen]

I've read from reliable sources that the Intel community is very anti-Trump. I

Will you share those reliable sources?

 

[Callen]

I’ve seen reports that said the bombing was an utter failure and other reports that say the bombing was a glowing success. Which one is true and which is false or is the truth somewhere in the middle? Then there’s the posters here, threads that point out to the bombing being a huge success and other posts, threads on how the bombing failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

I think it important to differentiate between a successful bombing of the nuclear facilities in the three locations and the destruction of their nuclear program. They are not the same thing. Not only do we not know the extent of the damage at these facilities we also don't know if the enriched material was even at one of the sites. They had ample time to move it .

 

[Perotista]

I think it important to differentiate between a successful bombing of the nuclear facilities in the three locations and the destruction of their nuclear program. They are not the same thing. Not only do we not know the extent of the damage at these facilities we also don't know if the enriched material was even at one of the sites. They had ample time to move it .

True, that’s why I prefer a wait and see strategy. I think what we’re seeing on this site is folks calling the bombing a success or failure for purely partisan reasons with all of them not knowing anything more than you or I. There was a time when one would believe whatever the government or president said. But those times are long gone. I grew up under Eisenhower and JFK, if either said something, the trust was implicit, no questions asked. Believed and trusted by all, republican, democrat, independent. But that was an entirely different political era.

Trust started to decline with LBJ and Vietnam and then came Nixon and Watergate. You can see how trust declined here.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

Perhaps anyone who trusts anything a politician says nowadays, takes what they say as gospel is a fool.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Now you realise there is a statement by the Head of the UN inspectors team that says the Iran Nuc program is substantially damaged? Or you don't want to read that?

Great, except next time maybe choose to believe them when they tell you Iran was adhering to the deal, like years ago when Trump ripped it up. This was a failure, unnecessary, and made us all less safer.

 

[Nickyjo]

Honestly, at this point, the effectiveness is unclear. I've read from reliable sources that the Intel community is very anti-Trump. It's been speculated that this was leaked by the anti-Trump crowd to undermine the operation. However, right now, there is no other source to verify the Pentagon assessment. So, until then, we have a mission with limited effectiveness.

Gee the Intel community might be anti-Trump. Who would have guessed that people might resent being disbelieved and insulted while Putin is believed and praised?

 

[Nickyjo]

True, but the person I trust the least is telling me it’s been ‘obliterated’.

What I don’t get about Trump: Why make claims about the attacks before all the evidence is in? This puts you in the position of having to possibly (once again) differ with your intelligence people and, of course, once again having to attack the media. Has Trump learned nothing over the years?

 

[Diving Mullah]

Iran's extremist SHIA have been killing and terrorising around the world. We (the world) don't need to deal with them having a nuke. By the way they kill Sunni in case you been missing it.

Wow—so much misinformation and bad history here. There's a lot to unpack.


First, let’s talk religious wars.
Catholics and Protestants have been butchering each other since the day they split—so cultural and religious conflicts are nothing new or rare.


We’ve seen it all before:
The Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants, the French Wars of Religion, Catholics vs. Huguenots, the Lebanese Civil War, the Partition of India, the Bosnian War… and on and on.


Then there are the oldies-but-goodies: Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, the Yugoslav Wars, and the American Indian Wars.


All it takes is slapping one label on Group A and a different label on Group B—and suddenly they’re tearing each other apart like fleas on a dog.

Now, about "terrorizing"...​

The U.S. is a masterclass case study in it.


Let’s go through just a few of the Greatest Hits:

• Operation Ajax – Overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 and installed the Shah.
• Mujahideen support – You know them today as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
• Nicaragua – Funded the Contras, who committed brutal atrocities.
• Libya – Armed anti-Gaddafi rebels, leaving behind a failed state and open slave markets.
• Syria – Sent weapons and money to so-called “moderate rebels,” many of whom had jihadist affiliations.
• Iran – Propped up the MEK, a cult-like group that was on the U.S. terrorist list for years.
• Angola – Backed UNITA rebels in a devastating civil war.
• Cuba – Bay of Pigs, anyone?
• Guatemala – CIA-backed coup in 1954, leading to decades of dictatorship and genocide.
• Pakistan/ISI – Turned a blind eye while our “ally” funded the Taliban.
• Yemen – Helping the Saudis bomb civilians and cause one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history.

If we stacked the bodies of everyone who has died due to U.S.-backed or U.S-led terror campaigns, Iran would be a drop in a blood-drenched ocean.

The U.S. does not have the moral high ground here—or anywhere.


So… try harder.

Just to be clear, I don't think Iran should NOT have nuclear anything—simply because, much like this administration, they don’t seem to put competent people in charge. It’s basically another Chernobyl waiting to happen.


That said, given the regional history—where Iran’s neighbors (especially many Arab states) would be quite happy to see it wiped off the map, as Israel clearly feels the same from its Neighbors—a nuclear deterrent becomes the only real insurance policy. Just like it is for Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.


The irony?

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, that war likely never would have happened.


So yes—there's strong historical precedent here and why Iran is trying to get...if we ever stop fracking with them, then they don't need the bomb.

Diving Mullah

 

[L88]

Wow—so much misinformation and bad history here. There's a lot to unpack.


First, let’s talk religious wars.
Catholics and Protestants have been butchering each other since the day they split—so cultural and religious conflicts are nothing new or rare.


We’ve seen it all before:
The Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants, the French Wars of Religion, Catholics vs. Huguenots, the Lebanese Civil War, the Partition of India, the Bosnian War… and on and on.


Then there are the oldies-but-goodies: Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, the Yugoslav Wars, and the American Indian Wars.


All it takes is slapping one label on Group A and a different label on Group B—and suddenly they’re tearing each other apart like fleas on a dog.

Now, about "terrorizing"...​

The U.S. is a masterclass case study in it.


Let’s go through just a few of the Greatest Hits:

• Operation Ajax – Overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 and installed the Shah.
• Mujahideen support – You know them today as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
• Nicaragua – Funded the Contras, who committed brutal atrocities.
• Libya – Armed anti-Gaddafi rebels, leaving behind a failed state and open slave markets.
• Syria – Sent weapons and money to so-called “moderate rebels,” many of whom had jihadist affiliations.
• Iran – Propped up the MEK, a cult-like group that was on the U.S. terrorist list for years.
• Angola – Backed UNITA rebels in a devastating civil war.
• Cuba – Bay of Pigs, anyone?
• Guatemala – CIA-backed coup in 1954, leading to decades of dictatorship and genocide.
• Pakistan/ISI – Turned a blind eye while our “ally” funded the Taliban.
• Yemen – Helping the Saudis bomb civilians and cause one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history.

If we stacked the bodies of everyone who has died due to U.S.-backed or U.S-led terror campaigns, Iran would be a drop in a blood-drenched ocean.

The U.S. does not have the moral high ground here—or anywhere.


So… try harder.

Just to be clear, I don't think Iran should NOT have nuclear anything—simply because, much like this administration, they don’t seem to put competent people in charge. It’s basically another Chernobyl waiting to happen.


That said, given the regional history—where Iran’s neighbors (especially many Arab states) would be quite happy to see it wiped off the map, as Israel clearly feels the same from its Neighbors—a nuclear deterrent becomes the only real insurance policy. Just like it is for Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.


The irony?

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, that war likely never would have happened.


So yes—there's strong historical precedent here and why Iran is trying to get...if we ever stop fracking with them, then they don't need the bomb.

Diving Mullah

None of what I posted is misinformation.

Sure there's centuries of history, you've left out the part that almost every ****ed up country the world is dealing with is a former colony of europe and especially the UK.

But that doesn't solve the problem of religious extremists wanting to build a nuclear bomb or an ICBM in this century.

The only thing holding Iran back from being a great country at this point is some wacked out religious minority suppressing the rights of everyone else in the country.