Iran

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I understand the point with the uranium at 60% and agree that’s far beyond civilian use. My point is it’s been “Iran is weeks away from a nuke” for 30 years now. It just reminds me of how fear was used to build support for the Iraq war.

After 9-11 it was "why didn't we take out Osama earlier?"

Now with Iran it's "they're just wanting to take out Iran to start a war."

Wait until Iran HAS a nuke and then one side complains about why we didn't act earlier, I guess.

Bomb Iran now and one side complains it was all just a ruse to start a war for big military money.

On the record, I'm not a fan of going into Iran. I think we should sell Israel the weaponry to get it done and let them be the bad guy or risk getting nuked.

I just realize it's ALL political talking points to sell advertising for both sides.

They acted too slow.
They acted too fast.
They want to report one or the other because division sells in America, not unity.

 

[Vol8188]

Not speculative at all. Both the Iranian government and the UN admit they have enriched uranium to 60%.

Can you provide me with any alternative explanations for that?

@Persian Vol

 

[Persian Vol]

Not speculative at all. Both the Iranian government and the UN admit they have enriched uranium to 60%.

Can you provide me with any alternative explanations for that?

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% since 2021, that’s a known fact. But enrichment alone, even at that level, is not the same as building a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium requires around 90% enrichment, and there’s been no verified evidence from the IAEA or any intelligence agency that Iran has moved to that threshold or begun weaponization. They started enriching to 60% after the U.S. exited the JCPOA and following Israeli sabotage and assassinations prior to that time, it was clearly a political and strategic response, not a secretive sprint to a weapon. If Iran truly intended to build a bomb, why hasn’t enrichment gone beyond 60% after nearly 3 years? The activity is provocative, yes, but equating it to weapons production without further proof is assumption, not fact.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% since 2021, that’s a known fact. But enrichment alone, even at that level, is not the same as building a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium requires around 90% enrichment, and there’s been no verified evidence from the IAEA or any intelligence agency that Iran has moved to that threshold or begun weaponization. They started enriching to 60% after the U.S. exited the JCPOA and following Israeli sabotage and assassinations prior to that time, it was clearly a political and strategic response, not a secretive sprint to a weapon. If Iran truly intended to build a bomb, why hasn’t enrichment gone beyond 60% after nearly 3 years? The activity is provocative, yes, but equating it to weapons production without further proof is assumption, not fact.

If they didn't, why enrich to 60% and tell the world you're building it, along with the rhetoric of annihilation?

Your response seems to be, "Ignore their actions and threats until you can prove a negative"?

 

[FortSanders]

At least we are being proactive.

Trump administration boosts monitoring of possible Iran-backed cells in U.S., as Trump weighs strikes, sources say

FBI Director Kash Patel has increased efforts to monitor possible domestic sleeper cells linked to Hezbollah, U.S. officials say.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[MontyPython]

I definitely agree Iran is trying to get a nuke. No Islamic theocratic dictatorship should have access to such things. I agree with you on that.

The difference between 2 weeks and 4 months is actually quite massive. That buys Israel time to create an alternative plan of taking out the Fordow complex. There could even be a regime change in that amount of time. I honestly don't think they need us to deploy our GBU-57s.

I looked up the capacity of a C-130. It's 45,000 lbs. A GBU-57 weighs 30,000 lbs, so they could theoretically drop one of these from a C-130 if we sold them to Israel. Considering Israel controls the airspace over Iran completely, it isn't like these slower aircraft have a huge likelihood of being shot down.

No, that's not possible. The B2 is the only aircraft that can deliver such an ordinance.

 

[Persian Vol]

If they didn't, why enrich to 60% and tell the world you're building it, along with the rhetoric of annihilation?

Your response seems to be, "Ignore their actions and threats until you can prove a negative"?

No one is saying “ignore their actions.” We’re saying don’t jump to conclusions without proof. Enriching to 60% is alarming, yes. But there are multiple strategic reasons for doing it short of building a bomb: deterrence, political leverage, or keeping the West at the negotiating table. The fact they’ve publicly declared the enrichment and haven’t advanced beyond 60% in nearly 3 years weakens the argument that they’re secretly racing toward a weapon.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

No one is saying “ignore their actions.” We’re saying don’t jump to conclusions without proof. Enriching to 60% is alarming, yes. But there are multiple strategic reasons for doing it short of building a bomb: deterrence, political leverage, or keeping the West at the negotiating table. The fact they’ve publicly declared the enrichment and haven’t advanced beyond 60% in nearly 3 years weakens the argument that they’re secretly racing toward a weapon.

Your argument is:
Yes, it walks like a duck (enriching uranium beyond peaceful use)
Yes, it talks like a duck (plenty of incendiary rhetoric about destroying Israel)
But why do you guys keep insisting it's a duck?

This is your argument?

 

[MontyPython]

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% since 2021, that’s a known fact. But enrichment alone, even at that level, is not the same as building a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium requires around 90% enrichment, and there’s been no verified evidence from the IAEA or any intelligence agency that Iran has moved to that threshold or begun weaponization. They started enriching to 60% after the U.S. exited the JCPOA and following Israeli sabotage and assassinations prior to that time, it was clearly a political and strategic response, not a secretive sprint to a weapon. If Iran truly intended to build a bomb, why hasn’t enrichment gone beyond 60% after nearly 3 years? The activity is provocative, yes, but equating it to weapons production without further proof is assumption, not fact.

I don't believe there's any reason to enrich uranium to 60% other than to build a bomb.

 

[Matt2496]

I'm not saying this is what Iran is doing, but there is an alternate reason for 60% uranium enrichment. There are submarine nuclear reactors with very high uranium enrichment levels. This is to increase efficiency (more power out of a smaller reactor) and extend the time between refueling outages.

 

[MontyPython]

Just to state the obvious... Given Trump's "2 week" deadline, that means he doesn't want to bomb Iran and just wants to avoid the decision. This is what he does... What he always does. I think it's highly likely we will not do it... For better or worse, because as we all know...

 

[KB5252]

No one is saying “ignore their actions.” We’re saying don’t jump to conclusions without proof. Enriching to 60% is alarming, yes. But there are multiple strategic reasons for doing it short of building a bomb: deterrence, political leverage, or keeping the West at the negotiating table. The fact they’ve publicly declared the enrichment and haven’t advanced beyond 60% in nearly 3 years weakens the argument that they’re secretly racing toward a weapon.

I believe I heard it reported, and again I concede this doesn't mean it's true, that there were signs they had increased production/efforts for enrichment to higher grades.

Did the IAEA's last report reference this?

I think there could be some truth to your reasons why Iran was enriching at that level but it's a risky game.

I've long said the longer this goes on the worse it gets for us and Israel. There has to be a quick end and let the people do what they can/will. But if the whole point was to ensure Iran didn't/couldn't get a nuclear weapon they better get to it and get it done quick.

My patience and I'm sure the patience of allies in the region gets thinner with each passing day.

 

[KB5252]

I don't believe there's any reason to enrich uranium to 60% other than to build a bomb.

There are research and medical purposes I believe.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No one is saying “ignore their actions.” We’re saying don’t jump to conclusions without proof. Enriching to 60% is alarming, yes. But there are multiple strategic reasons for doing it short of building a bomb: deterrence, political leverage, or keeping the West at the negotiating table. The fact they’ve publicly declared the enrichment and haven’t advanced beyond 60% in nearly 3 years weakens the argument that they’re secretly racing toward a weapon.

Even *if* we didn't have intel that you and I don't have (neither about what may have been done to slow the enrichment process, not about their current nearness to a bomb), one has to consider the costs of inaction vs action. Iran with Nuclear bombs is also all of their sponsored terrorist groups with nuclear bombs, as well as a nuclear arms race across the ME.

You have to eventually take care of the problem.

 

[utvolpj]

So we could still just nuke them

 

[Orangeburst]

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% since 2021, that’s a known fact. But enrichment alone, even at that level, is not the same as building a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium requires around 90% enrichment, and there’s been no verified evidence from the IAEA or any intelligence agency that Iran has moved to that threshold or begun weaponization. They started enriching to 60% after the U.S. exited the JCPOA and following Israeli sabotage and assassinations prior to that time, it was clearly a political and strategic response, not a secretive sprint to a weapon. If Iran truly intended to build a bomb, why hasn’t enrichment gone beyond 60% after nearly 3 years? The activity is provocative, yes, but equating it to weapons production without further proof is assumption, not fact.

You only need about 4% enrichment for nuclear reactors.
Iran has some up to 83.6%

Iran planning to resume testing nuclear bomb detonators

Iran is intensifying efforts on its secretive nuclear weapons program, bringing the country closer than ever to developing a nuclear bomb—a threat that has loomed for over two decades, according to exclusive information obtained by Iran International.

www.iranintl.com

Sorry, but you go decades chanting Death to Israel and Death to America, we are going to take them at their word.

 

[Vol8188]

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% since 2021, that’s a known fact. But enrichment alone, even at that level, is not the same as building a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium requires around 90% enrichment, and there’s been no verified evidence from the IAEA or any intelligence agency that Iran has moved to that threshold or begun weaponization. They started enriching to 60% after the U.S. exited the JCPOA and following Israeli sabotage and assassinations prior to that time, it was clearly a political and strategic response, not a secretive sprint to a weapon. If Iran truly intended to build a bomb, why hasn’t enrichment gone beyond 60% after nearly 3 years? The activity is provocative, yes, but equating it to weapons production without further proof is assumption, not fact.

The most likely answer for they haven’t exceeded that amount is capability.

Why enrich to 60% if not to make a bomb? It seems like a simple question. One you’re not able to answer because there’s no other explanation.

 

[Persian Vol]

Your argument is:
Yes, it walks like a duck (enriching uranium beyond peaceful use)
Yes, it talks like a duck (plenty of incendiary rhetoric about destroying Israel)
But why do you guys keep insisting it's a duck?

This is your argument?

No, the argument is: it might walk like a duck, but unless you’ve actually seen it lay a nuclear egg, you don’t start a war over it. Enriching to 60% is provocative, no one denies that. But it’s still below weapons-grade, it’s been declared, and it hasn’t advanced in 3 years. The IAEA has not found evidence of a weapons program. The rhetoric is dangerous, sure, but that’s not new, it’s been around for decades. If we’re going to label something a nuke program, we need proof of weaponization, not just assumptions based on enrichment levels and inflammatory statements. Otherwise, we’re just speculating.

 

[Vol8188]

No one is saying “ignore their actions.” We’re saying don’t jump to conclusions without proof. Enriching to 60% is alarming, yes. But there are multiple strategic reasons for doing it short of building a bomb: deterrence, political leverage, or keeping the West at the negotiating table. The fact they’ve publicly declared the enrichment and haven’t advanced beyond 60% in nearly 3 years weakens the argument that they’re secretly racing toward a weapon.

You 100% are attempting to ignore and minimize their actions.

Your entire argument is a joke. Because everything you’re saying is admitting the goal was a nuclear weapon. “They did it for leverage” “they did it for negotiation” “they did it for deterrence”….

What’s the leverage? “We will make a bomb if you don’t do x”

Whats the negotiation? “We will make a bombs if you don’t do x”

What’s the deference? “If you do x, we will make a bomb”

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, the argument is: it might walk like a duck, but unless you’ve actually seen it lay a nuclear egg, you don’t start a war over it. Enriching to 60% is provocative, no one denies that. But it’s still below weapons-grade, it’s been declared, and it hasn’t advanced in 3 years. The IAEA has not found evidence of a weapons program. The rhetoric is dangerous, sure, but that’s not new, it’s been around for decades. If we’re going to label something a nuke program, we need proof of weaponization, not just assumptions based on enrichment levels and inflammatory statements. Otherwise, we’re just speculating.

If you have a deranged individual who's been terrorizing a neighborhood for decades, claiming he's building bombs to blow up the neighborhood and law enforcement, and you have the receipts for bomb materials, you don't wait for them to prove it loudly. You go in and prevent it from happening. If they are holed up in the home with guns and resistance, you go in hard.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

No, the argument is: it might walk like a duck, but unless you’ve actually seen it lay a nuclear egg, you don’t start a war over it. Enriching to 60% is provocative, no one denies that. But it’s still below weapons-grade, it’s been declared, and it hasn’t advanced in 3 years. The IAEA has not found evidence of a weapons program. The rhetoric is dangerous, sure, but that’s not new, it’s been around for decades. If we’re going to label something a nuke program, we need proof of weaponization, not just assumptions based on enrichment levels and inflammatory statements. Otherwise, we’re just speculating.

And, of course, Iran is SOOOOOOOO transparent to the world about their nuclear program, the world should trust them?

This is the problem. If you paint yourself with violent rhetoric AND you start developing uranium beyond peaceful levels AND you refuse to be transparent about your nuclear weapons, research, or whatever you're doing...... DON'T BE SURPRISED THE WORLD DOESN'T TRUST YOU.

Talk like a rogue nation, enrich uranium beyond peaceful levels, and keep everyone in the dark as much as possible but still complain when the world doesn't trust you? C'mon.

 

[Vol8188]

No, the argument is: it might walk like a duck, but unless you’ve actually seen it lay a nuclear egg, you don’t start a war over it.

“Wait until they have nuclear weapons, and then attack them”- Persian Vol

Lmfao are you thinking any of this through before hitting reply?

 

[Persian Vol]

You only need about 4% enrichment for nuclear reactors.
Iran has some up to 83.6%

Iran planning to resume testing nuclear bomb detonators

Iran is intensifying efforts on its secretive nuclear weapons program, bringing the country closer than ever to developing a nuclear bomb—a threat that has loomed for over two decades, according to exclusive information obtained by Iran International.

www.iranintl.com

Sorry, but you go decades chanting Death to Israel and Death to America, we are going to take them at their word.

Iran briefly enriched a small amount to 83.6% but didn’t stockpile it or sustain that level, even the IAEA confirmed it. Rhetoric aside, policy should be based on actions, not slogans. You don’t launch wars over what someone chants, you do it over verified intent and capability.

 

[Matt2496]

No, that's not possible. The B2 is the only aircraft that can deliver such an ordinance.

I respectfully disagree. The B2 is the only aircraft currently rated/certified to deliver that ordinance. Other aircraft could be outfitted to do so if desired.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I believe I heard it reported, and again I concede this doesn't mean it's true, that there were signs they had increased production/efforts for enrichment to higher grades.

Did the IAEA's last report reference this?

I think there could be some truth to your reasons why Iran was enriching at that level but it's a risky game.

I've long said the longer this goes on the worse it gets for us and Israel. There has to be a quick end and let the people do what they can/will. But if the whole point was to ensure Iran didn't/couldn't get a nuclear weapon they better get to it and get it done quick.

My patience and I'm sure the patience of allies in the region gets thinner with each passing day.

If we know they are at 60%, you can be sure they are actually somewhere north of that.