Iran

[Persian Vol]

You admit Iran's world rhetoric is inflammatory.
I assume you admit that Iran has funded terrorists.
You admit that Iran enriches uranium to 60% and has shown it can go even higher.

Somehow you want to write this off as posturing? Posturing to who and for what?

Can you cite a plausible reason for this posturing? Any endgame if it's just posturing? Any gains they've made in the region (beyond various sanctions which have been applied, removed, revised, etc.)

What are you suggesting Iran is gaining by this "leverage move" of enriching uranium?

Enriching to 60% was Iran’s response to the collapse of the JCPOA and Israeli sabotage — a signal to the West that if diplomacy fails, things escalate. That’s leverage: not a promise to build a bomb, but a reminder that they could. Whether it’s worked or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s a calculated bargaining tool, not proof of a weapons program.

 

[Sandman 423]

Is this the same as the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) we dropped on Afghanistan?

Or something different?

MOAB closes up those cave entrances

Different. This one is made to kill the monster in Tremors.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If the administration had solid intel proving Iran is building a bomb, we’d know, they’d be using it to justify action publicly, just like with Iraq. But so far, neither the U.S. nor the IAEA has presented that kind of evidence. That’s the point: don’t substitute suspicion for proof.

That's a pretty massive assumption.

 

[Persian Vol]

What’s false? The only thing that is false is your claim that they need 60% uranium for medical isotopes. I didn’t make that claim.


You have no point. You’re claiming they’re doing this for “leverage”. The only leverage is the threat of a bomb. Because no one cares if they’re really just doing medical research.

Can you give us any other logical reason for their actions? Why be noncompliant with inspectors? Why enrich to 60%?

You have nothing because every reason you provided came back to “or we will build a nuclear weapon” and then you jokingly claimed it’s a strawman when I call you out for it

You keep circling back to the medical isotope point because it’s the easiest for you to argue against — but that’s not the only reasoning I’ve given. I’ve consistently mentioned political leverage, deterrence, retaliation for the JCPOA collapse, and strategic signaling in response to Israeli sabotage. You’re fixating on one example and ignoring the broader context. And again, I never claimed Iran needs 60% solely for medical use — I said it’s one of several justifications they’ve given, whether you find it credible or not. Misrepresenting my argument doesn’t make yours stronger.

 

[Vol8188]

Enriching to 60% was Iran’s response to the collapse of the JCPOA and Israeli sabotage — a signal to the West that if diplomacy fails, things escalate. That’s leverage: not a promise to build a bomb, but a reminder that they could. Whether it’s worked or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s a calculated bargaining tool, not proof of a weapons program.

The “things escalate” part of your argument is the fundamental flaw in your argument. So if we are all just stupid (possible), please explain to us.

If “escalation” doesn’t mean “move closer to producing a functional nuclear weapon”, then what exactly do you mean by “things escalate”?

 

[Persian Vol]

That's a pretty massive assumption.

What’s actually a massive assumption is believing a full-scale nuclear weapons program exists without any public confirmation from the IAEA or U.S. intelligence.

 

[Vol8188]

You keep circling back to the medical isotope point because it’s the easiest for you to argue against — but that’s not the only reasoning I’ve given. I’ve consistently mentioned political leverage, deterrence, retaliation for the JCPOA collapse, and strategic signaling in response to Israeli sabotage. You’re fixating on one example and ignoring the broader context. And again, I never claimed Iran needs 60% solely for medical use — I said it’s one of several justifications they’ve given, whether you find it credible or not. Misrepresenting my argument doesn’t make yours stronger.

No your easiest arguments to refute are that this was just for “leverage” and showing people that “things would escalate”. Because the obvious leverage and escalation are both related to nuclear weapons.

Odd though you’re still not admiring your medical isotope “point” isn’t an actual point even after seemingly admitting it’s easily refuted.

No one has even came remotely close to misrepresenting you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What’s false? The only thing that is false is your claim that they need 60% uranium for medical isotopes. I didn’t make that claim.


You have no point. You’re claiming they’re doing this for “leverage”. The only leverage is the threat of a bomb. Because no one cares if they’re really just doing medical research.

Can you give us any other logical reason for their actions? Why be noncompliant with inspectors? Why enrich to 60%?

You have nothing because every reason you provided came back to “or we will build a nuclear weapon” and then you jokingly claimed it’s a strawman when I call you out for it

It's an intriguing argument.

"Enriching uranium is provocative."

Also, "Why has the world stage been provoked into action?"

 

[Vol8188]

What’s actually a massive assumption is believing a full-scale nuclear weapons program exists without any public confirmation from the IAEA or U.S. intelligence.

What’s your line in the sand if one exists? I don’t believe it does because I think any Iranian action, you will simply excuse as a response to the US or Israel.

I assumed you were saying an actual weapon when you said “lay a nuclear egg”. You informed me that’s not what you meant, but unless I’ve missed it, you’ve not explained where you line would be or what a “nuclear weapons program” is

 

[Persian Vol]

The “things escalate” part of your argument is the fundamental flaw in your argument. So if we are all just stupid (possible), please explain to us.

If “escalation” doesn’t mean “move closer to producing a functional nuclear weapon”, then what exactly do you mean by “things escalate”?

“Escalation” doesn’t have to mean building a bomb, and frankly if that were the case, we wouldn’t still be talking about 60% three years later. In diplomacy, escalation means increasing pressure: enriching to higher levels, reducing IAEA access, or expanding regional influence through proxies. It’s a way of saying “if we’re ignored or pressured, we’ll make things more uncomfortable.” But that in of itself is not a nuclear declaration.

 

[KB5252]

29 April 2021
Robert E. Kelley

On 13 April, Iran announced its intention to enrich uranium to 60 per cent U-235. This was characterized by Iran as a response to a sabotage of its vast underground enrichment cascades at Natanz two days before. The move comes against the backdrop of sensitive negotiations happening in Vienna aimed at rescuing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and bringing the United States back into compliance with the deal.

Iran had already been producing uranium enriched to just under 20 per cent (around 19.5 per cent) following a decision in December 2020, a deliberate step away from compliance with the JCPOA’s terms. Enrichment to 60 per cent, however, is a significant escalation in enrichment operations.

Once it has been enriched beyond 20 per cent, uranium enters a different nuclear materials safeguards accounting category: highly enriched uranium (HEU). Although under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it is legal for any country to produce HEU, the JCPOA limits Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent.

Iran’s decision has also inevitably drawn international attention because it brings the country so close to producing 90 per cent-enriched uranium, which is generally considered weapons-grade.

A political message​

Uranium enriched to 60 per cent cannot be used to make a useful nuclear explosive device, and Iran has no other realistic use for this material.

Nevertheless, 60 per cent was not an arbitrary choice. Cascades of centrifuges are designed to enrich uranium in steps; Iran’s centrifuges are likely set up to enrich up to 20 per cent, from 20 to 60 per cent, and from 60 to 90 per cent. Assuming the 60 per cent-enriched uranium is stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas—and there would be no point in Iran converting it to any other chemical form—the enrichment step from 60 per cent-enriched to weapons-grade uranium is very short.


This strongly suggests that Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: ‘We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium.’

I'm not disputing this, simply pointing out there are other possibilities, though unlikely.

 

[Persian Vol]

What’s your line in the sand if one exists? I don’t believe it does because I think any Iranian action, you will simply excuse as a response to the US or Israel.

I assumed you were saying an actual weapon when you said “lay a nuclear egg”. You informed me that’s not what you meant, but unless I’ve missed it, you’ve not explained where you line would be or what a “nuclear weapons program” is

The whole point is that red lines should be based on evidence, not suspicion. My “line in the sand” is simple. Proof of weaponization, actual moves toward warhead design, miniaturization, or credible intel of breakout intent. That’s not the same as enriching uranium or being hostile. You keep wanting me to react to tone and posture; I’m saying policy should be driven by facts. If we go down the road of assuming intent without proof, then every enemy is a nuclear state in waiting, and that’s not strategy, that’s paranoia.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Enriching to 60% was Iran’s response to the collapse of the JCPOA and Israeli sabotage — a signal to the West that if diplomacy fails, things escalate. That’s leverage: not a promise to build a bomb, but a reminder that they could. Whether it’s worked or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s a calculated bargaining tool, not proof of a weapons program.

Your logic fails.

You say we can't be sure they're building a bomb in one post then say we need to know they can. How would you suggest we "know they can" when we lack access to the bunker they built to show they could? Obviously, we can't know for sure because of the secrecy.

Well, they can't be allowed to do that. Not because they lack the ability but because they've shown themselves via support for terror and a decades long insistence that they'll destroy Israel that the world shouldn't let them even get close.

Again, posture as a rogue state that supports terrorism and posture that you will wipe Israel off the map AND bury your research/development on nuclear weapons and don't let the world see you haven't built a bomb....... then by your admission remind the world you can build a bomb....... but then complain when the world gets suspicious?

Try to read what you are saying: Iran showed they can build a bomb BUT you can't prove it so you can't stop them. If you attack them and they don't have a bomb, you're wrong. If you wait until they have a bomb, they've said for decades they will use it.

Just WTF do you expect the world to do?

 

[Orange_Crush]

What’s actually a massive assumption is believing a full-scale nuclear weapons program exists without any public confirmation from the IAEA or U.S. intelligence.

That's a straw man, actually.

But again... You're reduced to posting assumptions to combat claimed assumptions from the other side.

Here's what aren't assumptions:

1. Iran is home to massive state-sponsored terrorism.
2. Iran has been promising obliteration of Israel and the US for years.
3. Iran has been threatening nuclear weapons capabilities, and its use.
4. Every public source, including Iran, admits that they are at or above ~ 60%.
5. Israel attacked, and the US is considering its level of additional involvement.
6. The US publicly states that this is b/c Iran will NOT have nuclear capabilities.
7. The US has released statements claiming that Iran was incredibly close to weaponized nuclear capabilities.


So, you are claiming that the US's information releases are untrustworthy, while claiming that US releases are what would help you trust the actions...?

Again, you don't wait until they have a bomb to then try to take it away from them. When the proverbial neighborhood madman makes the promises, orders the materials, and bombards himself in his house, you go in hard before the neighborhood explodes.

 

[Vol8188]

It's an intriguing argument.

"Enriching uranium is provocative."

Also, "Why has the world stage been provoked into action?"

Amazing, truly. He admits it’s “provocative”. Calls it a move for “deference” and “leverage”.

But then will claim you’re misrepresenting him when you point out the obvious that all of things mean “we will build a nuclear weapon”.

If not related to nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t be “provocative”, it wouldn’t be a “deterrence”, and it wouldn’t be “leverage”.

 

[Vol8188]

“Escalation” doesn’t have to mean building a bomb, and frankly if that were the case, we wouldn’t still be talking about 60% three years later. In diplomacy, escalation means increasing pressure: enriching to higher levels, reducing IAEA access, or expanding regional influence through proxies. It’s a way of saying “if we’re ignored or pressured, we’ll make things more uncomfortable.” But that in of itself is not a nuclear declaration.

The only reason enriching uranium would “increase pressure” is because of the fear that you’ll produce a nuclear weapon.

The only reason reducing IAEA access would “increase pressure” is because of that you’ll produce a nuclear weapon.

It all comes back to that. No matter how hard you try to squirm

 

[Persian Vol]

I had a patient who presented with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. A colonoscopy was performed, and visually, the findings strongly suggested colon cancer, necrotic colonic tissue that appeared malignant on endoscopy. Biopsies were taken, but the results were inconclusive, likely due to sampling error from the necrotic tissue. A CT scan for staging revealed liver lesions, appearing consistent with metastatic disease. At that point, all signs pointed toward colon cancer that had spread to the liver, a seemingly straightforward diagnosis.

But before initiating chemotherapy, we needed a definitive tissue diagnosis. As oncologists say, “no tissue, no issue.” It’s not just a formality, no responsible oncologist will begin treatment without knowing exactly what they’re treating. A biopsy of the liver lesions was performed, and surprisingly, it wasn’t colon cancer at all. It was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a completely different malignancy with a drastically different prognosis, origin, and treatment plan. In fact, the lymphoma had likely secondarily invaded the colon, which is an unusual pattern not typical for primary colon cancer.

The lesson here is even when all signs seem to point in one direction, action without definitive evidence can lead you down the wrong path with serious consequences.

So when I hear calls for war based on assumptions about Iran’s nuclear program without verifiable evidence I remain skeptical. Especially when some of the same voices have been claiming for over 20 years that Iran is on the verge of building a bomb, and especially given our not-so-distant history of launching a war based on weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

 

[KB5252]

Here are the issues as I see them. There have been negotiations. Both sides have objectives to meet. What does Iran want, what have they said, what have they done? All important questions.

Same for the other side negotiating.

I think the issue is that it has been determined that negotiations aren't getting results. There is an impass.

I think the recent change in the US calculus was Iranian proxy attacks on American military and civilian shipping. That was the only new wrinkle. I think it's just been determined that Iran is acting outside of accepted norms within the region.

Certain levels of conflict and contention are common and expected. But when the regions business interests are affected the consensus swings toward action.

With regard to Iran I'm not sure what they expected to happen here.

 

[Persian Vol]

Amazing, truly. He admits it’s “provocative”. Calls it a move for “deference” and “leverage”.

But then will claim you’re misrepresenting him when you point out the obvious that all of things mean “we will build a nuclear weapon”.

If not related to nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t be “provocative”, it wouldn’t be a “deterrence”, and it wouldn’t be “leverage”.

Yes, enriching uranium to 60% is provocative. That’s the whole point. It’s meant to provoke pressure, negotiation, or sanctions relief without crossing the line into actual weaponization. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, they’ve had three years and the technical capability to go beyond 60%. They haven’t. You’re the one insisting that “provocative” automatically means “intent to build a nuke.”

 

[Orange_Crush]

I had a patient who presented with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. A colonoscopy was performed, and visually, the findings strongly suggested colon cancer, necrotic colonic tissue that appeared malignant on endoscopy. Biopsies were taken, but the results were inconclusive, likely due to sampling error from the necrotic tissue. A CT scan for staging revealed liver lesions, appearing consistent with metastatic disease. At that point, all signs pointed toward colon cancer that had spread to the liver, a seemingly straightforward diagnosis.

But before initiating chemotherapy, we needed a definitive tissue diagnosis. As oncologists say, “no tissue, no issue.” It’s not just a formality, no responsible oncologist will begin treatment without knowing exactly what they’re treating. A biopsy of the liver lesions was performed, and surprisingly, it wasn’t colon cancer at all. It was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a completely different malignancy with a drastically different prognosis, origin, and treatment plan. In fact, the lymphoma had likely secondarily invaded the colon, which is an unusual pattern not typical for primary colon cancer.

The lesson here is even when all signs seem to point in one direction, action without definitive evidence can lead you down the wrong path with serious consequences.

So when I hear calls for war based on assumptions about Iran’s nuclear program verifiable evidence I remain skeptical. Especially when some of the same voices have been claiming for over 20 years that Iran is on the verge of building a bomb, and especially given our not-so-distant history of launching a war based on weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

Was there a danger of this patient exploding in white-hot magma repeatedly and across the globe, potentially killing millions and toppling global stability?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It's an intriguing argument.

"Enriching uranium is provocative."

Also, "Why has the world stage been provoked into action?"

This is perfect and succinct.

Do something to "obtain leverage" but expect Israel not to respond by answering your leverage and destroying it.

We saw this happen with Nico. Leverage your position to the point where the "Nope" line is and find yourself in a worse position.

Poor Nico. Poor Iran.

And @Persian Vol wants to insist the world is overreacting. Okay, give up your 60% uranium and your multiple centrifuges and start ACTUALLY recognizing Israel and negotiating like your Arabic neighbors did.

There's a path for Iran to become a stable part of the ME. Egypt did it. Jordan did it. Come to the damn table, stop threatening to blow nations off the map, and we'll see what can happen.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, enriching uranium to 60% is provocative. That’s the whole point. It’s meant to provoke pressure, negotiation, or sanctions relief without crossing the line into actual weaponization. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, they’ve had three years and the technical capability to go beyond 60%. They haven’t. You’re the one insisting that “provocative” automatically means “intent to build a nuke.”

The problem with being a blustery, provocative... er... Little Person... is that there comes a point when you don't get to define what provocation follows. It's sometimes referred to as the "Forget A Friendly Outcome" principle.

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, enriching uranium to 60% is provocative. That’s the whole point. It’s meant to provoke pressure, negotiation, or sanctions relief without crossing the line into actual weaponization. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, they’ve had three years and the technical capability to go beyond 60%. They haven’t. You’re the one insisting that “provocative” automatically means “intent to build a nuke.”

Why is it provocative? You seem to be ignoring that obvious fact.

 

[Vol8188]

I had a patient who presented with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. A colonoscopy was performed, and visually, the findings strongly suggested colon cancer, necrotic colonic tissue that appeared malignant on endoscopy. Biopsies were taken, but the results were inconclusive, likely due to sampling error from the necrotic tissue. A CT scan for staging revealed liver lesions, appearing consistent with metastatic disease. At that point, all signs pointed toward colon cancer that had spread to the liver, a seemingly straightforward diagnosis.

But before initiating chemotherapy, we needed a definitive tissue diagnosis. As oncologists say, “no tissue, no issue.” It’s not just a formality, no responsible oncologist will begin treatment without knowing exactly what they’re treating. A biopsy of the liver lesions was performed, and surprisingly, it wasn’t colon cancer at all. It was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a completely different malignancy with a drastically different prognosis, origin, and treatment plan. In fact, the lymphoma had likely secondarily invaded the colon, which is an unusual pattern not typical for primary colon cancer.

The lesson here is even when all signs seem to point in one direction, action without definitive evidence can lead you down the wrong path with serious consequences.

So when I hear calls for war based on assumptions about Iran’s nuclear program verifiable evidence I remain skeptical. Especially when some of the same voices have been claiming for over 20 years that Iran is on the verge of building a bomb, and especially given our not-so-distant history of launching a war based on weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

Why did you start with a colonoscopy due to RUQ pain rather than u/s or CT?

 

[MontyPython]

Is this the same as the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) we dropped on Afghanistan?

Or something different?

MOAB closes up those cave entrances

No, MOAB was a thermobaric bomb. It's actually dropped out of a C130 with a parachute. Not a penetrator.

I said penetrator.