Iran

[Vol8188]

I am guessing that ideally we would want to obtain the 60 percent enriched uranium and fly it out of there. That would mean locating it and flying in spec ops to obtain it and fly it all out. Hopefully that's all we would need to do. time will tell.

If they can’t access it, it doesn’t matter where it’s located.

There’s a nuclear weapon in Goldsboro, NC that 0 people are worried about. Why? Because it’s too far buried for anyone to access it.

 

[Weezer]

"Finishing it" is 20+ years of militarily occupying Iran and fighting a low grade insurgency the entire time, and then hoping that when we leave, the government that we were propping up doesn't collapse.

Starting it was a piss poor decision. Not finishing it would be another piss poor decision. We're not left with good choices.

 

[lawgator1]

No Iran thought we would stop by now. In the past we would lob a few bombs, and they would say we'll behave. Rinse and repeat.

Like it or not we are in it now. Finish the job.

What does that mean?

 

[General Jack]

Very possible. They have no economy. They’re running low on military capabilities in general. And there’s never been a military with our level of ability. Their current regime is being lead by a comatose paraplegic.

In your mind are they in a good spot?

The hydra analogy applies, even if the current guy is incapacitated as Smegsbreath proclaims, there's dozens more in line to succeed him. So the regime is in a good spot to stay in control, yes.

We can flatten the place with ordinance, but until every last one of them is dead (which would required genocide), the regime is likely to stay in control.

We've tried this over and over and over... trump and maga compained against regime change relentlessly... and yet... here we are.

 

[CobbVol]

Several of these folks said the same thing: "Guarantee Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon.”

How, precisely, do we achieve this objective without boots on the ground?

Starving them of revenue to pay military and police is a start.

I can see troops taking Kharg Island to enable this and I do not see this as "invading Iran" like Iraq.

Are you against Iran having a nuclear weapon?

 

[Weezer]

When did he say that?


Obviously we will eventually. And their next leader may not be aligned with China and Russia. We will see


Why do you believe it takes to win?

He's said it in the past. Maybe his position has changed. Since he knocked over the ant hill, it needs to have changed.

Unless we see a regime change, the current regime already has ties to both Russia and China. That won't change.

The moment we used our missiles to assassinate leadership, the only way to win was to affect a regime change. Had we stayed with just tactical targets suspected of being involved in their nuclear program, there might be other options. But we didn't do that.

 

[norrislakevol]

What does that mean?

Gonna take a honest guess here: Nothing lasts forever, and if the Persian people don't reclaim Iran soon then the goal would be to set their ability to wage offensive war (including nuclear) back 10+ years, and hope we deal with more reasonable actors in the future. If we don't deal with more reasonable actors in the future, then they'll get bombed again. That's how I see it playing out at least, but just a guess, maybe we will get more, but I wouldn't count on it without a long term commitment. America as a whole doesn't desire any sort of long term commitment with boots on the ground. Too expensive, too messy, and we are war weary.

 

[Vol8188]

The hydra analogy applies, even if the current guy is incapacitated as Smegsbreath proclaims, there's dozens more in line to succeed him. So the regime is in a good spot to stay in control, yes.

Every person who takes control has a slightly different perspective. Iranians aren’t a monolith. You keep killing the next man up until you find the one you like

We can flatten the place with ordinance, but until every last one of them is dead (which would required genocide), the regime is likely to stay in control.

I thought your was the IGRC and ayatollahs, why would that be genocide?

We've tried this over and over and over... trump and maga compained against regime change relentlessly... and yet... here we are.

The occupation was the Ley complaint. Not the regime change itself. If you told me we could hit a button and get a different leader in Russia, we’d all be on board. If you said it would require a 50 year occupation we would all be opposed. Regime change and occupation shouldn’t be confused

 

[Vol8188]

He's said it in the past. Maybe his position has changed. Since he knocked over the ant hill, it needs to have changed.

Prior to the current conflict, yes.

Unless we see a regime change, the current regime already has ties to both Russia and China. That won't change.

With every new leader comes new possibilities. Keep overturning the table until you like who you’re dealing with.

The moment we used our missiles to assassinate leadership, the only way to win was to affect a regime change.

You’re falsely assuming everyone in the current regime is the same.

Had we stayed with just tactical targets suspected of being involved in their nuclear program, there might be other options. But we didn't do that.

We tried that. It didn’t deter them so we moved to the next step and removed their leader

 

[CobbVol]

Trump declared Iran's nuclear capabilities destroyed on 6/25/2025.

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News

The world is far safer after President Donald J. Trump’s highly successful, decisive precision strikes against the Iranian regime’s key nuclear

www.whitehouse.gov

His statement was reinforced by the Secretary of Defense:
View attachment 819745

So, since they haven't had nuclear capabilities since the middle of last year, what's the goal of the current operation?

Their ambitions remain ...

From the article:

The spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said the country has made significant nuclear advances, and that developing an atomic bomb would be very easy if Tehran chose to pursue it.

While Tehran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, the United States and Western countries want Iran to end uranium enrichment, arguing that enrichment beyond 20% has no civilian purpose.

“We are only allowed to access sites that were not hit,” he said, calling the resumption important but insufficient.

Grossi said Iran cannot unilaterally decide whether inspectors may enter the damaged facilities.

Grossi said the three sites at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan bombed by the US are central to uranium processing, conversion and enrichment, but stressed that Iran’s nuclear program extends well beyond them.

“Iran has much more than these three facilities,” he said. “It has a very developed nuclear program, with research activities and many other sites.”

Iran boasts of nuclear advances, calls building an atomic bomb a simple task

The spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said the country has made significant nuclear advances, and that developing an atomic bomb would be very easy if Tehran chose to pursue it.

www.iranintl.com

 

[MontyPython]

Starving them of revenue to pay military and police is a start.

I can see troops taking Kharg Island to enable this and I do not see this as "invading Iran" like Iraq.

Are you against Iran having a nuclear weapon?

I think attacking Iran militarily and economically will only motivate them more to build a nuke. Like put all their eggs in a basket and make it happen. Because once they've got it, they've got power. Enough leverage to stop the war and future attacks on them, unless Israel et al. want to exchange nuclear shots.

Given Israel has called for the complete destruction of Israel in the past, yes I am against Iran obtaining nukes. But this war... was this the best way to achieve that? Was Obama's treaty with them working? Or is it simply inevitable that most any country can obtain nuclear weapons if they just set their mind to it?

 

[Rickyvol77]

I think attacking Iran militarily and economically will only motivate them more to build a nuke. Like put all their eggs in a basket and make it happen. Because once they've got it, they've got power. Enough leverage to stop the war and future attacks on them, unless Israel et al. want to exchange nuclear shots.

Given Israel has called for the complete destruction of Israel in the past, yes I am against Iran obtaining nukes. But this war... was this the best way to achieve that? Was Obama's treaty with them working? Or is it simply inevitable that most any country can obtain nuclear weapons if they just set their mind to it?

The last statement isn't true or else there would be more than just 9 countries with them....and one of those (the most dangerous) only has nukes in name only

 

[appvol]

It's incredible that you've lasted as long as you have.

That all you got. 6 years is plenty of time

 

[MAD]

This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.

The Iranian regime has even lost Hamas…..

BREAKING: Hamas urges Iran to stop 'targeting neighboring' countries

 

[utvolpj]

No Iran thought we would stop by now. In the past we would lob a few bombs, and they would say we'll behave. Rinse and repeat.

Like it or not we are in it now. Finish the job.

This is how people lose their life savings at a casino. Cut your losses and leave table

 

[BeardedVol]

Their ambitions remain ...

From the article:

The spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said the country has made significant nuclear advances, and that developing an atomic bomb would be very easy if Tehran chose to pursue it.

While Tehran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, the United States and Western countries want Iran to end uranium enrichment, arguing that enrichment beyond 20% has no civilian purpose.

“We are only allowed to access sites that were not hit,” he said, calling the resumption important but insufficient.

Grossi said Iran cannot unilaterally decide whether inspectors may enter the damaged facilities.

Grossi said the three sites at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan bombed by the US are central to uranium processing, conversion and enrichment, but stressed that Iran’s nuclear program extends well beyond them.

“Iran has much more than these three facilities,” he said. “It has a very developed nuclear program, with research activities and many other sites.”

Iran boasts of nuclear advances, calls building an atomic bomb a simple task

The spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said the country has made significant nuclear advances, and that developing an atomic bomb would be very easy if Tehran chose to pursue it.

www.iranintl.com

You can't stop any country from pursuing nuclear weapons technology if they choose to do so, but Iran was in compliance with the IAEA when Trump tore up the treaty they'd signed with the US during his first term.

So the plan is to bomb them and then make them sign the same treaty that Trump tore up?

IAEA Report Confirms Iran’s Compliance with the JCPOA | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

 

[MontyPython]

The last statement isn't true or else there would be more than just 9 countries with them....and one of those (the most dangerous) only has nukes in name only

Maybe. You raise an interesting question...

How many countries have tried to obtain nuclear weapons but failed?

Roughly 12–15 countries have attempted to develop nuclear weapons programs but ultimately failed, abandoned them, or were stopped before producing usable weapons.

Below are the most widely recognized cases.

---

Countries that attempted nuclear weapons programs but did not end up with them​

1. Programs that were stopped or dismantled​

Iraq​

• Built an extensive nuclear program in the 1970s–80s.
• Key reactor destroyed during the Operation Opera.
• Remaining program dismantled after the Gulf War.

---

Libya​

• Secret nuclear program in the 1990s–2000s.
• Voluntarily abandoned weapons programs in 2003.

---

Syria​

• Built a covert nuclear reactor with North Korean help.
• Destroyed by Israel in the Operation Orchard.

---

2. Programs abandoned voluntarily​

Sweden​

• Serious nuclear weapons program during the 1950s–60s.
• Abandoned and joined the NPT.

---

Switzerland​

• Explored nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
• Cancelled the project in the 1980s.

---

Argentina​

• Nuclear weapons research during military rule.
• Program ended in the 1990s.

---

Brazil​

• Military regime ran a covert weapons effort.
• Abandoned after democratization.

---

South Korea​

• Secret weapons program in the 1970s.
• Stopped under pressure from the United States.

---

Taiwan​

• Attempted nuclear weapons programs twice (1970s and 1980s).
• Shut down after U.S. intervention.

---

Egypt​

• Explored nuclear weapons in the 1960s but never progressed far.

---

3. Countries that inherited weapons but gave them up​

These had nuclear weapons temporarily but dismantled them:

• Ukraine
• Kazakhstan
• Belarus

They inherited Soviet warheads after the collapse of the Soviet Union and transferred them to Russia in the 1990s.

---

Summary​

Approximate categories:

Category	Countries	Count
Attempted but stopped/destroyed	Iraq, Libya, Syria	3
Abandoned programs	Sweden, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt	7
Inherited then gave up	Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus	3

Total: about 13 countries.

---

Interesting historical fact:
More countries started nuclear weapons programs than actually succeeded—only 9 countries currently possess nuclear weapons.

---

If you'd like, I can also show which countries came closest to building a bomb before being stopped—some were only months away.

 

[CobbVol]

You can't stop any country from pursuing nuclear weapons technology if they choose to so, but Iran was in compliance with the IAEA when Trump tore up the treaty they'd signed with the US during his first term.

So the plan is to bomb them and then make them sign the same treaty that Trump tore up?

View attachment 819754

IAEA Report Confirms Iran’s Compliance with the JCPOA | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

No. The JCPOA did nothing to address their ballistic missile program and you see how far that was/is advanced over the past couple of weeks. They were still supporting terrorism and aligned proxies in the world. All of that was naively ignored in negotiating the JCPOA.

 

[BeardedVol]

No. The JCPOA did nothing to address their ballistic missile program and you see how far that was/is advanced over the past couple of weeks. They were still supporting terrorism and aligned proxies in the world. All of that was naively ignored in negotiating the JCPOA.

So Trump tore up the treaty and bombed Iran's nuclear facilities a decade later because the original treaty didn't cover ballistic missile technology?

JayEffSee, trying to follow the MAGA mental gymnastics on this one is difficult.

 

[Smokey123]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to state I’ve not proclaimed we have won. Our entire conversation started with a post of me listing numerous examples of us winning

You claimed successful regime change within 12 hours…

 

[BeardedVol]

OMG.

Mkay, this should be entertaining... tell us how we ensure that Iran is unable to obtain nuclear weapons without us putting boots on the ground in Iran.

Go.

We'll have them sign a treaty and then be inspected by the IAEA.

 

[Smokey123]

Prior to the current conflict, yes.



With every new leader comes new possibilities. Keep overturning the table until you like who you’re dealing with.


You’re falsely assuming everyone in the current regime is the same.



We tried that. It didn’t deter them so we moved to the next step and removed their leader

You fail to realize how the Islamic republic is structured

 

[CobbVol]

So Trump tore up the treaty and bombed Iran's nuclear facilities a decade later because the original treaty didn't cover ballistic missile technology?

JayEffSee, trying to follow the MAGA mental gymnastics on this one is difficult.

The agreement was rightly determined to not be in our best interest. Simple as that.

 

[MontyPython]

No. The JCPOA did nothing to address their ballistic missile program and you see how far that was/is advanced over the past couple of weeks. They were still supporting terrorism and aligned proxies in the world. All of that was naively ignored in negotiating the JCPOA.

The JCPOA addressed nuclear material, not missiles. If Iran abided by the JCPOA, then the ballistic missile program threat was moot... just another conventional weapon.

 

[BeardedVol]

The agreement was rightly determined to not be in our best interest. Simple as that.

Why determined that, and what criteria was used to make that determination?