The All Things Political Topic - Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

you wouldn't recognize word salad any better than logic. same old fails.

And you still think making incredibly long and incredibly irrelevant posts works on me. You can argue what you want using decade+ old sources all you like. Fact remains, Netanyahu has consistently lied about one or both of Iran's ability to make a nuke, andor its will to. The absolute best you are doing is arguing that Netanyahu only lied about Iran's intention to make one. As such, Israel's attacks have no justification as self defence.

Sheesh, Bruce does a better job of arguing the actual point. Consider that.

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-7f6c9962c1e4199e951559096bcf5cc0

"U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."

Funny you didn't quote that part of the article, since it's most relevant.

Quote

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o

Not sure how seriously to take the BBC now. They can't even bring themselves to condemn Israel bombing their Iranian counterpart and thus making BBC House a legitimate military target for everyone in the future.

[BruceVC]

36 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

And you still think making incredibly long and incredibly irrelevant posts works on me. You can argue what you want using decade+ old sources all you like. Fact remains, Netanyahu has consistently lied about one or both of Iran's ability to make a nuke, andor its will to. The absolute best you are doing is arguing that Netanyahu only lied about Iran's intention to make one. As such, Israel's attacks have no justification as self defence.

Sheesh, Bruce does a better job of arguing the actual point. Consider that.

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

"U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."

Funny you didn't quote that part of the article, since it's most relevant.

Not sure how seriously to take the BBC now. They can't even bring themselves to condemn Israel bombing their Iranian counterpart and thus making BBC House a legitimate military target for everyone in the future.

But the BBC article is based on what the  IAEA has already said 

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291

"The draft for Thursday’s resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency’s inspectors.

Tehran has “repeatedly” been unable to explain and demonstrate that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use, the draft text maintains.

Iran has also failed to provide the UN agency with “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad, it continues.

“Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency’s questions,” IAEA chief Grossi said on Monday. “It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.”

According to Mr. Grossi, Tehran has stockpiled 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium.

“Given the potential proliferation implications, the agency cannot ignore [this],” he told the UN agency’s governing board on Monday. "

 

And I already mentioned Im not taking seriously what the US or Israel says but we should all take seriously what the IAEA says. Iran has a  history of not complying with the IAEA and trying to hide aspects of its nuclear program 

 

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

And you still think making incredibly long and incredibly irrelevant posts works on me. You can argue what you want using decade+ old sources all you like. Fact remains, Netanyahu has consistently lied about one or both of Iran's ability to make a nuke, andor its will to. The absolute best you are doing is arguing that Netanyahu only lied about Iran's intention to make one. As such, Israel's attacks have no justification as self defence.

Sheesh, Bruce does a better job of arguing the actual point. Consider that.

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

...

this is the predictable zor response when he has absolute nothing. Gromnir presents analysis, and zor, unable to rely on his typical reddit drivel that almost nobody else bothers to fact check, does... whatever this is.

but...

does anybody who knows zor personal wanna go over and make sure he is all right... ensure that he and elon ain't sharing a ketamine moment or something?  he does get that Gromnir has been criticizing israel, right? we pointed out that israel went way too far in gaza and is now using a recycled excuse from 2011 to legitimize their attack which looks unconvincing unless you reimagine the motive as regime change. is not as if picking a side means anything to the strength o' the analysis, but the fact am using +ten year old documents is kinda essential to our claim that israel, who hadn't attacked iran for +ten years, sudden decided to do so in spite o' the relevant facts not having changed at all in those + ten years: iran is not current developing a weapon, but their current technical knowledge and resources mean they could create a weapon in six to nineteen months. if such facts weren't a legit excuse to attack +ten years ago, then why would iran continuing to not develop nuclear weapons sudden legitimize such an attack?

whatever. somebody should check zor for signs o' debilitating drug use or at least make sure he hasn't had a stroke, 'cause while his typical brand o' obdurate lack o' self awareness when somebody actual fact checks him surprise us not at all, am a tiny bit concerned for his safety and well being, particular if he has not yet figured out that Gromnir has been criticizing israel's stated rationale for their current attack on iran.

am knowing that some o' you clowns can't understand how Gromnir could claim israel were justified in responding to hamas rocket attacks and the october 7 mass murders while simultaneous recognizing that, "am genuine surprised israel calculations proved accurate, given the ugly humanitarian crisis israel indulged in beyond any seeming reasonable efforts to remove/punish hamas and get hostages returned." given how zor and those o' similar mindset will die on a hill once they choose a side, regardless o' facts, it makes it difficult for them to recognize that not everybody is as limited. have said multiple times now am shocked that the US and arab states were willing to just look away as gaza burned... and we keep stressing that, ""Again," the whole point is that iran has been six to nineteen months away from breakout for at least 10 years and likely since 2003. nothing has fundamental changed in that time. is Gromnir who pointed out that the recent israeli attacks were preventative as opposed to preemptive, precisely 'cause there were nothing imminent about an iranian attack, especial with nukes. we observed earlier how if israel were most concerned about nukes, then their choice o' initial targets were perplexing... but less a mystery when viewed through the lens o' regime change. etc. in any event, what kinda l00n continues to fight with somebody, trying to prove a point their perceived adversary agrees with 'em 'bout?"

zor pov: Gromnir-- israel = good guys

that kinda oversimplified stoopid is why you once again fail.

aside, the only reason we don't add zor to our ignore list is 'cause every few months (well a few months + a year and a half this last time given our absence,) he provides us with uniquely embarrassing entertainment, but am admitting that this time am moderate concerned he is suffering from a stroke or something similar. am not sure how many times we need says the israeli excuse for attacking iran don't past muster, but zor twists himself into a knot fighting with air 'cause his brain won't register that the use o' +ten year old documents is precise the point. 

duh.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Zoraptor]

Eh, there's a certain irony you accusing someone else of having a ketamine moment and using reddit arguments in consecutive sentences. Fortunately, I always take ad hominems as an admission that the person making them has no better argument.

You've saliently failed to address Israel's claims, instead choosing to argue something completely different. I'm not even sure what at this point. That Iran had a weapons program 22 years ago? Even if true it's still so what if they didn't/ don't have one now. You can't even argue there's been a change of leadership, since if they had one in 2003 and it got cancelled, then it was cancelled by Khamenei.

As for your 'condemnation' of Israel, lol. Another 59 palestinians killed going to a food site. Still a complete mystery to Gromnir what Israel's intentions are. We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead; then the motivations wouldn't be a mystery. And of course, despite all that you're perfectly willing to argue Israel's case when it attacks Iran. That is pretty much the definition of deciding one side is the good guys.

If there's one thing that is grimly amusing though it's the cognitive dissonance.

52 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Iran has also failed to provide the UN agency with “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad, it continues.

“Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency’s questions,” IAEA chief Grossi said on Monday. “It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.”

Those sites are from 2003. Which is probably why the quarterly report was approved by a tiny majority, along partisan lines; 19 out of 35. To put that in perspective, it wouldn't have passed the UNSC, even without China and Russia's veto.

[rjshae]

A curious study:

Study finds Republicans flagged for posting misleading tweets twice as often as Democrats on Community Notes

Quote

"Even on Elon Musk's X, the user-based Community Notes program flags posts by Republicans as misleading much more often than posts by Democrats. This undercuts the logic offered by Musk and Mark Zuckerberg for eliminating fact-checkers on X and Meta, respectively, namely that fact-checkers are biased against Republicans."

One would hope the use of disinformation would be equal among both parties, but it appears the right has more fully embraced the dark arts.

[Gfted1]

From a completely observational pov, Id love to see an GBU-57A/B MOP - Wikipedia / Massive Ordnance Penetrator Bunker Buster Grows More Potent used in action against a legitimate hardened target. Do you send a couple down the hole for targets in excess of 200 Ft depth?

[rjshae]

5 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

From a completely observational pov, Id love to see an GBU-57A/B MOP - Wikipedia / Massive Ordnance Penetrator Bunker Buster Grows More Potent used in action against a legitimate hardened target. Do you send a couple down the hole for targets in excess of 200 Ft depth?

Sounds like a suitable application for the Hammer the Gap feat.

[Malcador]

47 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Another 59 palestinians killed going to a food site.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-tank-shelling-kills-45-people-awaiting-aid-trucks-gaza-ministry-says-2025-06-17/

Fired two shells into a crowd, can't even try to BS it like some moron had the wrong setting on a fire selector or something.   I am sure this isn't that bad as a) Hamas did something worse b) It's the fog of war and you weren't there, man or c) it's Hamas' fault for fighting dressed as civilians.  

Oh and forgot, can always say it didn't happen. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:59 PM by Malcador

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Eh, there's a certain irony you accusing someone else of having a ketamine moment and using reddit arguments in consecutive sentences. Fortunately, I always take ad hominems as an admission that the person making them has no better argument.

am not sure if you get irony. tough to take serious from the guy who had multiple times not bothered to make a substantive argument in this thread, as well as doing the reflexive tell o' dismissing supported observations as word salad, or something similar, yes? as such, am finding your observation less than compelling... but thank you for continuing this silliness. honest. am not sure what you could possibly be getting out of this, but who are we to deny you what you seem to yearn for.

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead

making the same mistake and strawmaning non responsive arguments with an imaginary person rather than dealing with the individual responding to your posts. am having to do all the work 'cause you offer nothing meaningful or relevant.

typical we would be exhausted by this point, but your responses is just so utter lacking am enjoying highlighting a compare and contrast difference in substance.

aside, even though am arguing with our self, iran did not end it's weapons program 22 years ago. the ieae report am having linked were a wakeup call for the west, but the rand and isis links from a decade past we provided also argue, via considerable evidentiary support, that iran were maintaining a weapons program, but were not active developing a weapon. am not sure why that concept is so difficult for zor to grasp. the nuclear sites operated by iran were not sole for the purpose o' developing civilian electricity production and other iran excuses. iran did and still does have a weapons program, but they are not active pursuing the development of such weapons and they have not been doing so for over a decade. iran were close to breakout ten years ago. iran is negligible closer to breakout today. before, during and after the iran deal, no effort was made by iran to develop a weapon. as such, israel's justification for attacking at this time rings hollow.

incoming wall o' text for those willing to read--

summary follows at after the spoiler window

Spoiler

Iran has consistently claimed that its nuclear program is purely civilian
in nature, and that it does not intend to acquire nuclear weapons. To
support this claim, the Iranians point to statements by Ayatollah Khomeini indicating that nuclear weapons are contrary to the teachings of 

Islam, and to a fatwa issued by Supreme Leader Khamenei forbidding nuclear weapons.92 The formally declared elements of the Iranian nuclear program are “dual use” (i.e., they have both legitimate applications in nuclear energy and also can be used to make nuclear weapons). The fuel cycle is a case in point: the enrichment of uranium can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors or to produce fuel for a bomb. Thus far, Iran has only enriched uranium to levels suitable for nuclear reactor fuel (approximately 3.5% and 20%), whereas weapons-grade uranium is typically more than 90% enrichment. However, enrichment to lower levels nonetheless brings Iran closer to making bomb-grade fuel should it eventually choose to do so. There are reasons to believe that Iran is, at a minimum, seeking to give itself the future option of making weapons quickly and with relatively little difficulty (i.e., acquire a virtual capability). Iran’s enrichment program in its current state is not well suited for making fuel for reactors. At present, Iran has one commercial nuclear reactor, at Bushehr. Although it has repeatedly announced plans to build more, and has actively sought foreign suppliers, under current conditions there is little reason to believe that the country can acquire additional commercial-scale reactors anytime in the foreseeable future. Yet the Bushehr reactor has a guaranteed supply of fuel from the Russians, obviating any need for Iran to produce its own. The Iranians have voiced anxieties over future fuel supplies given their uncertain political relationship with the international community, but the Russians have proved willing to keep the Bushehr reactor running throughout the nuclear crisis. Most importantly, even if the Iranian goal were to indigenously fuel Bushehr, they are a long way off from being able to do so. To run the Bushehr reactor for one year, the Iranians would need to produce roughly 37 metric tons of 3.5% LEUF6 per year, which is many times greater than their current production rate (more than 20 times greater, in fact). Iran would need roughly 50,000 IR-1 centrifuges running at their current peak efficiency to fuel Bushehr, something the Iranians do not appear close to doing.93 Iran also has not demonstrated
the ability to turn its 3.5% LEUF6 into fuel assemblies suitable for the
Bushehr reactor—no simple engineering feat, particularly if Russian
assistance is not forthcoming. Tellingly, Iran’s enrichment program is
much better suited for producing weapons. At 2011 production rates,
Iran could produce enough 3.5% LEUF6 for an additional nuclear
weapon every 8–9 months.
In addition to these suspicions, key pieces of evidence have emerged
indicating that Iran has conducted—and may continue to conduct—a
number of activities that are uniquely related to weapon development.
The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear
program concluded with “high confidence” that “Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop weapons”
until 2003, after which, the report concluded, “Tehran halted its weapons program.”94 Also, the IAEA’s safeguards reports on Iran, starting
in 2008, began to document evidence—mostly supplied by Western
intelligence agencies—of past weapons-related activities.95 Beginning
in 2010, the IAEA has suggested that some of these activities may have
been resumed. In November 2011, the IAEA released a report that
provided an unprecedented level of detail about this evidence, lending credibility to earlier claims and suspicions, and corroborating them
with new details. Although the report does not demonstrate that Iran
continued to operate a nuclear weapon program after 2003, it does suggest that Iran has undertaken a number of weapon-related tests and
activities with no civilian justification since that time.96
Since the early 2000s, several key pieces of evidence have arisen
that cast a suspicious light on Iran’s nuclear program. One is a 15-page
document shown to the IAEA by the Iranians in 2005. This document describes processes for producing uranium metal from UF6 and
machining the metal into hemispheres appropriate for a warhead. Iran
did not allow the IAEA to make copies of the document. Tehran has
argued that the document was provided, unsolicited, by the A.Q. Khan
network when Iran purchased P-1 centrifuges from the network in
1987, and they claim that the information was never used to pursue a
nuclear weapons capability. The document is additionally concerning
because it is known to also have been included in a larger package of
information that was given to Libya by the A.Q. Khan network that
included detailed designs for a nuclear weapon. It is likely that the
Khan network made similar design information available to Iran. The
November 2011 IAEA report cites additional evidence (all previously
known) that Iran had access to weapon design more advanced and
sophisticated than that provided to Libya.97
Another key piece of evidence has been the contents of a laptop
that was acquired by the United States from an Iranian defector in
2004.98 The laptop contained voluminous technical information on the
conversion of UF4 (uranium tetrafluoride or “green salt,” an intermediate stage in the conversion of UF6 into uranium metal for a bomb), the
design of a reentry vehicle consistent with a nuclear warhead, designs
for an underground tunnel that could be used for a nuclear test, and
the development and testing of high explosives consistent with those
required for an implosion device. According to the documents, these
projects were overseen by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a high-ranking officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who headed Iran’s Physics Research Center (PHRC), an organization linked by
other sources to nuclear weapons development. The documents portray
steady progress on these programs up to 2003 (they make no reference
to program activity after this date). The Iranians have denied the existence of these programs, and have suggested that the laptop documents
are forgeries.99
The laptop data features prominently in the IAEA’s November
2011 report, which offers details about the activities it describes and
cites corroborating evidence.100 According to the report, prior to 2004,
Iran conducted extensive research and experiments on high explosives
that can be used in an implosion weapon. Several elements of this
work, including a multipoint initiation system, exploding bridgewires,
and monitoring equipment for tests, have few or no uses aside from
nuclear weapon development. The report also suggests that Iran conducted at least one experiment to initiate a high explosive charge in
the form of a hemispherical shell consistent with a warhead. Most
damningly, the IAEA report connects the programs described in the
laptop files—green salt, high explosives, and a reentry vehicle—to one
another, and describes them as part of a single, coordinated program
under the direction of Iran’s military that operated until 2003. The
report also states that work on a “scaled down” version of the multipoint initiation system may have continued after 2003, but does not
provide specific evidence. It also suggests that the work may have been
limited to computer simulations and was not part of a coordinated
weapon program.101
A final key piece of evidence is a document, reported in 2009
by the Times of London and later corroborated by the IAEA, which
describes a program to develop a uranium deuteride neutron initiator. This is an unusual form of neutron initiator, but consistent with
techniques used by Pakistan that would have likely been available to Iran via the Khan network.102 The evidence about Iran’s work on a neutron initiator is particularly important because it suggests that some of
this work took place after 2003. The IAEA report suggests that Iran
may have conducted a research effort from 2006–2010 to validate the
design of the initiator.103
Consistent with earlier findings of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the November 2011 IAEA report suggests that Iran’s nuclear
program came to a sudden halt in 2003. It also suggests that Iran may
not have completed the development of a viable warhead that could be
delivered by missile by that point.
Some analyses have suggested that this evidence is less than conclusive about either Iran’s progress toward weaponization or its political commitment to making weapons. Studies conducted by Sandia
National Laboratory have suggested that many of the designs uncovered from the laptop—including those related to mating a warhead to
a missile—would not work, indicating that as of 2003, Iran had not
yet achieved the ability to weaponize. Other Western analysts have
noted that it is possible that the work depicted in the laptop data represents feasibility studies rather than a determined effort to produce
weapons.104

In any case, this evidence raises substantial concerns about Iran’s
nuclear activities prior to 2004 and supports the 2007 NIE’s finding
that Iran had a weapon program in place until that time. It also raises
substantial concerns about Iran’s behavior and intentions after 2003,
and undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful in nature. The available evidence suggests that by 2003, Iran may
not have had perfected its ability to produce a weapon, but had made
significant progress with virtually every element of weaponization. It is
unclear what, if any, progress Iran has been able to make in its weaponization efforts since its formal program was halted in 2003.
Iran has thus far failed to satisfactorily address the above evidence
to the IAEA, and has in fact refused to answer any weapons-related
questions from the IAEA since August 2008, other than to claim that
allegations of weapons-related work are “baseless” and that evidence of
weapons work is “forged” and “fabricated.”105

again, israel has been war criming in gaza for a considerable period o' time now.  returning hostages and some level o' retribution against hamas were deemed warranted post october 7 by much o' the world, but israel went way beyond that point a long time ago. we pointed out in the past that any kinda prolonged siege approach to gaza, cutting off food, water and electricity to the civilian population o' gaza more than incidental or briefly, would be a red line for us. unlike zor who stubborn chooses sides, am a bit more flexible, so it weren't difficult for us to condemn israel for their excesses in gaza... excesses which made little sense to us at the time as they accomplish almost nothing useful save guarantee that whosoever replaced hamas, assuming israel were successful in destroying that organization, would be more antagonistic than hamas, and potential more competent.  even from a pure practical pov, we didn't see the value in the idf's ongoing gaza campaign. 

attacking hezbollah made sense o' the situation for us. add israeli support o' the US efforts to neuter the houthis as well as the most recent attacks on iran and only now does israeli efforts make sense... but not really. sure, regime change in iran likely means that at least short term there will be diminished iranian support for palestinian groups and others who wish to do violence to israel, but iran has a population o' something like 90 million and the only reason they ain't achieved breakout in two decades is 'cause they chose not to. after these attacks can israel be certain iran will not choose yay as 'posed to nay when considering whether to aim for breakout? what gives 'em such confidence the answer is nay? the israeli attacks thus far have no chance o' destroying the iranian nuclear program, so am questioning the wisdom o' the israeli attcks while observing that their announced rationale were bullsh!t. 

even so, am admitting we don't get much o' what is happening in the middle east. oil prices went up to $75 on the 13th and then dropped down to $68 the following day, but we are back up to $73.50 today. oil is not reacting the way it did post russia invasion o' ukraine, but so far it looks like even the illuminati is uncertain what will happen 'tween israel and iran, particular with trump's tweets, which are as nonsensical as zor posts, fanning the chaos flames.

jk about the illuminati, but the rest is serious. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps (edit) given that zor is logic challenged, as has been evidenced many times past and recent, am unsurprised he recognizes the ad hominem fallacy. if an insult replaces the argument, it is fallacious. however, please note it is only when you abandoned any effort at meaningful argument that we responded in kind. "word salad." bruce. then your strawman 'bout what we wanted. you didn't offer any argument, having functional surrendered, so ad hominem as a fallacy weren't relevant.

Edited Tuesday at 11:07 PM by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

32 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-tank-shelling-kills-45-people-awaiting-aid-trucks-gaza-ministry-says-2025-06-17/

Fired two shells into a crowd, can't even try to BS it like some moron had the wrong setting on a fire selector or something.   I am sure this isn't that bad as a) Hamas did something worse b) It's the fog of war and you weren't there, man or c) it's Hamas' fault for fighting dressed as civilians.  

Oh and forgot, can always say it didn't happen. 

we got no problem condemning israel, but (b) is an initial valid response even if you have framed it with a bit o' snark. how many time does folks need embarrass themselves by latching onto a preliminary narrative before there has been time to examine what actual happened. you sacrifice nothing by waiting a day or two to respond to these kinda events.

observe that if true, it is yet more evidence o' israeli war crimes? sure. 

in our experience, am far less likely to unwitting play the fool when we adopt st. thomas as a role model. we let others adorn themselves in harlequin's motley as they race to be the first to condemn ___________, although am not sure what is the point o' winning that challenge.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[uuuhhii]

orange mascot of usa are selling golden phone now

so yes usa are certainly stupid enough to get drag into another war at middle east

[Gromnir]

Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of California’s Case Against National Guard Deployment

am not gonna even try and read tea leaves on this one, but am gonna observe it likely don't make too much difference as no matter what, ca or the fed is gonna appeal, and the appellate court(s) will likely maintain the current stay pending scotus resolution. well, en banc ca appellate might come before scotus. maybe.

edit: politico's take

HA! Good Fun!

Edited Wednesday at 12:50 AM by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

..iran did not end it's weapons program 22 years ago

Sigh.

"U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."" It's literally literally on this page it's so recent.

Now, to condense down your massive screed to the relevant bits:

Quote

Consistent with earlier findings of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the November 2011 IAEA report suggests that Iran’s nuclear program came to a sudden halt in 2003

The IAEA did not agree with you. If you'd bothered to actually read what you linked. Not for the first time. 

Quote

The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program concluded with “high confidence” that “Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop weapons” until 2003, after which, the report concluded, “Tehran halted its weapons program.”

And neither did US Intelligence either.

The choice is: agree with Gromnir's definition of weapons program, or the IAEA's and US Intelligence. Not a difficult choice.

Sheesh, they even admit pretty much everything concrete came from AQ Khan and was shared with Libya as well, everything else is conditional, ie may have done.

You are, at best, arguing that 22 years ago Iran had a weapons program. It's good that you don't believe Israel is doing it for that reason, but that is the reason they have stated no matter how much you don't like that fact.

Edited Wednesday at 02:26 AM by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

selective quoting and misreading. 

this is the quoted part from US intelligence: “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.” the first half is ap added. yes, as observed by many sources, iran has maintained and further developed their capacity to quickly achieve breakout. contrary to zor claims,  iran has the necessary infrastructure. they got the necessary material. they got the know how. iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and they haven't been active developing a weapon for decades... which is our freaking point. what iran has done is maintained their capacity (infrastructure, material and know how) while working on breakout capacity. is not that iran has "yet to begin"... they began a long time ago and advanced such efforts aggressive until 2003, after which their goals changed to maintaining their program levels and advancing their capacity for breakout. is precisely why the estimated time for breakout has changed little relative little since 2015, but hasn't diminished neither and has in fact accelerated if not by a heck o' a lot.

and as for the guy misreading iaea,

Iran’s relations with the West entered a period of greater tension in
November 2011 after the IAEA released a report providing an unprecedented level of detail about Iran’s past nuclear weapon-related activities. Although nearly all of these activities had previously been publicly
known or suspected, the IAEA’s report gave them greater significance
and credibility, and offered new evidence to support previous claims.
The report came shortly after U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement
in a plot to assassinate a top Saudi diplomat had already soured Iran’s
relations with the United States and its allies.

and 

In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades.57 One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%.
The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around
2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back
into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to
20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s
stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way
for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to
90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout
scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20%
LEUF6 at the PFEP.58

footnote 58: 8 As of May 15, 2012, 43 kg of the 20% LEUF6 Iran has produced has been used to
make fuel plates for the TNRR, thereby lowering Iran’s stocks of 20% LEUF6. IAEA,
GOV/2012/23, para. 38.

iaea reports made it possible to recognize just how short were the breakout timeline. again, nobody is contesting that iran weren't working to produce a nuclear weapon, so your quotes which reinforce that point reveal nothing.

regardless, am unsurprised by the reditt approach to this issue. cherry pick a date, quote or a report and pretend as if the totality o' info disappears into the ether... but what should we expect from an individual who has not actual been arguing with Gromnir or addressing our posts, but clear trying to refute some imagined strawman.

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

and

5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead; then the motivations wouldn't be a mystery. And of course, despite all that you're perfectly willing to argue Israel's case when it attacks Iran. That is pretty much the definition of deciding one side is the good guys.

again, unbeknownst to zor, for the past few pages we have been criticizing israel's stated justification for attacking iran as well as their continued war criming in gaza, but zor somehow missed?

such efforts also ignore your intransigence, hoping we would forget? we will do you no favour bringing us back on point-- the fact iran has not active worked toward developing a weapon since 2003 in no way diminishes the possibility that iran is extreme close to breakout, same as were the case in 2011, 2012, 2015 and today. try and make this a nomenclature debate is ridiculous and pretends as if nobody is smart enough to go back and look at your posts from yesterday.

"**First occurrence I could find of "Iran imminently going to have nuclear bomb" from Bibi is from... 1998. The first estimate I could find from US intelligence was that they could have one by 2000.

"Iran nukes and cold fusion, perpetually just a little longer away."

your ineffectual efforts to change the script notwithstanding, this were a discussion about breakout capacity and not whether iran were active pursuing the development of a weapon, 'cause again, we keep repeating, ad nauseum, that iran ain't been working to build a weapon. 

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

The choice is: agree with Gromnir's definition of weapons program, or the IAEA's and US Intelligence. Not a difficult choice.

*chuckle*

now that we are on the same page, we all agree, based on iaea, isis, rand and us intelligence, that the past decades o' iran not working to produce a nuke in no way reduce their capacity to breakout quickly, right? eye back on the ball? abandoning such development for decades don't in any way translate into proof that iran lacks the capacity to produce a weapon in a relative short period o' time, as is the conclusions o' iaea, us intelligence, rand and isis.

you gonna once again try and convince us iran's breakout timeline ain't relative short? give it a shot, 'cause watching you struggle is amusing.

but again, so as to be clear, the fact iran weren't working to develop a weapon for more than a decade makes israel's stated reason for attacking iran now less than convincing. breakout timeline in 2012 were six to nineteen months. now? is only a difference o' a few months less. so why now? am calling bs. looks like regime change, but that is an ugly label, so israel went for their own version o' wmd, but one much easier to prove 'cause it has been a relative uncontested conclusion since at least 2011 that in a matter o' months,  iran could produce a weapon if they so chose. israel flips reasonable on its head... ignores the fact that iran has willing chosen not to develop a nuke in spite o' their relative brief breakout timeline, and sudden claims that iran's nuke program poses an existential threat.  such a claim is only slight more coherent than zor's posts.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Zoraptor]

The current US Intelligence Assessment is that Iran does not have a weapons program. 

"We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." That is literally literally the lede from the current (March 2025) assessment.

The estimate is that it would take them 3 years to have working nukes, from when they made the decision to restart. That is not breakout capacity. 

You can continue with throwing words at the screen and moving goalposts as much as you like, that's the facts. As for accusations of selective quoting, I notice you've reposted the same 14 year old quote, yet again, minus the bits I quoted from it about the IAEA and US saying Iran hasn't had a program since 2003, ie 22 years ago.

End of story.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

The current US Intelligence Assessment is that Iran does not have a weapons program. 

"We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." That is literally literally the lede from the current (March 2025) assessment.

The estimate is that it would take them 3 years to have working nukes, from when they made the decision to restart. That is not breakout capacity. 

You can continue with throwing words at the screen and moving goalposts as much as you like, that's the facts. As for accusations of selective quoting, I notice you've reposted the same 14 year old quote, yet again, minus the bits I quoted from it about the IAEA and US saying Iran hasn't had a program since 2003, ie 22 years ago.

End of story.

Let me ask you a different question 

Forget Israel and the current Israeli vs Iranian hostility 

Considering the reality of Shia\Sunni regional tension do you support Iran getting nukes  in whatever timeframe?

Do you believe any new country should be able to get nukes?

Would you support Ukraine getting nukes knowing the regional tension with Russia this will create?

 

 

 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The current US Intelligence Assessment is that Iran does not have a weapons program. 

"We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." That is literally literally the lede from the current (March 2025) assessment.

The estimate is that it would take them 3 years to have working nukes, from when they made the decision to restart. That is not breakout capacity. 

You can continue with throwing words at the screen and moving goalposts as much as you like, that's the facts. As for accusations of selective quoting, I notice you've reposted the same 14 year old quote, yet again, minus the bits I quoted from it about the IAEA and US saying Iran hasn't had a program since 2003, ie 22 years ago.

End of story.

*chuckle*

the three years is for a working delivery system. 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/israel-iran-nuclear-bomb-us-intelligence-years-away

"But US intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion – not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, according to four people familiar with the assessment."

...

"The International Atomic Energy Agency, a top international watchdog, said last week that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched at levels just below weapons-grade to potentially make nine nuclear bombs, which it termed “a matter of serious concern.”

"The challenge, for Iran, is producing not merely a crude nuclear weapon – which experts say Iran could potentially do within the space of months if it decided to – but also producing a working delivery system, which could take much longer.

"As US intelligence officials – and the IAEA – work to assess the damage Israel has caused to Iran’s nuclear architecture, there is some concern that the blitz might cause Iran to do what US officials believe it hasn’t up until now: pursue weaponization."

but again, contrary to zor claims, iaea, us intelligence, rand, isis and others all agree that iran does in fact have the infrastructure, materials and know-how to breakout in an extreme short time frame... months. so keep repeating back to us what we has been saying from the start, that iran is not developing a weapon and has not been doing so for at least a decade. 

moving goalposts? serious? is Gromnir who from the start said it were iran's lack o' will that stopped 'em from moving forward with breakout, which is why israel's excuse for the attack now made little sense, but you didn't pay attention, presumably 'cause you were so distracted by your imagined strawman. literal our first post responding to your logic fail started...

"logic failure. the fact iran hasn't developed nukes does not in anyway diminish the possibility that they have been one year away from developing a nuke for over a decade. iran no doubt made the calculation that they have more advantage being on the cusp o' producing a nuclear weapon than the costs o' actual possessing nuclear weapons would entail. iran has possessed the know how for a long time and they got most o' the infrastructure necessary to build a nuclear weapon. all they needed were time and will. iran has chosen nay as 'posed to yay... thus far."

we said from the start that israel were disingenuous 'bout their motivation, so any kinda claim that netanyahu said something or other about iranian will is just noise and complete misses the point. one again, for the tenth(?) time, iaea, rand, isis and us intelligence assessments has consistently supported the position that supported that breakout time frames were six months to two years, and those initial estimates were more than ten freaking years past. the more recent isis and iaea predictions has trimmed the time frame a bit, but not much, which again, makes israel's excuse for their attack kinda tough to swallow.

you were this guy--

"But you need very, very specific ingredients to build a nuke. Without those ingredients it simply won't work, as a matter of basic physical reality.

"Dirty bomb, sure. That however would be extraordinarily disingenuous since New Zealand could build one of those, and we don't even have a reactor. So could Fiji."

unfortunate for zor, iran had the "ingredients" in 2011. for cryin' out loud, 'cause o' you all we is doing is spam...

In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades.57 One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%.
The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around
2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back
into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to
20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s
stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way
for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to
90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout
scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20%
LEUF6 at the PFEP.58

footnote 58: 8 As of May 15, 2012, 43 kg of the 20% LEUF6 Iran has produced has been used to
make fuel plates for the TNRR, thereby lowering Iran’s stocks of 20% LEUF6. IAEA,
GOV/2012/23, para. 38.

iaea, rand, isis, us intelligence is not talking about a dirty bomb. the breakout timeline is months, which comes as zero surprise to anybody 'cause that were the approximate assessment from iaea, rand, isis and us intelligence a decade ago. iran were not active working toward the development o' a weapon, but they already had the essential material and the know how.

btw, for any who is genuine interested, as am having mentioned previous, the biggest remaining hurdle were likely an engineering problem as 'posed to a uranium enrichment issue. go to page 27 o' the lined rand report and check out figure 2.1. 

and

"Once the appropriate fissile material is obtained in sufficient
quantity, it must be crafted into a functioning warhead. It is assumed
here that the Iranians would choose to produce a nuclear warhead with an implosion design, which requires less HEU and is easier to mate to
a missile.112 Iran would need to overcome several technical challenges
to construct a functioning implosion warhead that could be effectively
mated to one of Iran’s ballistic missile designs. The HEUF6 produced
in its centrifuges would have to be converted to uranium metal first,
then machined into hemispheres for the warhead pit. Iran would need
the high-explosive lenses necessary to implode the uranium core, which
would have to be shaped into the right configuration so that the pit
implodes uniformly. Iran also would need to have an appropriate neutron emitter to act as a trigger. While these are all challenging steps,
there is evidence that Iran has already made progress with them, and
may have already mastered many or all of them. Still, assembly of a warhead for the first time would be challenging and time consuming, even
if the individual steps had been worked out in advance.113 Although
the time required to make a weapon once sufficient fissile material has
been produced is important, it is excluded from the breakout estimates
provided in this section. This is because once sufficient HEUF6 has
been produced, it can be removed to a secret location. Therefore, once Iran can produce enough HEU for a bomb, the chances for successful interdiction by the United States and its allies diminishes greatly.
Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that it would still require time
for Iran to build a weapon, and this time could be substantial."

the engineering hurdles described is where the three year estimate comes into play and is not actual part o' traditional breakout analysis.

and sadly, is an all too real possibility o' putting a crude weapon on a boat and having it dock in haifa. 

but go ahead and keep repeating that us intelligence says iran doesn't have a weapons program... in spite o' the fact that time and again we has pointed out that iran weren't pursuing the construction o' a weapon according to iaea, isis, rand and us intelligence. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps almost as fun as watching zor try to extricate himself from his self made quagmire

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:02 AM by Gromnir

[Sarex]

Finally found a use for "AI".

Quote

The author argues that while Iran has not actively pursued building a nuclear weapon, it has long had the materials, infrastructure, and technical know-how to do so in a short time—mere months—if it chose to. Multiple reputable sources (IAEA, U.S. intelligence, RAND, ISIS) agree on this point.

The recent U.S. intelligence estimate that Iran is "three years away" refers not to weapon creation itself but to developing a reliable delivery system (e.g., warhead + missile). Iran could likely produce a crude bomb much sooner.

The author criticizes others (like "Zor") for misrepresenting these facts and accuses Israel of using a questionable rationale for its recent attack on Iran, pointing out that the threat has been relatively stable for over a decade—dependent more on Iran's political will than capability. The "three years" figure does not contradict previous assessments but focuses on the engineering and deployment aspect, not nuclear material production.

Key points:

• Iran has the ability to build a nuclear bomb in months if it chooses to.

• U.S. and international assessments agree Iran hasn’t decided to weaponize.

• The "three-year" timeline refers to a full, deliverable weapons system.

• The author argues that Israel’s justification for recent military actions is weak.

• Iran staying on the nuclear threshold has been a deliberate strategic choice.

[Malcador]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Let me ask you a different question 

Forget Israel and the current Israeli vs Iranian hostility 

Considering the reality of Shia\Sunni regional tension do you support Iran getting nukes  in whatever timeframe?

Do you believe any new country should be able to get nukes?

Would you support Ukraine getting nukes knowing the regional tension with Russia this will create?

 

 

 

You think Iran would do a first strike?

Also for a fun time waster.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=15000&lat=31.773315&lng=35.18679&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&ff=68&psi=20,5,1&zm=8

 

[rjshae]

‘These are the most magnificent poles made’: As Middle East rages, Trump brags about new flag poles at the White House

Quote

“These are the most magnificent poles made – They are tall, tapered, rust proof, rope inside the pole, and of the highest quality,” the president added. “Hopefully, they will proudly stand at both sides of the White House for many years to come!”

Coming soon: Honest Don's Used Vehicle Dealership. Only American-made, of course.

[Zoraptor]

11 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the three years is for a working delivery system. 

Yep, ie three years until it's actually usable. So Netanyahu's imminent threat is 1100+ days away. It was also (a minimum of) 1100 days away in, well, 2003. Net change over 22 years, zero days.

Reminder, Netanyahu's justification was of imminent threat from an active development program with will to use. There is no active development program, the minimum time for a deliverable weapon is 3 years, and the weapons program hadn't been restarted according to everyone for 22 years up until this week. Every part of Netanyahu's argument was rubbish. Funny, for someone who doesn't even think it's the real reason you spend an awful lot of time defending Bibi's claims.

[Lexx]

So Iran said something big is gonna happen. Did it happen already? Will it still happen? If so, when will it happen? Will they announce the release of Half-Life³? I really wanna know what this is or was about.

[Malcador]

6 minutes ago, Lexx said:

So Iran said something big is gonna happen. Did it happen already? Will it still happen? If so, when will it happen? Will they announce the release of Half-Life³? I really wanna know what this is or was about.

They announce Star Citiizen is live. 

I had thought they'd use their Fatah missiles, but who knows if they have anything left.   

[pmp10]

They launched at Israel their latest and greatest - Khorramshahr-4. 
There are no reports of it hitting anything, but then a single missile could have been a message to other gulf states. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:35 PM by pmp10

[uuuhhii]

14 minutes ago, Malcador said:

They announce Star Citiizen is live. 

I had thought they'd use their Fatah missiles, but who knows if they have anything left.   

 

don't get too ambitious

it will be at most star citizen beta