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

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.