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

Trump is saying the they didn't move anything out. I don't believe him of course.

Did Iran move its Uranium? Satellite imagery reveal trucks outside Fordow before US strike

Trump did give them a two week window. And they started moving it out immediately. Probably why trump decided to strike two days later. Too late.

It does appear that we did inflict some pretty good damage.. But I'm having a hard time understanding how those photos were released. How did the media even get them?

Ignoring the subject matter for a moment... it's refreshing to see a politician think like this (what all presidents should be able to do vs the one currently in the seat and which letter he wears).

Say what you want about the topic, I appreciate anyone in govt basically acknowledge that this debate didn't just magically start with the current guy in office (every president has done this operation vs war declaration dance well before Bush 1).

While that's certainly true this is what gave is both the Korean and Vietnam wars. All a president has to do is not call it a war and they can start a war. It's noting more than a technicality to circumvent congress. Presidents of both parties should never have that kind of power.

How do you know they inflicted any major substantial damage. Do you actually believe Trump’s admin and what they say on it all?

It’s amazing how much respect I now have for fetterman…. Trump 100% had the authority to do what he did… and I don’t think we should limit that authority…. Whether he should have done it or not I think you can debate…

I pray that we actually did set the program back years… and also pray that this cease fire/peace actually holds… I do not want American troops in a Middle East war….

Not going to be holding my breath on any of that.

I don't know. If I had to guess it was probably some career DOD staffer with high enough clearance to have had a need to know. If it happened at all.

In the pic I see a lot of dump trucks. Not exactly the type of rigs one would use to transport at lot of sensitive material.

I disagree. It needs to be limited but a President has to be able to act to current threats without waiting for congress to dork around for 6 weeks debating things.

"Mr. President, we have confirmed launches of ICBM's at 8 US cities. How do you want us to respond?"

Extreme example, but germane none the less. I am glad President Obama didn't have to call congress to get approval to take down Bin Laden.

Your scenario is already covered and the president can act.

What isn't covered and you shouldn't be covered. It is exactly the sort of scenario that Pit laid out and what we have seen in Iran. There is no imminent threat to the US. President should not have unilateral and unfettered ability to start a war when the US is not being attacked.

If nothing else Trump shows us We need strong checks and balances more than ever.

We just disagree. I don't think we should be forced in to always being in a reactionary position.

It would be hard to win a football game if all you could do is play defense.

I was just looking at the pictures.. But that's why I questioned how any news source got those photos. I guess I'm saying I don't know if this just another lie from the Trump Admin. It's not like they are above lying...

This Agent Orange administration and its constant lies, deception, activities puttee in mind of Star Trek episode where Kirk brings a computer, which runs an entire alien world, and the planetary population to a standstill. He attacks logic, truth, standing protocols to keep the peace, when he gridlocks the computer with a simple terminal statement it cannot process and resolve: "Everything I tell you is a lie including this statement. Perhaps the new AI would have handled it better.

I don't actually think we disagree that much. I think a president should have the authority to act in an "emergency situation". But it should be more defined. Not just some open ended authority to go into a full blown war or deploy troops on the ground without authority from congress.

In the case of Iran the threat was to Israel. Not to us. So what was done is the U.S. military was used to protect a nation other than the U.S. Iran doesn't have anything close to long range missiles that could ever reach the U.S. much less nuclear weapons that could have reached the U.S. So our actions had nothing to do with protecting America. At least not in the short range where congress could not have been consulted and approved military action. I'm not sure whether that is something he should be allowed to do without approval from congress or not but it's not as simple of a call as some are making it out to be.

Secondly after the intel given to the American people about Iraq, I find the intel presented to the American people very suspect. It's as if a president who wants to go to war cherry picks that information to make the case for war. As we saw with Iraq pretty much everything we were told about WMD, which at the time was the sole reason we were given for a war, was proven to be totally false. Our troops and our nation paid a very hefty toll for that.

So I think the actions a president is allowed to take and is not allowed to take without approval from congress should be more clearly defined. As I pointed out with both Vietnam and Korea we have seen how presidential authority has been abused to send mass amounts of troops and weaponry to engage in war by simply not calling it a war. That's simply too much authority for a president to have unilaterally.

I feel that if someone were objective about things this entire situation leaves some question marks. We were meeting every week-end with Iran about reaching a new nuclear deal. Another meeting was scheduled for the upcoming week-end after we bombed them. Now why would we be negotiating a new nuclear deal with a nation we knew was "two weeks away" from have a nuclear bomb? At that point it's far too late for negotiations. And what trump actually said is he would decide on bombing Iran, "Within the next two weeks". Not that he would wait for two weeks. Now why would you give Iran a heads up that they very well may be bombed at any time which certainly gives them the opportunity to move or hide their uranium? None of that seems to make sense. Are they saying they just suddenly figured out Iran could have a nuclear weapon in a couple of weeks and had no idea of that before?

And lastly. Before the smoke had even cleared trump went on TV claiming all of their nuclear facilities had been "obliterated". There was and still is no way to know if that's true. Words actually have meanings. Words have definitions that explain exactly what a person is saying when they use them. He came out and made claims he had no way of knowing whether they were true or not. We still don't know if that's true. But he couldn't wait to once again stroke his own ego in front of the American people and the world.

Now I know Republicans like to blame people such as myself for calling him out on matters such as this. That somehow when he comes out and makes such bombastic statements that he either has no way of knowing are true and sometimes are just flat out lies, that's somehow our fault. They try to cast shade by using some immature, playground thing like TDS. It's just a lame excuse to blame us for pointing out the idiotic things he says. And just think, not so long ago you belonged to the party of personal responsibility. That ship has long since sailed.

And BTW- We were already at war and had been for years for the very purpose to get Osama bin Laden. A president doesn't need to get approval to complete a mission we are already engaged in.

CNN
—
The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium “in a matter of months,” contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims the US set Tehran’s ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi’s comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported on by CNN, which suggests the United States’ strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

While the final military and intelligence assessment has yet to come, Trump has repeatedly claimed to have “completely and totally obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program.

The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran began earlier this month when Israel launched an unprecedented attack it said aimed at preventing Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The US then struck three key Iranian nuclear sites before a ceasefire began. The extent of the damage to Tehran’s nuclear program has been hotly debated ever since.

US military officials have in recent days provided some new information about the planning of the strikes, but offered no new evidence of their effectiveness against Iran’s nuclear program.

Following classified briefings this week, Republican lawmakers acknowledged the US strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran’s nuclear materials – but argued that this was never part of the military’s mission.

Severe but not ‘total’ damage
Asked about the different assessments, Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS’s “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan”: “This hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is not a good idea.”

“The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,” he told Brennan, according to a transcript released ahead of the broadcast.

“It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it’s not total damage,” Grossi went on to say. “Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.”

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

“We didn’t see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending.”

CNN has asked the White House for comment on Grossi’s claims.

Grossi stressed the need for the IAEA to be granted access to Iran, to assess nuclear activities. He said Iran had been disclosing information to the agency up until recent Israeli and US strikes, but that “there were some things that they were not clarifying to us.”

“In this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view,” he said. “What I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers.”

The initial Pentagon assessment said Tehran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked but Trump has insisted nothing was moved.

“It’s logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it (moving the material). But, as I said, we don’t know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told Brennan.

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran’s parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

J/C

Personally, I think global politics stink of scripted "reality" tv. Trump telling Iran to move their operation so he can put on a show while the Iranians get an excuse to ramp up their rhetoric and who knows what other backroom incentives seems entirely too plausible. Millions of dollars of waste so politicians can fire up their supporters and solidify their control at home appears to be the world we live in now.