DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran calls Trump’s bluff.

supreme leader …..”We will not surrender”

We’re going to see a big beautiful war or we’re going to see a big beautiful deal.

It’s so typical that the dems ended a war in the Middle East and the Republicans want to start another. Must be good financially for, we know who.

I have no idea how this will all play out. But before some of the rhetoric breaks out I would like to remind people what history should have taught us by now. The American people were told how easy the Korean war would be due to our military superiority. That ended in a stalemate. We were told how easy the Vietnam War would be for that same reason. In the end Vietnam was overtaken by the communists. As a matter of fact they tried so hard to convince the American people of that they wouldn't even call them wars at all. In Korea it was called "The Korean Conflict" Vietnam was called a conflict and in some cases a police action.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan were thought to be militaries that could easily be defeated. If their military were all we were fighting that might have held true. But it's not. It never has been. What we have been fighting is an ideology. You can't defeat an ideology. Trump claimed he defeated ISIS. That never happened. He dampened the flames for short while but the embers remained and once again they are a force.

After decades of fighting and trillions being spent yielding the exact same results it seems our government figure out what the real enemy is nor how to deal with it.

We watched how our government said it would be years, maybe even decades before Iran could produce a nuclear weapon to suddenly changing that timeline on a dime. Just as we watched W tell us suddenly what a grave threat Iraq was. We watched a deal where we had U.N. inspectors checking all of Iran's nuclear sites to limit the amount of centrifuges it could produce and the percentage of enrichment it could manufacture get scrapped by trump leading to where we are now.

Much of this is nothing but a sad rerun of the same movie we have seen time and time again. It's sad that there are people out there that still can't figure out how that movie ends.

You don't have a clue. The Dems ended the war? They funded the damn thing.

What changed to allow that?


Wonder which POTUS made the dumbest nuke deal in history to a terrorist organization? Then sent them a billion dollars in cash.


Yeah...Iran gave us full unfettered access to their nuke system...oh...and Iran only wants nuke material for peaceful purposes. Who believes this other than serious TDS sufferers? Ever stop to think why Iran has a nuke facility buried deep into a mountain?


When the director of the movie is replaced midstream with a director implementing a totally different plot, that's what you get.

"they wouldn't even call them wars at all"

Just for the record: they technically weren't "wars" because America going to war requires an act of Congress (and opens up a whole Pandora's Box of powers). A president, however, can engage in "limited" military actions without congressional approval.

Yes, I know, there's no difference at all to those that went, but the terminology is technically accurate.

I have a suspicion this thread is premature and willnot age well.

And as you pointed out that's nothing but a technicality they used not to call it a war. The evidence is that there was nothing "limited" about the war in Vietnam. At it's peak we had almost 550k troops deployed in Vietnam. They can call that anything they like but that's a war.

Did you ever think of which president was so stupid he broke that deal we had with them and then went back to try and negotiate a new deal with that "terrorist organization"? Because trump was in the middle of trying to negotiate a new deal with Iran to avoid this. This is how you tell us you haven't been paying attention without coming out and telling us you haven't been paying attention.


What totally different plot? The plot where trump too was trying to reach an agreement with Iran over their nuclear program just like Obama did? the only difference is Obama succeeded at it and avoided a war with Iran before the leader of Israel started one.

To some extent that may be true. But then the same thing could have been said about the talk leading up to the Iraq war. We can't be sure how this will all play out but discussing what has happened up to this point and the possible scenarios seems reasonable.

Not to go back and bicker over the right or wrong of things, but before the war in Iraq they were a bully. Today they aren't.

Who is it they were "bullying"? And stopping some wanna be strong man from thumping his chest is worth how much again? Trillions of dollars, 4500 dead troops and 32,000 wounded? That doesn't even account for all of the soldiers suffering from PTSD and mental wounds they suffer that may never heal. Do you know how many leaders around the world are either strong men or wanna be bullies? I guess that would justify us starting a war with all of them? Are you being serious?

You NEVER enter a war that you absolutely DON'T need to fight! The cost is far too high. Or do you disagree with that?

Drudge is reporting we have hit 3 nuclear sites. Just now

Welp, hopefully the targets were destroyed.

Just turned off the TV 40 minutes ago, about to go to bed. I might have to sit up a while to monitor.

30 Tomahawk missles used on Natanz and Isfahan which were mostly destroyed already by Israel. 6 bunker busting bombs used on Fordow.

Yeah. Fordow in particular is the one I have my eye on. I imagine it was successful. I hope like hell it was.

Conservatives doing their war mongering once again. This is going to hit US hard sooner or later.

Go to bed. We’re going to see a big beautiful war.

They sure called his bluff, huh, lol. They just got obliterated.

Personally I am wishing Iran is completely wiped off the map, or at least their Supreme Leader dies a fiery death. Dude has had it coming for A LONG LONG LONG LONG TIME.

I'd love to see a woman be elected the leader of Iran! He'll be turning in his grave cause people don't have their hijabs on. Restore women's rights in Iran!!!!

In addition to confirming the damage, big thing now will be seeing what they do in response.

They don’t really have much they could do themselves. Israel has been eating their lunch and they don’t want to invite anymore territorial encroachment.

Hamas and Hezbollah have been severely degraded. Threats in Iraq and from the Houthi’s are what I’m betting will be the biggest concern for retaliation.

Per CNN, it was actually 6 B-2s and 12 BBs. That’s a third of the fleet.

Hell of a sortie…

Yeah, Iran is limited in what they can do. Isreal has air supremacy over Iran. They can lob some rockets at a few of our bases but we have the ability to knock them out of the sky. They could mine the gulf with their navy. That could present a problem.

they could mess up a lot of stuff without ever lobbing anything at our troops.

oil fields and the blocking the straits

Lolz.

How close were the Iranians to having nuclear weapons? I don't know.

Apparently Tulsi Gabbard has no idea either. In March, Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill that the U.S. "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003."

Tulsi Gabbard now says Iran could produce nuclear weapon 'within weeks'.

What I want to know is: how does bombing Iran help Qatar?
Did we bomb Iran because they were getting close to having nuclear weapons?
Or because Qatar gave Trump an expensive airplane?

Waging war is funny now? Mmmm typical Goper’s response.

Trump just broke another campaign promise to his uneducated American voters.

Funny?
Intercepted phone call;
Hello Iran?
This is the stone age calling,we miss you and want you back.

Nah, its not that funny

Many Nations Ready To Supply Iran With Their Nuclear Warheads: Top Putin AideMr Araghchi has said that he will have 'serious consultations' with the Russian leader, hours after the United States entered the Iran-Israel conflict by striking three key Iranian nuclear sites last night.
Edited by:
Samiran Mishra
World News

Many Nations Ready To Supply Iran With Their Nuclear Warheads: Top Putin Aide
New Delhi:
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on Sunday that he will travel to Moscow for high-level talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, following overnight US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Speaking at a press conference on the sidelines of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit in Istanbul, Mr Araghchi said the consultations with President Putin would take place Monday morning. The move comes in the immediate aftermath of the US targeting three key Iranian nuclear sites, in what Washington has described as a "necessary step" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"Russia is a friend of Iran, we always consult with each other," Araghchi told reporters. "I'm going to Moscow this afternoon for serious consultations with the Russian president tomorrow morning."

The strikes, ordered by US President Donald Trump, took place late Saturday night, nine days into an Israeli-led aerial campaign targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure. U.S. officials claimed the attacks were focused on neutralising Iran's potential nuclear weapons programme.

The Iranian foreign minister condemned the strikes as a gross violation of international law, adding that they had "crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities." He warned that Tehran would invoke its right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. "We have to respond," he said.



Medvedev: "Trump Has Started Another War"
In Moscow, Dmitry Medvedev, ex-Russia president and the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, launched an attack on President Trump, accusing him of plunging the United States into a new war in the Middle East. Medvedev published his reaction on Telegram, stating bluntly, "Trump, who came in as a peacemaker president, has started a new war for the U.S."

The former Russian president questioned the effectiveness of the US operation, saying it had failed to achieve any substantial military objectives. "Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage," he wrote. "The enrichment of nuclear material - and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons - will continue."

Mr Medvedev claimed that "a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." He did not identify which nations he was referring to.


Mr Medvedev further stated that the Israeli population was now living under constant threat, with explosions rocking multiple parts of the country. "The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon," he added.

He also suggested that the attacks had politically strengthened Iran. "Iran's political regime has survived - and in all likelihood, has come out even stronger. The people are rallying around the country's spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it."

Iran's Position
Mr Araghchi dismissed any suggestion that Tehran would rejoin diplomatic talks under current conditions. "We were in the middle of diplomacy. We were in the middle of talks with the United States when Israelis blew it up," he said.



He added that negotiations with European interlocutors were ongoing in Geneva just two days prior to the US strikes. "And again, this time, Americans decided to blow it up," he said. "So it was not Iran, but the US who betrayed diplomacy. They betrayed negotiations."

Iran's top diplomat asserted that the Mr Trump administration had effectively disqualified itself from any future peace initiatives. "They have proved that they are not men of diplomacy, and they only understand the language of threat and force. And this is very unfortunate," Mr Araghchi said.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/man...-nuclear-warheads-top-putin-aide-8731477

Better top off the tank asap. 2 of the 3 gas stations about a mile from my house raised their prices about 30 cents a gallon already

https://nypost.com/2025/06/22/world...-one-fifth-of-worlds-oil-supply-at-risk/

Of course he gave Republican lawmakers an advance warning. He even gave Iran warning. But not Democratic lawmakers. Even at a critical time like this he once again displayed his petty, childish BS. But most of us expect no less.

The question arises are there any Iranian sympathizing sleeper cells located within our country? We have several bases on both Iraq and Syria. I hope the fact that trump didn't put the best or well qualified people in charge but instead his loyalists will come back to haunt us? But then we all know how that would work out too. He would just blame it on Biden.

It was rather expected that of course he would come out immediately after the bombings bragging of how "Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,". While Israel put out a statement that it was too early to assess the damage. As per usual it seemed as though the right hand had no idea what the left hand was saying.

Great job by Obama and Biden by giving Iran billions which they parlayed
Into funding their terrorist regimes. Biden easily the worst Pres ever .

Yes, that's why their nuclear program was in check until trump called off the deal. Then once it became a mess after he called off the deal Obama made, he tried to go back and make another deal with Iran. But he had already screwed it up too badly. So thanks to trump not keeping the deal Obama had in place, we are where we are. Try to keep up.

Every accusation is a confession.

trump blocked the immigration bill to fix the border problem then says he "fixed" the problem. trump got rid of the Iran nuclear deal and then "fixed" the problem. He likes fixing problems he created so his supporters think he is doing something. Im going to break a vase and glue it back together to show my wife how I fixed it. She will be so proud of me.

Gabbard said that weren't close, Trump said they were and that Gabbard was wrong.

I think you may have a point with the QATAR thing. Maybe it was a Quid Pro Quo? Dunno for sure of course, but it could very well be.

And below is the text word for word from the Senate Intelligence Hearing

In her opening statement to a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 25 about the Intelligence Community’s 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, Gabbard stated, “The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

Come on man. Sometimes I think your clock ticks a bit slow, but I don't think you are stupid.

Yes. That is why I posted the video on what she said

I don't know what the situation is with Iran's nuclear capacity.... Anyone believing what the US administration says is extremely naive or simply stupid. If Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction didn't teach you anything, shame on you.

I tend to believe it's simply a manufactured excuse. And I tend to believe that in the long run, this will be proven to be like so many other actions the US has taken over the years and to be a bad choice that will hurt the USA in the long run.

Why? Because I merely thought that a belief held by someone may be true?

I guess anything that you think may make your beloved dictator look bad really gets your blood boiling.

It's obvious what happened here. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. She made it clear there was no nuclear weapon being developed by Iran. Trump parroted Netanyahu and their statements conflicted. He said he was right and she was wrong so she did what they always do. She made a CYA statement to align with trump. This is nothing new with this administration. And of course the trumpians gobbled it up. The media was reporting what she said all along but she did nothing to correct that statement right up until the moment trump claimed she was wrong. Anyone who believes that was coincidental probably still believes in the tooth fairy.

Just like claiming a site Fordow was "obliterated" immediately after being hit with bunker busters. Fordow is approximately 260-300 feet underground. MOP's or more commonly known as bunker buster bombs estimate they penetrate 200 feet. There is still no actual intel that can accurately assess the damage or lack there of at Fordow. But once trump makes some bombastic claim they all fall in line to back it up regardless of any facts or lack there of.

I have no idea how much or little damage was done to the underground facility. But then neither do they.

I agree that the Presidents initial comments were premature and more optimistic than fact based. I would have been more reserved in my comments and waited for military damage evaluations post bombing. As soon as I heard him say that I felt he was getting a little ahead of things.

However, the bombs hit the mark and all the post bombing data indicate at minimum sever damage. The equipment used in the enrichment process is vibration sensitive. No doubt if the actual blasts didn't destroy things outright, there had to be major vibration inside that mountain.

No matter where things stood, it is known that enrichment had gone to the 60% level. The percentage of enrichment isn't measured in a liner manner. It's not like they were 40% away from weapons grade from a time perspective.

Enrichment levels used at TVA reactors is around 6%. Anything above that has no real use for peaceful purposes that I am aware of. I am glad we are seeking to end this nonsense. Especially against a country that has basically been at war with us for the last 50 years.

In retrospect I wish President Clinton could have taken a similar action against N. Korean when he held office, but I do understand that N. Korea had much stronger ties to China than Iran does with any of it's Middle Eastern neighbors.

A low percentage of enrichment — about 3 to 5 per cent — is required for the uranium to be used in civilian settings, like a nuclear power plant. A high level — generally about 90 per cent — is needed for use in modern atomic weapons.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-21/inside-irans-fordow-nuclear-bunker/105441722

No, they weren't 40% away. They were 30% away. Something impossible for them to accomplish in a matter of "a few weeks" as was claimed. That would have required a much, much longer timeline. Facts are not their friend.

We had an "end to this nonsense" in the form of a nuclear deal trump ended in 2018. It limited not only the purity of the uranium enrichment but strictly limited the number of centrifuges that are used to store it. It's hard for me to hear about ending the nonsense when it was nonsense in the first place that put us in this current position.

Of course he was once again trying to fix what he broke by engaging in a new round of negotiations with Iran over nuclear enrichment. Which in the middle of it all Netanyahu derailed it all by attacking Iran instead. Then trump jumped on his coat tails.

Only a very short time ago, Trump Says Israel, Iran May Need to ‘Fight It Out’ Before Deal. He said nothing about this being like Hamburger Helper and that we would help. Netanyahu had no business attacking Iran in the middle of nuclear negotiations. After all it is weaponry paid for with our tax dollars that has allowed them to exist.

And after Netanyahu undermined those very negotiations with this premature attack on Iran there is no reason for us to be involved with it militarily. But then as with Russia it seems trump always sides with people who start wars. So do a lot of his supporters.

U.S. calls on China to prevent Iran from closing Strait of Hormuz and disrupting global oil flows

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...-disrupting-global-oil-flows/ar-AA1HcouX

I can hear Rubio on the phone call now. "I know we just placed a 30% tariff on all of the goods imported from your country. I know that's not good for your economy. I know we are your #1 trading partner. But if you could just ignore all of that and do us a favor......"

My question, thinking back, is you had the multi-laterally agreed upon JCPOA that was in place, where the 1.0 version of the current admin ended, without a replacement. Mattis during the 1.0 administration was a proponent of keeping it, but he was overruled. Are we in a better spot now than we would have been if the JCPOA was kept in place?

The answer to that may not be known quite yet, but I think the question is valid.

Iran approves closure of Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil and gas route

After the U.S. dropped bunker-buster bombs on three Iran nuclear sites, the country responded by approving the closure of a critical worldwide shipping route.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...Hs8jg2vQoQ68w_aem_e2PyKIS2WezPAkgjU6csrw

Whether Iran can accomplish that and keep it in place is a different matter but obviously the U.S. had called on China to help try and prevent this. What did they think was going to happen?

Putin pledges support to Iran after US attack

Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged support to Iran following air attacks mounted on its territory by the United States and Israel, on meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow on Monday.

Putin did not detail what the support would consist of, and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said this depended on what Iran needed. Russia has offered to mediate in the conflict.

Tehran has supplied Moscow with drones for the war with Ukraine, and the two countries are seen as allies.

A statement from Putin referred to an "absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran" that was without reason or justification.

"We have had long, good and reliable relations with Iran. From our side, we will undertake efforts to support the Iranian people," Putin said.

The Russian president also spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani regarding the crisis in the Middle East.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-pledges-support-iran-us-121633303.html

Also heard something on the way into work this morning (I think on CNN) that Iran may be getting better location on their missile guidance because they are using Chinese satellites to track

Trump pleads with oil companies to keep prices down after Iran blockade threat

Crude oil prices surged following Iran vote to close critical Strait of Hormuz in wake of US bombings

Donald Trump is calling on “everyone” to “keep oil prices down” and has commanded the Department of Energy to open up drilling after oil prices surged to their highest levels in the wake of the president’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.

“EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN,” he wrote in an all-caps message on Truth Social on Monday.

“I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!” he added.

In a separate post, he ordered the Department of Energy to “DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!”

International energy traders have braced for massive disruptions following Iran’s parliamentary vote to support the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important choke point for the world’s oil supply.

Within hours after Saturday’s attacks, roughly 50 oil tankers were seen scrambling to leave the strait between Iran and Oman, where roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas shipments pass through.

“We’re on it!” energy Secretary Chris Wright responded to Trump’s post. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, America’s energy security is stronger than ever before.”

U.S. crude oil futures surged by more than 6 percent to peak at $78 a barrel on Sunday — more than $1 higher than the price set at the time of Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

The spike is likely to trickle down to gasoline prices as Americans prepare for a three-day Fourth of July weekend.

If there is a blockade, crude oil prices could soar as high as $120 or $130 per barrel, according to JP Morgan Chase analysts.

The White House is “actively and closely monitoring this situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian regime would be foolish to make that decision,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News Sunday Morning Futures that Iran’s closure would be “economic suicide” and a “terrible mistake” as he called on China to pressure Iran to avoid disrupting shipping lanes.

“It would be, I think, a massive escalation that would merit a response, not just by us, but from others,” Rubio said.

Trump campaigned on lowering prices at the pump, repeatedly claiming that at gas prices should be “$1.87” — which would require a massive and extremely unlikely drop in crude oil prices.

The national average gas price for Trump’s final week in office during his first term was $2.38 a gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Prices were averaging $3.12 per gallon when he returned to the White House.

Trump claimed to have “completely, totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program in a series of missile strikes and bombings, marking explicit U.S. intervention into Israel’s war that risks a wider international crisis.

The true extent of the damage remains unclear. While administration officials claimed the attacks were not part of a pretextual campaign for regime change war, Trump has raised the possibility of further escalation.

“If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???” he wrote Sunday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tT0vmNQziXcRRwTt_DjYw#Echobox=1750687976

This anticipated narrative could have almost written itself.

Iran has just launched (6) missiles at a US base (Al Udeid) in Qatar and an unknown amount at a base in Iraq.

Explosions were just heard in Doha

They seem to be intercepts

Massie on Iran strikes: ‘No imminent threat’ to US authorizing that

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Sunday slammed the United States’s recent strikes against Iran, saying there was “no imminent threat” to the U.S. to authorize them.

In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” host Margaret Brennan stated that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that “‘the Article One power of Congress really allows for the president to do this. It was a limited, necessary, targeted strike,'” of the Iran attacks.

“Well, he’s probably referring to the War Powers Act of 1973, but that’s been misinterpreted. There were no imminent threats to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that’s peculiar to hear that from the speaker of the House,” Massie responded.

On Saturday, Trump announced that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, stepping into an ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel that kicked off the prior week.

Massie quickly posted on the social platform X that Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites was unconstitutional.

Massie did his interview alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is a co-sponsor of a war powers resolution with the Kentucky Republican to prohibit U.S. involvement in Iran.

“The tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars. We triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after. And then we’re left with Americans burdening the consequences for decades,” Khanna said in the “Face the Nation” interview.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5363223-massie-iran-strikes-no-imminent-threat-to-us/

so it is nice that Russia said that they would supply weapons to Iran.
trump said that if that happens-we would use the best weapons we had against Russia-

Well, that changed quickly-its good we have the a stable genius in charge

I heard over the weekend that trump had a nuke option on the table against Iran from the first term-

So her testimony is that they have all the parts, just that they have not put it together... So you can have program(s) to create the parts, but there is no program to put it together? Why create the parts without putting it together?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." We joined Israel after they had knocked out most of the defenses, then threw plenty at the nuke sites. This was a made for TV event with the cronies adoring Trump while production for Fox ground on. I think he has the taste in his mouth now and is eager to stagger his next challenges. How weird. Vapidly, Vance as loyal lapdog slobbers over every move. Coming soon!: Operation Dusky Agent Orange or other similarly striking attack. I am convinced it will come to him and Tramp will sell naming rights to the next military operations. It hasn't occurred to him yet.

Where did she say "They have the parts"? They don't even have uranium pure enough to build a nuclear weapon much less a program to build a bomb. Their uranium enrichment has reached 60%. You need 90% to build a nuclear bomb......................

A low percentage of enrichment — about 3 to 5 per cent — is required for the uranium to be used in civilian settings, like a nuclear power plant. A high level — generally about 90 per cent — is needed for use in modern atomic weapons.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-21/inside-irans-fordow-nuclear-bunker/105441722

The time it takes to enrich uranium varies significantly depending on the desired enrichment level and the technology used. Starting with natural uranium, it can take months to a year to reach 60% enrichment. However, once at 60%, the time to reach 90% (weapons-grade) can be significantly shorter, potentially taking a few weeks. The type of centrifuges used also plays a crucial role, with more advanced centrifuges like Iran's IR-6 and IR-8 leading to faster enrichment timelines.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Natural Uranium to 3.5% (for civilian reactors):
This process is relatively faster and can be accomplished within a few months.
3.5% to 60% (for research reactors and potential weapons material):
This stage can take several months, even with advanced centrifuges.
60% to 90% (weapons-grade):
Once at 60%, the enrichment process can be accelerated, potentially taking weeks, especially with advanced centrifuges.
Factors Affecting Enrichment Time:
Centrifuge Type: More advanced centrifuges like IR-2m, IR-4, IR-6, and IR-8 are significantly faster than older models like the IR-1.
Number of Centrifuges: The more centrifuges in a cascade, the faster the enrichment process.
Starting Material: Enriching from natural uranium takes longer than enriching from material already pre-enriched to, for example, 3.5%.
Weapons-Grade Uranium:
For a nuclear weapon, around 25kg of 90% enriched uranium is needed. A facility with 6,000 early-generation centrifuges could produce enough weapons-grade uranium in about a year, starting from natural uranium.
Note: These are estimates, and the actual time can vary based on specific circumstances and the efficiency of the enrichment facility.

This is the AI response I got when asked google.

This is inline with what I have read people who supposedly know have said.

They reached 60% enrichment quite some time ago. There has been zero evidence they tried to elevate its enrichment from there. Then even after that they would have to start a program to build a nuclear bomb which our head on national intelligence stated had not happened.

trump was in negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement when Israel decided to undermine that agreement by attacking Iran. If it were true that Iran was only weeks away from "having" a nuclear weapon, why was trump still negotiating with Iran on a deal?

Then suddenly after Israel attacked changed the story changed to Iran only being "weeks away" from having a nuclear weapon. This is a factual timeline of those events.

The head from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) was on Fareed Zakaria over the weekend and said that Iran had 400kg of 60% uranium. They last were in touch with the Iranians on June 10th of this year and had a visual of where the stuff is-but are pretty sure it is not there anymore.

He also said-

"We did not have elements to prove that Iran had a plan or a systematic effort towards a nuclear weapon.”

This is really simple....Anyone supporting this without seeing and having cast iron proof of these highly unlikely claims that have suddenly matrlerialized is a complete and total fool. And the worst kind of fool, willing to follow blindly and unquestionably while monumental decisions are made.

Everyone agrees Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. That pithy line that is being trotted out is pure and simple BS and is not justification for anything.

Benjamin Netanyahu is in print from 1992 claiming Iran are close to having the Uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. He's made the same claim whenever convenient many many times since. Clearly it was a lie in 1992 and multiple times since then. Why would anyone take that man's word for anything.

As for Iran's nuclear capacity.... When Trump pulled out of the Iran deal in 2018, Iran's capabilities were well known and tracked amd very much under control. Their programs increased exponentially in subsequent years ... Arguably as a direct response to the end of that agreement. The centrifuges they use are literally $500-600 a pop.... This idea that somehow were able to destroy their ability to continue uranium production isn't just wrong its based on ignorance.

Trump was an idiot then and in the absence of proof, an idiot now. As for the success of the operation.... As someone highlighted above, there is an absolute minimal chance the facilities are destroyed. But like the proof of "imminent danger", we should wait for proof of any success.

Sorry the last two posts are out of order. I tried to make one post but I failed

They have program(s) to make the parts. The talking heads suggest that they are at 60%

What programs? And talking heads isn’t a credible source. Name them.

It's all over! So glad about the ceasefire. Only President Trump could have made such a deal.

I SHUDDER to think where the HELL we'd be if Kamala Harris were President, HOLY CRAP!!!!

Kamela would have melted like a sno cone in July. She would have hid
In the West Wing trembling . Then she would some how did a word salad
To the nation in her response to the Iran Isreal affair .
Probally would have went like this
" my fellow patriots ...giggle giggle . We need to unburden what is happening
To Isreal and Iran now . We are a nation of courageous people
As I grew up in middle class household ...my mom like many Isrealiis
Mother's made us courageous in times like this .
We need to come together as a nation and unburden what is happening to Isreal.
I have spoken to Vice President Walz and he going to put on his football helmet
And deliver 1.7 billon dollars to Iran giggle giggle so we can settle this conflict
We are a nation built on dreams and hope and ice cream and banana spilts.
I will sit down hopefully with the leaders of Iran and Isreal and show them
We can create dreams for both nations . We are nation of immigrants that I let cross
The border because I want to unburden them . .....

I bet the ones that voted for Harris can't admit she would have failed in settling
This conflict.

Don’t know if this is a done deal or not. Was it supposed to start immediately?

Because about an hour or so ago, targets in Tehran were still being hit.

And on x and NY Times within the last hour the Iranian foreign minister said there is no deal

It wasn’t to start until six hours after the agreement. I’ve watched a clip from CNN where they announced that Iran has agreed to the ceasefire. I don’t know if it’s true either.

OK...I said 6%. Whatever you say skipper. Thanks for correcting me. I know 90% is the number for weapon enrichment but didn't factor that in to my post. I am sure that was a proud moment for you, but again, thanks for that correction. It only supports my point even more.

We have been dealing with those 7th century zealots for 50 years....yes I know it is more like 46-47 years.

Just looking at the facts tonight, it seems like things might be turning for the good. Time will tell on that based on years of history in the region.

Complete and total fools?

That's funny.

Have you even paid attention to the actions and positions Iran has taken over the past 4-5 decades?

Missiles and bombs still flying, but the cease fire isn't yet set to be in place. Like 2 fighters going 15 rounds. Lets see what happens when the bell rings.

Clearly in your old age Peen you are having trouble holding two thoughts in your head at the same time. Let me help you even though I did try to spell this out in my post.

No one is disagreeing with What a bad actor Iran is and has been. No one is suggesting Iran can be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

However, the justification for the USA taking military action in a foreign country was based on a claim that they had imminent capability of developing nuclear weapon.... This is a falsehood unless they provide proof. Maybe you missed my reference to Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction...... Exactly the same BS "intelligence" claims used in that scenario.

If you want the USA to police the world wherever there are bad actors, say so. There are a lot of them. And if you want the president to take military action without approval based on spurious intelligence that they never provide or share, say so.

You mean the cease fire that wasn't a cease fire at all? that one?

Apparently the ceasefire only existed in trump's mind

"U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House before departing for the NATO summit at The Hague that in his view, both sides had violated the nascent agreement he had announced earlier."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/status-ceasefire-unclear-iranian-missile-054641962.html

He decreed it. The world must act as he says! What a joke he is. Pathetic

There it is…But Kamala! lol

Ceasefire violations, already?

Anybody that believes anything that Trump says is a damn fool.

WTH are you talking about? 40% away from 90% would be 50%. I simply shown that what was "being reported" was that they were 30% away, not 40%. How could you possibly think that had anything to do with you saying 6%? As per usual you're attacking the messenger while ignoring the message. You refused to address any of the content in my comments. Same as it ever was.


So how do you really think that changed? Is it your contention that Israel first bombing Iran changes their hatred for Israel? Do you think us joining in with Israel and bombing them makes them hate us any less? Do you actually believe we destroyed their centrifuges that contained that uranium? Bombs do not kill an ideology. If there's anything we should have learned over the past several decades that would be the one which should stand out the most.


At least on a temporary basis. Nothing would please me more than for a permanent solution in the middle east. But in the long run this won't be what does it.

Leave it to MAGA to do a celebration dance before either side has stopped firing.

Netanyahu decided on Iran war last year, then sought to recruit Trump

The Israeli prime minister had set in motion plans to attack Iran long before President Trump began efforts to resolve nuclear concerns through negotiations, officials say.

JERUSALEM — In the fall, long before President Donald Trump embarked on an effort to resolve concerns over Iran’s nuclear program through negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already set Israel on the road to war, according to current and former Israeli officials.

After Israel decimated Iran’s air defenses in a missile skirmish and crippled its main ally, Hezbollah, in October, Netanyahu issued a general order to prepare for a strike, the current and former officials said. Israeli intelligence officials began huddling to compile lists of dozens of Iranian nuclear scientists and military leaders who could be targeted for assassination. Israel’s air force began to systematically take out air defenses in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to clear the skies for future bombing runs against Iran.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials were pursuing another track in their preparations — to sway Washington. Israeli officials have long believed that military action with U.S. participation to target the Iranian nuclear program would be more effective than Israel going alone. On Saturday, Trump indeed joined the conflict, ordering U.S. forces, including B-2 strategic bombers, to strike three Iranian nuclear sites.

Throughout the fall, the Israelis had met with their Biden administration counterparts to discuss intelligence collected by both countries in the summer that showed Iranian nuclear scientists were gathering to resume theoretical research on weaponization, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. But U.S. intelligence analysts did not conclude that the Iranian leadership had made such a decision — an assessment U.S. spy agencies revisited and maintained throughout the spring under the new Trump administration and up until the time Israel launched strikes, said five people familiar with the conclusions.

In private conversations, however, senior Israeli government officials said they had already decided by March, weeks before Netanyahu met Trump in the Oval Office on April 7, to strike Iran with or without U.S. participation by June at the latest, said two people with knowledge of the matter. The reasoning was that Iran would have rebuilt its air defenses by the latter half of the year, one of the people said.

Ultimately, when Netanyahu finally launched his surprise attack on Iran in the early hours of June 13 while Trump’s negotiations were still underway, the decision was not so much driven by new intelligence indicating an Iranian sprint for a nuclear weapon or any imminent threat to Israel. Rather, Israel seized on what it saw as a unique opportunity to execute plans, carefully laid months and years in advance, to heavily damage a weakened Iran that had long waged a bloody proxy conflict with Israel and to set back Iranian nuclear and missile programs, Israeli and U.S. officials and advisers to both governments say.

Whether or not Netanyahu had enough evidence of Iranian progress toward a nuclear weapon to justify an attack has been the subject of intense debate globally and raises questions about the strikes’ permissibility under international law. In recent days, the issue has appeared to generate friction inside the U.S. administration, with Trump repeatedly dismissing the assessment delivered in March by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran’s leadership has not ordered the development of a nuclear weapon and telling reporters that he personally believed that Iran was “very close” to a bomb.

Netanyahu, who has argued for decades that Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and should be halted by military strikes, has acknowledged in recent interviews that Iran was still months or a year away from a weapon. What was undisputed, he has said, was that Iran had enriched large amounts of uranium to a level well beyond what is required for civilian use and built up a dangerous arsenal of ballistic missiles.

Israel’s calculus for attacking Iran was driven by a sense of both opportunity and necessity, said an Israeli official who, like many others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

“It is true there was no better time: Israelis have never been more well-practiced, and Iran and their proxies have never been weaker,” said the Israeli official. “But that’s not enough for us to operate. The reason we operated is necessity and understanding there is no alternative. What if they break out [toward a nuclear weapon] and there is no way for us to notice? There is no safety zone left.”

U.S. intelligence agencies beginning late last year picked up on Israeli preparations for an attack and warned Washington policymakers that Israel was likely to strike in the first six months of 2025.

But Netanyahu’s plan was unexpectedly delayed when he was summoned to Washington to meet Trump and told that the United States would enter direct negotiations with Iran to solve the problem diplomatically. The prime minister’s strong inclination to strike, however, remained unchanged, said a person with knowledge of the thinking of top Israeli officials.

Going into the spring, there was also concern among Israeli officials that any potential deal between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran would still allow Iran to eventually possess a bomb, an Israeli official added. And, a former senior Israeli official said, the Israelis had been anticipating the scheduled retirement of Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the U.S. Central Command chief who had helped make war plans with Israel throughout the spring.

In an interview Tuesday with pro-government Channel 14 television, Netanyahu said that he had decided on the exact timing of the strike only two weeks earlier, but that he had made the “difficult” decision to carry out the operation “several months ago” and began fleshing out the plan and its element of surprise in April.

The key was to eliminate the nuclear experts, Netanyahu said: “Those were my instructions: We’re going after the scientists, take them out.”

In Israel, the majority of the security establishment and political parties have supported Netanyahu’s decision to execute what they consider a preventative strike. For decades, a bedrock of Israeli strategic thinking has been the “Begin Doctrine,” named after former prime minister Menachem Begin, who defended Israel’s 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq as “anticipatory self-defense” against a potential enemy making a weapon of mass destruction.

But a minority of those have questioned the wisdom of carrying out a surprise attack while Trump was still pursuing the diplomatic route — and, they say, without proof that the Iranians had decided to construct a nuclear weapon.

“We should have given the political route a chance,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran desk in the research department of Israeli military intelligence. “Now, we got operational achievements but the risks are enormous. We’ve never fought with a country like Iran. We find ourselves not knowing where the [highly enriched uranium] or centrifuges are. If we had an agreement, we would at least have less unknowns.”

Since Trump pulled out of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, Iran has sharply increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But intelligence agencies have debated whether Iran has resumed its effort to build a weapon — known as Project Amad — that was halted by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, in 2003.

Last year, U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director William J. Burns, reviewed new intelligence and concluded that Iranian scientists were revisiting previously suspended nuclear weapons research, exploring paths that could allow them to more quickly make the leap to a crude nuclear bomb — if Khamenei so chose, three people familiar with the matter said. Israeli officials then came to the same realization.

But U.S. intelligence officials did not conclude that Khamenei had changed his stance and sanctioned a bomb, said former U.S. and Israeli officials with knowledge of the matter. “We knew they could speed up their timeline if they decided to change course,” a former senior U.S. official said.

The Israelis were more alarmed. The “main difference” between U.S. and Israeli views “was tactical and not substantial,” said a senior Israeli official. “We did see that Iran was advancing with a project,” the Israeli official added. “It wasn’t like [Iran] had a timeline, but the route that they had chosen was very concerning and dangerous. And some of the experts here had huge concerns.”

Jacob Nagel, a longtime adviser to Netanyahu on Iranian nuclear issues and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Iranian scientists were working in academic settings, and there was never a “smoking gun” showing they had broken new ground on aspects of weaponization that were prohibited under the 2015 nuclear agreement, such as a multi-point detonation device used to trigger a nuclear explosion. But they were conducting research seemingly surreptitiously on topics that were difficult to justify as having only civilian applications, Nagel said. He added that Khamenei “probably knew what they were doing.”

At one point, the Biden administration asked Iran about the scientists’ activities, but the scientists carried on, which further fueled Israeli suspicions going into the spring, Nagel and another Israeli official said.

As Israeli officials geared up in recent months to strike while hoping the U.S. would join, Israel made another push with the Trump administration as part of regular intelligence sharing. U.S. intelligence officials did not see anything startlingly new, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

But Israeli officials believed intelligence showed the scientists were revisiting studies in several alarming areas, including the multi-point detonation device, the production of plastic explosives and experiments on neutron radiation, according to one person who was briefed by Israeli officials in recent weeks.

Israeli officials acknowledged that they still assessed Khamenei had not ordered the production of a nuclear weapon, the person said, adding: “I don’t believe the Israeli [intelligence community] shaded their intel for political purposes, but I do believe in Netanyahu taking the inch and running a mile with it.”

In Washington, Trump came to believe that Iran was striving for a bomb, going beyond what analysts in his own intelligence agencies concluded. His CIA chief, John Ratcliffe, argued that the assessment dating back to 2007 that Khamenei had not ordered construction of a nuclear weapon was of limited value, said two people familiar with Ratcliffe’s views. Iran, he said, was like a football team that had gone 99 yards down the field, and there was no way it would not try for a nuclear touchdown.

Ariel Levite, a former senior Israeli national security official overseeing arms control, said it was reasonable to reach different analytical conclusions while working from the same set of collected intelligence.

“This is really hairsplitting,” said Levite, who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “You haven’t seen them packaging the warhead, but you’ve seen them working on shortening the period it would take to put it together and drive their threshold status to the extreme proximity to nuclear weapons. Does that reflect that a decision was already made by the supreme leader of, ‘Let’s go there’? Or was it merely [raising] preparedness to do so? It leaves things in the realm of interpretation.”

Richard Nephew, a lead U.S. negotiator with Iran under the Obama administration, said the real division appears not to have been between U.S. and Israeli intelligence analysts but between the spies and the politicians, who interpreted the intelligence in a more alarming fashion.

“It may be that the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services were on the same page, but they weren’t on the same page as their political leadership,” said Nephew, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Nephew said it was not surprising that Iran would edge back toward the option of a bomb after suffering a series of strategic setbacks. By last fall, Israel had dealt staggering blows to allied Iranian groups such as Hamas and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, and had destroyed much of Iran’s air defenses in airstrikes in October, leaving it largely exposed.

In recent months, Israeli intelligence officers were tracking the locations of various members of the scientist group, and Israeli air force pilots were training to simultaneously strike the Iranian scientists and military officers in their homes, an Israeli official said. By this month, Israeli pilots had honed their capability to use new software and munitions to carry out dozens of strikes simultaneously — a capability they did not possess even a few years ago, said Matan Kahana, an Israeli lawmaker who was an air squadron commander.

An Israeli official said that Israel’s external intelligence service, the Mossad, had spent years collecting intelligence about each of the scientists who would be targeted for assassination and their roles in Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the agency’s knowledge about the Iranian program came from agents who were recruited and handled by the Mossad and worked inside the Natanz and Fordow facilities.

The Mossad also unfurled an elaborate, covert mission that included smuggling and installing kamikaze drones and missile launchers inside Iran itself, an Israeli official said. There was a risk that the covert operation could have been discovered, and that consideration partly influenced the timing of the June 13 attack but not Netanyahu’s strategic decision, made months earlier, to set it in motion, Israeli government officials and advisers said.

Today, the question of what intelligence Israel possessed about the activities of the Iranian scientists is “not relevant anymore” after Netanyahu decided to carry out their assassination and to cripple Iran’s missile program and military leadership, Nagel argued.

Since June 13, Israel has killed 10 key scientists and the U.S. and Israeli strikes have set back Iran’s quest for a bomb, Israeli officials say.

“All the scientists who were sneaking around,” Nagel said, “most of them are now sneaking around in hell.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/23/netanyahu-iran-attack-nuclear-intelligence/

So you think everything is settled based on a temporary cease fire? You must have no idea how things in the middle east work. Trump broke an agreement that held Irans's nuclear program in check. But as they say, there's one born every minute. giggle, giggle.

That agreement did not hold everything in check. That agreement gave Iran the money to acquire the materials needed to become nuclear. Throwing money at a problem does not fix a problem.

It appears you are regurgitating what you have been told and not what was in the deal.

That money was Iran's all along and the very reason it was being withheld was because of their nuclear program. That was the entire reason we used to withhold it. Agreeing to that deal removed those sanctions.

The Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), limited Iran's uranium enrichment to 3.67% for 15 years and restricted the number and types of centrifuges it could operate. Specifically, Iran was limited to 5,060 first-generation IR-1 centrifuges at the Natanz facility and 1,044 IR-1 centrifuges at Fordow, with only a portion of the latter remaining operational for non-enrichment purposes. Additionally, the deal restricted uranium enrichment at the Fordow facility for 15 years. It also allowed for random inspections an any site requested at any time.

I mean it's nice to throw out some old cliche' that in no way pertains to this situation but unless you can come up with some factual evidence to back it up, which doesn't exist, then maybe you should stop making false claims.

And before you continue with this "we gave them the money" nonsense please keep in mind that are a member of OPEC+. They have a very steady stream of revenue from their oil industry.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-in-much-anticipated-speech-to-congress

From 2015. Israel did not like the deal then.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-re...nvinced-trump-to-quit-iran-nuclear-deal/

Worked with Trump to end that deal.

I will take the word of a trusted Allies over the media.