To be fair to Trump, he hasn’t invaded Iran, like Dubya and Papa Bush invaded Iraq: he more like Clinton in that he lobs some missiles to get people minds off of how he’s fouling things up otherwise in the US and world.
IIUC, Iran would be harder to invade and occupy than Iraq: it’s over 2x the size, has about 2x the population, it’s more mountainous, and the regime now might be twice the age, and presumably twice as entrenched, than Saddam’s was in 1991.
Granted, it’s GDP is lower than Iraq’s (now and perhaps before 1991) and IIUC, its arguably more heterogeneous, and Saddam before June 1990 was less antagonistic to the US than Khomeini or Khamenei, so maybe you have a point.
IAEA, which has confirmed 60% and above enriched uranium in Iran. There is no reason besides nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to that level. Nuclear reactors are mostly run on 3-5% enriched uranium and 20% is pretty high.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.
The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.
Iran enriched Uranium to higher levels likely as a mean to get to reopen negotiations. Still enriching is not equal to building a bomb. And if the CIA, who love going to war everywhere in the world, can make that distinction publicly, we shouldnt fall behind that.
It is just working on producing the explosives for that bomb. Honestly it ends up being semantics, if not planning to finish something, but working towards that goal, is working towards that goal.
This moment is when I realised the great loss of the closure of lemee, as we no longer can look at how c/Europe reacted to the article “Nuclear bomb for Germany” 3 months ago.
If I remember correctly, like the article claims, “nuclear hedging” was seen as scummy way around the NPT, not a direct violation of it.
Please don’t see me as arguing “He didn’t, and if he did it wasn’t that bad”- I’m simply a different person from the one you argued before.
To run an nuclear reactor you need uranium enriched to 3-5%. The ONLY reason to enrich to above 20% in any sort of large quantities is to built nuclear weapons. The IAEA a UN agency has confirmed that Iran has produced uranium enriched to 60%.
Yet they were still not building nuclear weapons. You claimed they were building nuclear bombs, not that they were doing something that would plausibly maybe indicate they’re building nuclear bombs. Enriching uranium isn’t a violation of the NPT.
Yet there were still no findings that Iran indeed was working towards nuclear weapons. Just having the means to do it isn’t the same as actually doing it.
Notably, Iran did not break any agreements. America did and Europe toed the party line.
By working on nuclear weapons Iran very much broke the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Iran did not work on nuclear weapons since 2003 as has been maintained by the US intelligence community as late as this year.
This. Claiming Iran has or has worked on WMD is the same fake casus belli as was given with Iraq.
To be fair to Trump, he hasn’t invaded Iran, like Dubya and Papa Bush invaded Iraq: he more like Clinton in that he lobs some missiles to get people minds off of how he’s fouling things up otherwise in the US and world.
Not yet.
and I doubt it will happen.
IIUC, Iran would be harder to invade and occupy than Iraq: it’s over 2x the size, has about 2x the population, it’s more mountainous, and the regime now might be twice the age, and presumably twice as entrenched, than Saddam’s was in 1991.
Granted, it’s GDP is lower than Iraq’s (now and perhaps before 1991) and IIUC, its arguably more heterogeneous, and Saddam before June 1990 was less antagonistic to the US than Khomeini or Khamenei, so maybe you have a point.
I get what you’re saying but there would have been so many better ways to start that sentence…
IAEA, which has confirmed 60% and above enriched uranium in Iran. There is no reason besides nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to that level. Nuclear reactors are mostly run on 3-5% enriched uranium and 20% is pretty high.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americas-spies-say-iran-wasnt-building-a-nuclear-weapon-trump-dismisses-that-assessment
Iran enriched Uranium to higher levels likely as a mean to get to reopen negotiations. Still enriching is not equal to building a bomb. And if the CIA, who love going to war everywhere in the world, can make that distinction publicly, we shouldnt fall behind that.
It is just working on producing the explosives for that bomb. Honestly it ends up being semantics, if not planning to finish something, but working towards that goal, is working towards that goal.
This moment is when I realised the great loss of the closure of lemee, as we no longer can look at how c/Europe reacted to the article “Nuclear bomb for Germany” 3 months ago.
If I remember correctly, like the article claims, “nuclear hedging” was seen as scummy way around the NPT, not a direct violation of it.
Please don’t see me as arguing “He didn’t, and if he did it wasn’t that bad”- I’m simply a different person from the one you argued before.
Another “Iraq has WMDs” dumbass
They’re not working on nuclear weapons. They’re enriching uranium, which can be used for nuclear weapons, but they’re not building a nuke.
To run an nuclear reactor you need uranium enriched to 3-5%. The ONLY reason to enrich to above 20% in any sort of large quantities is to built nuclear weapons. The IAEA a UN agency has confirmed that Iran has produced uranium enriched to 60%.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
Yet they were still not building nuclear weapons. You claimed they were building nuclear bombs, not that they were doing something that would plausibly maybe indicate they’re building nuclear bombs. Enriching uranium isn’t a violation of the NPT.
Where did wt:thon claim that?
Besides, IIUC, the actual nuclear bomb making is the relatively easy part: the technology is about 80 years old.
They claimed Iran was violating the NPT, which can only mean one thing.
As I don’t know the details of this NPT, you probably have a point. 😁🙂
Non-proliferation treaty.
Iran is the only non nuclear weapon state to produce highly enriched uranium.
Yet there were still no findings that Iran indeed was working towards nuclear weapons. Just having the means to do it isn’t the same as actually doing it.
(that we know of)