FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > US enters war with Iran
US enters war with Iran
Jump to: Newest in thread
And now Trump has made it official:
"We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Trump's been spoiling for a conflict for months, I sense this is being done for the wrong reasons "it's all about him" trying to regain support of American people who are angry about his immigration policies.
Or
Is this the real reason why the US has stood back and passively aggressively supported Israel whilst they obliterate Palestine,has a deal been done?
"We'll not intervene if you attack Iran for us when the time is right"
Or
It's been decided that Iran pose a clear and present danger to world peace and need taking care of??
Whatever the outcome it doesn't take a genius to realise that many thousands of innocent people are going to die in the coming weeks and months.
I wonder how many holy fighter's Iran is going to set loose on the world are we going to see a massive spike in terrorism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Interesting that Iran says that it feels that it is now entitled to attack US military and civilian personnel. Which is in line with it randomly lobbing missiles at anything in Israel no matter what they hit.
The Iranians generally seem to be mainly all mouth and in practice their military efforts have been pretty weak. I’m not fancying their chances much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It looks to me something of a set up which Iran has fallen for.
Trump pulls out of nuclear deal.
Accuses Iran of whatever, then bombs them.
Wondering what happening in Gaza whilst I'm looking elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Iran Has posed a threat to world peace since 1979.
From the US hostages in the early 80's and murdering a British police officer, through the Iran/Iraq war, attacking shipping in the gulf and sponsoring numerous terrorist organisations. These guys are not peaceniks.
Should they be taken care of? I think it should have been done years ago. The west has appeased them for far too long and the occasional "slap on the wrist" will never deter them.
A nuclear armed Iran is a very scary possibility and now that the Israeli's have exposed Iran's weakness to air attack maybe it is now time to put that Genie back in its bottle.
Yes it will probably cause a lot more death and destruction but it has to be balanced by the amount a nuclear armed religious cult, obsessed by the total destruction of another sovereign state, could cause if it did get hold of the bomb. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting that Iran says that it feels that it is now entitled to attack US military and civilian personnel. Which is in line with it randomly lobbing missiles at anything in Israel no matter what they hit.
The Iranians generally seem to be mainly all mouth and in practice their military efforts have been pretty weak. I’m not fancying their chances much."
The Iranian military has been very weak. The Israeli's have complete control over Iranian airspace.
The big question is. Where is the Iranian air force? I'm sure they have one but they don't seem to be up for a fight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting that Iran says that it feels that it is now entitled to attack US military and civilian personnel. Which is in line with it randomly lobbing missiles at anything in Israel no matter what they hit.
The Iranians generally seem to be mainly all mouth and in practice their military efforts have been pretty weak. I’m not fancying their chances much."
And reported this week they are firing less missiles, able to manufacture about 50 a month. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IThe big question is. Where is the Iranian air force? I'm sure they have one but they don't seem to be up for a fight."
Small, obsolete, and lacking in spare parts. Oh, and now bombed to smitherines. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Russia warned US of attack on Iran. So yea WW3 is nearing.
Russia has their hands more than full with Ukraine. They're going nowhere near this conflict."
Agree. They will make a few noises but that will be it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Trump got Putin's (albeit unofficial) blessing.
A nuclear armed Iran is not on Russia's wish list. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So who called for this strike US congress?
I read that Trump didn't go to them for permission, so how could he call and carry out this strike.
There is a theme now of doing what we want coming from leaders so called.
Breaking democratic laws.
But I know it is my own fault, if I was a leader and watched the population witness a genocide, I suppose I would adopt the same mentality were I could do the same or take illegal actions, because no one will oppose me.
These are not good times, their worrying times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
A nuclear armed Iran is not on Russia's wish list.
Why not?
It's distracting to his adversaries and no real concern to Russia."
In the short term that maybe true.
However having another nuclear armed power (especially one run by a bunch of religious nutjobs) so close to its border is not in Russia's long term interest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
A nuclear armed Iran is not on Russia's wish list.
Why not?
It's distracting to his adversaries and no real concern to Russia."
Where would Iran stand if some of Russia's Muslim provinces adopted separatist policies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
A nuclear armed Iran is not on Russia's wish list.
Why not?
It's distracting to his adversaries and no real concern to Russia."
They are a distraction without nukes. With nukes? The world could become a vary scary place very quickly.
Iran has terrorist cells all over the western world. I’d expect them to be activated quite soon. The leadership seem to think that a bomb hitting civilians in London or New York will give the west pause for thought, when in reality it will solidify resolve against them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
A nuclear armed Iran is not on Russia's wish list.
Why not?
It's distracting to his adversaries and no real concern to Russia.
Where would Iran stand if some of Russia's Muslim provinces adopted separatist policies?"
They're mostly Sunni, in Dagestan. They are not about to go to war with each other any time soon, though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So who called for this strike US congress?
I read that Trump didn't go to them for permission, so how could he call and carry out this strike.
There is a theme now of doing what we want coming from leaders so called.
Breaking democratic laws.
"
Constitutionally the US president is commander of chief of the US military, so he can take military action without consulting Congress. He just can't formally declare war, and he can't raise taxes to pay for it.
It's a distinction that every US president in recent times, whatever their party, has made use of. So no laws broken. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Replying generally - I think all you've written as questions is probably correct in part or full.
Isreal were waiting for an event such as the Hamas attack to get public feeling behind them to do what they have - I was amazed that Mossad didn't see the attack coming and some have said like the attack on Pearl Harbour (which got the American public behind them joining WW2) warnings were ignored
Isreal have depleted Hamas and other groups who acted as Proxy attackers for Iran, and bombed them directly and took over their air space so presently they are weakened - If America have been waiting for such an opportunity which always appeared likely and given that they took it last night makes it probable
Let's not forget after Israel's 'work' Irans nuclear capability was still intact as their plants were submerged underground and America is the only country with the bombs to penetrate said plants.
It's quite easy to see what's happened despite all the public releases etc over the last few weeks
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Exactly - Putin was corralled into a war he's no chance of the decisive and quick victory he expected as the west have given the Ukraine massive military support.
At the beginning when he failed to take that airport the writing was on the wall for him as a modern army need so much back up to be flown in, then to top the lot his tanks sank in the mud - and so did the Russians rating as a military might.
They've lost so many men there now using N Koreans who'll do anything for 3 meals a day! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think "
Religious zealots like Ali Khamenei, Netenyahu, Trump etc? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
Religious zealots like Ali Khamenei, Netenyahu, Trump etc?"
Trump is a religious zealot? Which religion is he an adherent of?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think "
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists."
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
Religious zealots like Ali Khamenei, Netenyahu, Trump etc?
Trump is a religious zealot? Which religion is he an adherent of?
"
Yes.
Episcopa Christianity, according to Google. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists.
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust "
 Isn't that what the terrorists also think? Strapping bombs on their own body and killing a group of people along with themselves will get them to heaven with lots of virgins waiting for them  The incels would relish that opportunity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists.
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust
Isn't that what the terrorists also think? Strapping bombs on their own body and killing a group of people along with themselves will get them to heaven with lots of virgins waiting for them The incels would relish that opportunity."
I feel sorry for Allah.
Where the hell (pun intended) is he going to find enough virgins if this properly kicks off.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists.
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust
Isn't that what the terrorists also think? Strapping bombs on their own body and killing a group of people along with themselves will get them to heaven with lots of virgins waiting for them The incels would relish that opportunity.
I feel sorry for Allah.
Where the hell (pun intended) is he going to find enough virgins if this properly kicks off. "
Islam has not thought that part through, they are all shaged by the age of nine, the only virgins in paradise are up to that age. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how will Trump ensure the safety of the hundreds of American ships and citizens potentially trapped in the Persian Gulf ? "
I don't think that two (maybe three by now) US carrier groups will have much of a problem against a few speed boats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists.
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust
Isn't that what the terrorists also think? Strapping bombs on their own body and killing a group of people along with themselves will get them to heaven with lots of virgins waiting for them The incels would relish that opportunity.
I feel sorry for Allah.
Where the hell (pun intended) is he going to find enough virgins if this properly kicks off.
Islam has not thought that part through, they are all shaged by the age of nine, the only virgins in paradise are up to that age."
But he's promised all the martyr's 70 odd each.
Methinks he's a politician in disguise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think that two (maybe three by now) US carrier groups will have much of a problem against a few speed boats."
Sea mines will be the main worry for shipping I suspect.
These can be deployed by various means including by submarine.
Primitive mines are cheap and easy to produce. Low-yield, low-tech mines might not be capable of sinking ships but they could still pretty easily stop nearly all shipping in the Strait. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists.
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust
Isn't that what the terrorists also think? Strapping bombs on their own body and killing a group of people along with themselves will get them to heaven with lots of virgins waiting for them The incels would relish that opportunity.
I feel sorry for Allah.
Where the hell (pun intended) is he going to find enough virgins if this properly kicks off. "
I wonder if the concept of heaven and hell are same for women. Imagine preserving one's virginity only to give it away to a bloke who blew up himself while killing others in the so called heaven. If I were a woman, that would motivate me to give up my virginity in this life just for that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fact - the world has gone the longest period of time in modern history without a major world conflict
Why - The threat of nuclear war
The capability is what keeps us safe - the world is safer without religious zealots having the key to the trigger I think
It works when it's in the hands of people who value their own lives over taking lives of other people.
That logic goes out of the window with terrorists.
Agreed! It also goes out the window when you think there’s a bunch of virgins waiting for you in the afterlife if you start a nuclear holocaust
Isn't that what the terrorists also think? Strapping bombs on their own body and killing a group of people along with themselves will get them to heaven with lots of virgins waiting for them The incels would relish that opportunity.
I feel sorry for Allah.
Where the hell (pun intended) is he going to find enough virgins if this properly kicks off.
I wonder if the concept of heaven and hell are same for women. Imagine preserving one's virginity only to give it away to a bloke who blew up himself while killing others in the so called heaven. If I were a woman, that would motivate me to give up my virginity in this life just for that "
Heaven. That's a funny one as well.
Where exactly is it?
Not in our solar system at least. One way or another we've visited every planet and Voyager has been up there for 50 odd years and still not reached it.
So if these martyrs are in their 20's now they will need a lot of Viagra to make the most of it when they get there.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Qatar had closed their airspace (and US evacuated all embassy staff). UAE is closing airspace. US bracing for an attack on their bases there. Which would open the floodgates to further US action. Perhaps just sabre rattling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Qatar had closed their airspace (and US evacuated all embassy staff). UAE is closing airspace. US bracing for an attack on their bases there. Which would open the floodgates to further US action. Perhaps just sabre rattling."
Looking like the mad mullahs are making a lot of new enemy's.
However the end game plays out Iran will be the loser. They are in a fight they cannot win. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Great to see you all gobbling up the pro zionist propaganda . "
A good rule of thumb is that if someone uses the word "zionist" then they're either Jewish, or they're a racist.
It's just the same as a lot of other derogatory names for racial groups. If you can't make your argument without using the word, then you haven't got an argument.
I assume what you meant was "pro Israel propaganda"... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It looks like a ceasefire had been announced - or more accurately - imposed by the US.
The Israelis took several hours to confirm their agreement which would suggest that this has been forced on them.
I think the most telling aspect is that Trump has made it clear that _both_ sides must abide.
I am wondering if the US is starting to get pissed off with Israel and beginning to put them on a short leash. The US was clearly forced into this situation by Israel and I can’t imagine that has gone down well at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It looks like a ceasefire had been announced - or more accurately - imposed by the US.
The Israelis took several hours to confirm their agreement which would suggest that this has been forced on them.
I think the most telling aspect is that Trump has made it clear that _both_ sides must abide.
I am wondering if the US is starting to get pissed off with Israel and beginning to put them on a short leash. The US was clearly forced into this situation by Israel and I can’t imagine that has gone down well at all. "
Yes, I think the US has told Israel to back off. But my take on it goes something like this.
1. The US bombs Iran.
2. Iran holds back on retaliation until they find out where Russia stands.
3. Iran sends foreign minister to Moscow and is told we can't/won't help.
4. Moscow contacts Washington (or vice versa) through back channels and a deal is thrashed out to tell both party's to pack it in.
5. US agrees to let Iran lob a few "face saving" missiles, at a set time, in the general direction of a US base in Qatar.
6. Qatar closes its airspace before missiles are fired.
7. Missiles are fired, no fatalities, no injuries, and very little (if any) damage.
8. Ceasefire announced.
Maybe not 100% but I'll bet I'm not that far off.
How long will the ceasefire last?
An hour, a day, a week, a month, forever? Take your pick.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This off-ramp is very welcome. Let's hope it holds. Things will be unstable for at least the next few days. Bad faith, rouge elements, accidents and false-flag operations could all cause the ceasefire to fall apart.
If the ceasefire does hold then Netanyahu will be disappointed though and it probably took considerable behind the scenes arm twisting by the US to get him to agree.
The reasons he will be disappointed are...
1) He was just getting warmed up with "mission creep". Although ostensibly about the nuclear threat, Israeli forces were attacking all kinds of non-nuclear targets and assassinating large numbers of military, political and scientific people.
2) The Iranian regime is still intact despite the assassinations and the Iranian people will be more solidly patriotic. The idea of regime change was always for the birds but it's even less likely to happen now.
3) Trump and those around him in their hubris have claimed that they have obliterated the Iranian nuclear programme. So now they can't claim that Iran's programme presents an existential threat to Israel. Any leverage in negotiation has been abandoned by them saying that the risk has been eliminated by their action.
4) In reality the Iranian nuclear programme will at most have had a setback. Next year Netanyahu will return to saying that it presents an existential threat and we'll be back to square one. Although his argument will be weakened by Trump's claims of having eliminated the programme.
5) Meanwhile Iran mave have concluded that if it had a viable nuclear deterrent it might not have been so easily attacked. The nuclear programme will probably be ramped up but this will be done secretly. When the dust settles I expect they will withdraw from the NPT. As with countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea, Iran will have to perform a test detonation to prove they have the capability. They will only do this if they have many devices in reserve.
6) Iran will now begin to rebuild its air defences and conventional capabilities.
7) Iran has shown that it can penetrate Israeli air defences and will be analyzing exactly where the weaknesses are.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As things are at this moment, at least all involved can take some kind of "win" if this ceasefire holds.
- Israel can say they've hurt Iran's nuclear ambitions (as well as having shifted the world's eyes away from Gaza for a couple of weeks - how many dead there in that time?)
- Trump can boast he's a peacemaker, while also boast about having bombed Iran and saying he can knock off the Supreme Leader at any moment. Such is the world.
- Iran at least managed to lay some gloves on Israel, which may sate the hardliners for a while. At the same time, they've rounded up some domestic "troublemakers" and have excuses to increase restrictions on their own population.
All that said, given the people involved on all sides, you wouldn't be surprised if it all collapses by dinnertime. In fact as I type, there are reports of Iranian missiles after “their” deadline, which was inexplicably 12 hours before Israel’s? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Israeli government are saying that Iran has launched an attack, the Iranian government say they haven't.
Is there any independent way of finding out who is telling the truth?"
A ceasefire only works if both sides actually want a ceasefire.
There must be hundreds if not thousands of journalists in the area who can say what they saw. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Israeli government are saying that Iran has launched an attack, the Iranian government say they haven't.
Is there any independent way of finding out who is telling the truth?"
Should be pretty easy to track the trajectory of a missile. It might have come from a Shi'ite militia in Iraq or an overeager player in Iran. An escalation isn't in Iran's interests, and probably not Israel's, either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Either way it's consequential as Katz has ordered the IDF to "continue high-intensity operations targeting regime assets and terror infrastructure in Tehran".
And Iran has said they'll respond to any further Israeli attacks so it's not looking good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Either way it's consequential as Katz has ordered the IDF to "continue high-intensity operations targeting regime assets and terror infrastructure in Tehran".
And Iran has said they'll respond to any further Israeli attacks so it's not looking good."
Pretty standard, TBF. It's usually like this. Like an argument where two people insist on the last word.
Probably all be over shortly. Israel had announced that objectives were met, Iran is just happy for the ceasefire, Trump has little to gain and much to lose from the ceasefire not holding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Israeli government are saying that Iran has launched an attack, the Iranian government say they haven't.
Is there any independent way of finding out who is telling the truth?
Should be pretty easy to track the trajectory of a missile. It might have come from a Shi'ite militia in Iraq or an overeager player in Iran. An escalation isn't in Iran's interests, and probably not Israel's, either."
Interesting that Trump has just explicitly told Israel not to retaliate. I am guessing there is a bombing raid en route and he wants it back.
The Americans are _seriously_ pissed off with the Israelis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Americans are _seriously_ pissed off with the Israelis."
Don't be so sure. There's a lot of theatre going on right now, from all governments. Everyone is juggling a lot of balls.
Also, when you say "the Americans", that could refer to any number of entities, with differing sentiments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing."
Perhaps the most sensible thing Trump has ever said.
Looks like the IDF attacked an Iranian radar installation near Tehran moments before Trump screamed down the phone at Netanyahu.
Fingers crossed everything calms down.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Response from bibi the baby slayer
The ceasefire was set for 07.00 this morning. At 03.00, Israel forcefully attacked in the heart of Tehran, struck regime targets and eliminated hundreds of Basij and Iranian security forces personnel.
Shortly before the ceasefire was due to take effect, Iran launched a barrage of missiles, one of which took the lives of four of our citizens in Be’er Sheva. The ceasefire took effect at 07.00.
At 07.06, Iran launched one missile at Israeli territory, and two additional missiles at 10.25. These missiles were either intercepted or fell in open areas, and caused neither casualties nor damage.
In response to Iran’s violations, the Air Force destroyed a radar installation near Tehran.
Pursuant to the conversation between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel has refrained from additional attacks.
In the conversation, President Trump expressed his great appreciation for Israel, which achieved all of its objectives for the war, as well as his confidence in the stability of the ceasefire. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *abioMan 5 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Okay…. Interesting development
Apparently there are sources saying that the are assessments of the B2 bombing raids and that strikes on Iran did not destroy the nuclear sites… but may only have put back whatever nuclear program Iran had by a couple of months!!
So… if you are now Israel and especially the US, what do you do now you are in “ceasefire” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay…. Interesting development
Apparently there are sources saying that the are assessments of the B2 bombing raids and that strikes on Iran did not destroy the nuclear sites… but may only have put back whatever nuclear program Iran had by a couple of months!!
So… if you are now Israel and especially the US, what do you do now you are in “ceasefire”"
It is great that commentators are saying the usa did not do any significant damage to Iran, Mr trump says he did enough but that's not saying he may listen to the Iran has only been put back a couple of months commentators and please them by bombing Irans nuclear facilities again to please the commentators.
God bless Mr trump |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is great that commentators are saying the usa did not do any significant damage to Iran, Mr trump says he did enough but that's not saying he may listen to the Iran has only been put back a couple of months commentators and please them by bombing Irans nuclear facilities again to please the commentators.
God bless Mr trump"
As I've said repeatedly the enriched uraniam stockpile won't have been stored at Fordow. So Mr Trunp could bomb the place every day for years on end and it wouldn't make any difference.
Trump saying he's completely destroyed Iran's nuclear programme might sound good to his fans but 1) it's not true and 2) it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for him to argue that further action needs to be taken.
This was all easily predictable and makes the Trump administration look like idiots.
Netanyahu will know all this but has to pretend that Trump is right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Okay…. Interesting development
Apparently there are sources saying that the are assessments of the B2 bombing raids and that strikes on Iran did not destroy the nuclear sites… but may only have put back whatever nuclear program Iran had by a couple of months!!
So… if you are now Israel and especially the US, what do you do now you are in “ceasefire”"
What assessments? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"It is great that commentators are saying the usa did not do any significant damage to Iran, Mr trump says he did enough but that's not saying he may listen to the Iran has only been put back a couple of months commentators and please them by bombing Irans nuclear facilities again to please the commentators.
God bless Mr trump
As I've said repeatedly the enriched uraniam stockpile won't have been stored at Fordow. So Mr Trunp could bomb the place every day for years on end and it wouldn't make any difference.
Trump saying he's completely destroyed Iran's nuclear programme might sound good to his fans but 1) it's not true and 2) it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for him to argue that further action needs to be taken.
This was all easily predictable and makes the Trump administration look like idiots.
Netanyahu will know all this but has to pretend that Trump is right. "
I’m interested why you know more than Israel and the US as to where any stockpile of uranium would be? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay…. Interesting development
Apparently there are sources saying that the are assessments of the B2 bombing raids and that strikes on Iran did not destroy the nuclear sites… but may only have put back whatever nuclear program Iran had by a couple of months!!
So… if you are now Israel and especially the US, what do you do now you are in “ceasefire”"
I’m inclined to agree anecdotally. I’ve seen a lot of concrete poured in my working life and these reinforced concrete bunkers buried deep under earth may well be pretty much impenetrable imo. 13 tonnes is not a lot; drop a marble on a bag of cement |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m interested why you know more than Israel and the US as to where any stockpile of uranium would be? "
Because if I had something really valuable I wouldn't store it a place that people were openly saying they were planning to attack.
Also because you could transport 400 kg in a single transit van.
Although I'm guessing that there'd be ancillary kit involved so maybe it might require two or three trucks.
But basically 400 kg isn't a lot. As an illustration 1,000 kg of water has a volume of one cubic meter.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I just looked up the density of uranium and it's 19,050 kg per cubic metre so about 19 times the density of water.
So 400 kg of uranium would be about the size of a large suitcase.
Mind you my guess would be you wouldn't store that much enriched uranium in a Samsonite and Easyjet would defnitely charge extra. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’m interested why you know more than Israel and the US as to where any stockpile of uranium would be? "
CNN obtained a classified "top secret" report, allegedly. This casts doubt, but it's a preliminary assessment. The administration strongly denies this.
Israel (publicly leaked to Saudi, at least) believes (or claimed) that it is simply beneath the rubble in Fordrow. The triucks there before the attack weren't there to remove it, but rather to fill the entrances with earth, to prevent a commando raid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also because you could transport 400 kg in a single transit van."
No you couldn't.
Nuclear bombs are very simple devices, you just have to get enough fissile material together. A few kilos of uranium squashed into a ball will detonate of it's own accord.
Even with lots of lead shielding and an expendable driver, you'd struggle to get 50kg of uranium into a van without it all going off.
But it wouldn't take that many vehicles to carry it around safely, and it could easily be arranged if you had advance notice that your facility was about to be bombed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So there is a possibility the bunker busters didn’t do the job & meanwhile Iran have withdrawn from IAEA cooperation.
Awkward & surely full steam ahead now for Iran & the bomb if so.
Of course, it could be Zionist BS aimed at continuing the war & pursuing the complete levelling of Iran & regime change regardless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So there is a possibility the bunker busters didn’t do the job & meanwhile Iran have withdrawn from IAEA cooperation.
Awkward & surely full steam ahead now for Iran & the bomb if so.
Of course, it could be Zionist BS aimed at continuing the war & pursuing the complete levelling of Iran & regime change regardless."
So if it's true, then Israel = bad. But if it's false, then Israel = bad.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 5 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"So there is a possibility the bunker busters didn’t do the job & meanwhile Iran have withdrawn from IAEA cooperation.
Awkward & surely full steam ahead now for Iran & the bomb if so.
Of course, it could be Zionist BS aimed at continuing the war & pursuing the complete levelling of Iran & regime change regardless."
But then Israel can’t keep using the “preemptive first strike” excuse, and Trump desperately wants a Nobel peace prize so they aren’t going in again
Either Isreal or the us will break the ceasefire, giving the moral high ground to the Iranians ain’t gonna be great
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So there is a possibility the bunker busters didn’t do the job & meanwhile Iran have withdrawn from IAEA cooperation.
Awkward & surely full steam ahead now for Iran & the bomb if so.
Of course, it could be Zionist BS aimed at continuing the war & pursuing the complete levelling of Iran & regime change regardless.
So if it's true, then Israel = bad. But if it's false, then Israel = bad.
"
Israel are ‘bad’. That doesn’t mean they are the only ones who are ‘bad’ in all this, but they are ‘bad’ nonetheless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also because you could transport 400 kg in a single transit van.
No you couldn't.
Nuclear bombs are very simple devices, you just have to get enough fissile material together. A few kilos of uranium squashed into a ball will detonate of it's own accord.
Even with lots of lead shielding and an expendable driver, you'd struggle to get 50kg of uranium into a van without it all going off.
But it wouldn't take that many vehicles to carry it around safely, and it could easily be arranged if you had advance notice that your facility was about to be bombed."
If it was ever all there which doesn't make sense.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Also because you could transport 400 kg in a single transit van."
No you couldn't.
Nuclear bombs are very simple devices, you just have to get enough fissile material together. A few kilos of uranium squashed into a ball will detonate of it's own accord.
Even with lots of lead shielding and an expendable driver, you'd struggle to get 50kg of uranium into a van without it all going off.
But it wouldn't take that many vehicles to carry it around safely, and it could easily be arranged if you had advance notice that your facility was about to be bombed."
When I said "you could transport 400 kg in a single transit van" I was just talking about the load capacity of a transit van in general (which varies depending on the exact model but is in the region of 2,000 kg).
I then said that my guess would be that you'd problaly need ancillary kit to transport uranium so two or three trucks (meaning things larger than transit vans) might be needed.
400 kg of 60% enriched uranium wouldn't just explode if you put in in a transit van. If you think about practical nuclear weapons they compact their nuclear material into quite small devices that can fit inside the nose of a missle or a bomb enclosure without just automatically exploding.
Also until detonation they can't be that diifficult to shield otherwise they wouldn't be practical devices to attach to airplanes or store inside submarines.
AFAIK nuclear weapons are dirty because of the fission debris when they are detonated not because they are highly radioactive in storage.
The UK has just announced it's buying 12 new fighters capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Such jets wouldn't be written off after carrying a nuke nor would the pilots be on suicide missions.
If I was in charge I'd actually split the 400 kg stockpile up into say 10 separate units each stored in a different location so maybe the job could be done with a few transit vans. In fact I'd never have allowed such a stockpile to accumulate in one place so once one had a "transit van load's worth" it would be shipped away from the enrichment site.
Anyway, I think we both agree that the logistics of moving 400 kg of uranium around aren't exactly insurmountable and that the likelyhood that the stockpile was destroyed by the US bombs is close to zero.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So there is a possibility the bunker busters didn’t do the job & meanwhile Iran have withdrawn from IAEA cooperation.
Awkward & surely full steam ahead now for Iran & the bomb if so.
Of course, it could be Zionist BS aimed at continuing the war & pursuing the complete levelling of Iran & regime change regardless.
But then Israel can’t keep using the “preemptive first strike” excuse, and Trump desperately wants a Nobel peace prize so they aren’t going in again
Either Isreal or the us will break the ceasefire, giving the moral high ground to the Iranians ain’t gonna be great
"
Israel might, indeed, be in zugzwang, between Trump's ego and their overarching objectives.
But it's very difficult to know what's real and what's a facade. Nobody and nothing can be presumed honest at the moment, from governments to media to leaks (both the information contained therein, as well as the nature/intent of the leak itself). Much of the intelligence community is at odds on many factors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Even with lots of lead shielding and an expendable driver, you'd struggle to get 50kg of uranium into a van without it all going off.
But it wouldn't take that many vehicles to carry it around safely, and it could easily be arranged if you had advance notice that your facility was about to be bombed."
I just checked on the critical mass of highly enriched U-235 if formed into a solid sphere and it's 52 kg so if you were transporting weapons grade uranium you are right that it wouldn't be a good idea to have 400 kg in a transit van.
Although with beryllium neutron reflectors and correct division it might still be practical, it would make far more sense to move less than 50 kg per transit van trip!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result. "
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
"
…& dependent upon Western foreign policy towards the likes of Russia, China, NK & Pakistan, they may be willing to give the Iranians a helping hand… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
…& dependent upon Western foreign policy towards the likes of Russia, China, NK & Pakistan, they may be willing to give the Iranians a helping hand…"
It's certainly in Putin's interests to keep the Ayatollah in place yes, NK also just because they hate the west..
China perhaps less so as the risks if discovered would be extremely bad economically.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result. "
Let's say that tomorrow the Iranians begin to dig back into Fordow and start repairing the damage. At what point does Trump say to the US voters "I was wrong, we need to go back and attack again"?. Then a few months later the same thing and on and on.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
…& dependent upon Western foreign policy towards the likes of Russia, China, NK & Pakistan, they may be willing to give the Iranians a helping hand…
It's certainly in Putin's interests to keep the Ayatollah in place yes, NK also just because they hate the west..
China perhaps less so as the risks if discovered would be extremely bad economically.."
True re: China, but you never know, there could be a tipping point if they get to the point where they have had enough of Trump’s tariffs.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
Let's say that tomorrow the Iranians begin to dig back into Fordow and start repairing the damage. At what point does Trump say to the US voters "I was wrong, we need to go back and attack again"?. Then a few months later the same thing and on and on.
"
He’s a narcissist, so ordinarily wouldn’t want to be proven wrong, so no surprise he’s doubling down.
But he’s also very unpredictable though, so could equally likely go back in with some misdirected rant at the ‘liberal media’ etc
His big overriding problem though is his MAGA base. About a fifth of them weren’t in favour of these bombings.
Enough for the Republicans to lose an election, similar to how the Democrats lost some votes over Gaza |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
Let's say that tomorrow the Iranians begin to dig back into Fordow and start repairing the damage. At what point does Trump say to the US voters "I was wrong, we need to go back and attack again"?. Then a few months later the same thing and on and on.
He’s a narcissist, so ordinarily wouldn’t want to be proven wrong, so no surprise he’s doubling down.
But he’s also very unpredictable though, so could equally likely go back in with some misdirected rant at the ‘liberal media’ etc
His big overriding problem though is his MAGA base. About a fifth of them weren’t in favour of these bombings.
Enough for the Republicans to lose an election, similar to how the Democrats lost some votes over Gaza"
Agree he won't say he was wrong in what he announced so masterly and decisively after the strike..
Begs the question on just how accurate the intelligence was of course and how it can be so out with the leak from the Pentagon which is where Trump got his own very quick assessment from..
All a bit flip flop and screams I might have been straight-armed by Benny but I want the headline and the link to peace maker.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
…& dependent upon Western foreign policy towards the likes of Russia, China, NK & Pakistan, they may be willing to give the Iranians a helping hand…
It's certainly in Putin's interests to keep the Ayatollah in place yes, NK also just because they hate the west..
China perhaps less so as the risks if discovered would be extremely bad economically.."
why would it be bad economically? China supply 90% of the world's tat so not really a lot the rest of the world can do,can't see people waiting a decade for there goverments to bring manufacturing back to there own countrys and paying higher prices for stuff,fact is China has the world over a barrel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
Let's say that tomorrow the Iranians begin to dig back into Fordow and start repairing the damage. At what point does Trump say to the US voters "I was wrong, we need to go back and attack again"?. Then a few months later the same thing and on and on.
"
I would expect Israel to police this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
…& dependent upon Western foreign policy towards the likes of Russia, China, NK & Pakistan, they may be willing to give the Iranians a helping hand…
It's certainly in Putin's interests to keep the Ayatollah in place yes, NK also just because they hate the west..
China perhaps less so as the risks if discovered would be extremely bad economically..why would it be bad economically? China supply 90% of the world's tat so not really a lot the rest of the world can do,can't see people waiting a decade for there goverments to bring manufacturing back to there own countrys and paying higher prices for stuff,fact is China has the world over a barrel "
With trump and his habit of throwing tariffs at anyone who he thinks is exploiting the USA it's distinctly possible that if there was evidence of china assisting with a bomb for Iran he would go ballistic..
Yes China does a lot of trade with other countries but the man child is perfectly capable of heavy tariffs on any countries who also trade with China ..
Factories in China closed down after his 100 plus % ..
It wouldn't need a decade for the internal problems China would also face if the people had no work..
I doubt China would ever go there in any case.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
"
I’m not going to pretend I know what that takes, but I think satellite imagery would be being scoured over by the west and any sign of activity would be swiftly closed down.
Iranian supreme X Y and Z would be toppling itself if it did that, is my guess |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
I’m not going to pretend I know what that takes, but I think satellite imagery would be being scoured over by the west and any sign of activity would be swiftly closed down.
Iranian supreme X Y and Z would be toppling itself if it did that, is my guess "
Possibly the right target might be a start, extremely likely that Fodor and the other one near Nathanz are empty of any materials necessary to complete what they want..
If indeed there was any uranium on site..
No doubt they will continue but without the US kit Israel is only scratching the surface unless they go in on foot which could be extremely costly.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
I’m not going to pretend I know what that takes, but I think satellite imagery would be being scoured over by the west and any sign of activity would be swiftly closed down.
Iranian supreme X Y and Z would be toppling itself if it did that, is my guess
Possibly the right target might be a start, extremely likely that Fodor and the other one near Nathanz are empty of any materials necessary to complete what they want..
If indeed there was any uranium on site..
No doubt they will continue but without the US kit Israel is only scratching the surface unless they go in on foot which could be extremely costly.."
I would never bet against Israeli special forces to get in and out successfully. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would expect Israel to police this"
But Israel doesn't have the capability. That's why Netanyahu put so much effort into whispering in Trump's ear. But as I've tried to explain, even the US doesn't have the capability.
There isn't any "kinetic mechanism" for solving this problem.
If it was that simple then North Korea wouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Large scale invasion with hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground might be able to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme but that would require a level of pain that neither the US nor the Israeli public would accept and could lead to severe destabilization in the entire region.
Besides nuclear weapons aren't any use in conventional warfare, they are only useful as a deterrent. They are effectively a weapon of last resort - an expensive form of insurance policy underwritten by Lucifer PLC.
We either have to bend over backwards to end the sanctions and normalize relationships so that they volunteer to not weaponize or we have to accept that Iran will probably become a nuclear weapon state in the medium term and make sure that we have friendly enough relations with them so that this doesn't become a major problem.
Given that both these paths require better relationships it makes sense to de-escalate now rather than pretend we can solve the problem through the use of military force.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I would never bet against Israeli special forces to get in and out successfully. "
According to Trump, Israel claims that they had boots on the ground who have verified that Fordow is effectively destroyed. Whatever that means. Assuming you trust each of the two points of failure (Trump honesty & Israeli honesty). There are political calculations behind all of these statements. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We either have to bend over backwards to end the sanctions and normalize relationships so that they volunteer to not weaponize or we have to accept that Iran will probably become a nuclear weapon state in the medium term and make sure that we have friendly enough relations with them so that this doesn't become a major problem.
Given that both these paths require better relationships it makes sense to de-escalate now rather than pretend we can solve the problem through the use of military force.
"
Presumably Israel's calculus was this:
Iran was getting closer to a nuclear bomb (fact) - how much closer is debatable. Now was the optimal time to attack, given the spanking that Hezbollah was given (Hezbollah was Iran's key deterrent) and the regime change in Syria (and a favourable US president).
The goal was probably to push the Iranian nuclear project far enough back while weakening the regime enough to enable a regime change.
In the event of a regime change, they would work to normalise relations. If no regime change, then if Iran pursue a nuclear bomb again, then rinse & repeat (in 2-10 years). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
I think if it's not destroyed then their only logical course of action to preserve the regime is to get a bomb built asap..
I’m not going to pretend I know what that takes, but I think satellite imagery would be being scoured over by the west and any sign of activity would be swiftly closed down.
Iranian supreme X Y and Z would be toppling itself if it did that, is my guess
Possibly the right target might be a start, extremely likely that Fodor and the other one near Nathanz are empty of any materials necessary to complete what they want..
If indeed there was any uranium on site..
No doubt they will continue but without the US kit Israel is only scratching the surface unless they go in on foot which could be extremely costly..
I would never bet against Israeli special forces to get in and out successfully. "
Agreed but the decision to commit has to be based upon 100% accurate intelligence, even then the risks might be deemed too heavy.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
We either have to bend over backwards to end the sanctions and normalize relationships so that they volunteer to not weaponize or we have to accept that Iran will probably become a nuclear weapon state in the medium term and make sure that we have friendly enough relations with them so that this doesn't become a major problem.
Given that both these paths require better relationships it makes sense to de-escalate now rather than pretend we can solve the problem through the use of military force.
Presumably Israel's calculus was this:
Iran was getting closer to a nuclear bomb (fact) - how much closer is debatable. Now was the optimal time to attack, given the spanking that Hezbollah was given (Hezbollah was Iran's key deterrent) and the regime change in Syria (and a favourable US president).
The goal was probably to push the Iranian nuclear project far enough back while weakening the regime enough to enable a regime change.
In the event of a regime change, they would work to normalise relations. If no regime change, then if Iran pursue a nuclear bomb again, then rinse & repeat (in 2-10 years)."
The only thing I would add is how easily Iran folded, which will provide an element of confidence if there becomes a need to rinse and repeat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would never bet against Israeli special forces to get in and out successfully."
The same forces that are struggling to beat a ragtag bunch of terrorists who they have completely surrounded in an area 4,500 times smaller than Iran.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would expect Israel to police this
But Israel doesn't have the capability. That's why Netanyahu put so much effort into whispering in Trump's ear. But as I've tried to explain, even the US doesn't have the capability.
There isn't any "kinetic mechanism" for solving this problem.
If it was that simple then North Korea wouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Large scale invasion with hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground might be able to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme but that would require a level of pain that neither the US nor the Israeli public would accept and could lead to severe destabilization in the entire region.
Besides nuclear weapons aren't any use in conventional warfare, they are only useful as a deterrent. They are effectively a weapon of last resort - an expensive form of insurance policy underwritten by Lucifer PLC.
We either have to bend over backwards to end the sanctions and normalize relationships so that they volunteer to not weaponize or we have to accept that Iran will probably become a nuclear weapon state in the medium term and make sure that we have friendly enough relations with them so that this doesn't become a major problem.
Given that both these paths require better relationships it makes sense to de-escalate now rather than pretend we can solve the problem through the use of military force.
"
Nuclear weapons as a deterrent and last resort has been the case since the end of WW 2. But should Iran get the bomb that may no longer apply.
Many of the Iranian leadership are followers of Millenarianism. Which is a death cult within Islam.
They believe in the end of days when the dead will be resurrected and all will be judged by God.
To them nuclear war is no deterrent it is a means to an end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would never bet against Israeli special forces to get in and out successfully.
The same forces that are struggling to beat a ragtag bunch of terrorists who they have completely surrounded in an area 4,500 times smaller than Iran.
"
They are not struggling to defeat them. That would be a doddle. The hard part, for which Israel has sacrificed more soldiers than there are hostages, is beating them while NOT killing everyone else in there. Many will laugh at this and point to the high casualty rate, which is indeed horrific, but it's the simple truth.
This isn't a matter of agreeing with Israel and its objectives or not, it's a simple analysis of the reality. Annihilating Hamas is easy. Doing it while minimising casualties is really, bloody, hard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Presumably Israel's calculus was this:
Iran was getting closer to a nuclear bomb (fact) - how much closer is debatable. Now was the optimal time to attack, given the spanking that Hezbollah was given (Hezbollah was Iran's key deterrent) and the regime change in Syria (and a favourable US president).
The goal was probably to push the Iranian nuclear project far enough back while weakening the regime enough to enable a regime change.
In the event of a regime change, they would work to normalise relations. If no regime change, then if Iran pursue a nuclear bomb again, then rinse & repeat (in 2-10 years)."
I agree, that was probably Netanyahu's calculus.
The problem is I don't think a regime change is going to happen and I don't think the nuclear programme will have been set back by much.
I could be completely wrong, only time will tell, but I see no evidence that Netanyahu has achieved either of these goals.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nuclear weapons as a deterrent and last resort has been the case since the end of WW 2. But should Iran get the bomb that may no longer apply.
Many of the Iranian leadership are followers of Millenarianism. Which is a death cult within Islam.
They believe in the end of days when the dead will be resurrected and all will be judged by God.
To them nuclear war is no deterrent it is a means to an end"
I agree there is such an element in Iran and unfortunately there are also many in the US who believe in the almost identical Chrisitian eschatology and who see support for Israel as the only way to bring about the second coming and the destruction of all non-Christians.
Hopefully there are enough sane people in both the USA and Iran to keep such maniacal minorities under control.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are not struggling to defeat them. That would be a doddle. The hard part, for which Israel has sacrificed more soldiers than there are hostages, is beating them while NOT killing everyone else in there. Many will laugh at this and point to the high casualty rate, which is indeed horrific, but it's the simple truth.
This isn't a matter of agreeing with Israel and its objectives or not, it's a simple analysis of the reality. Annihilating Hamas is easy. Doing it while minimising casualties is really, bloody, hard."
OK perhaps I should have said struggling without killing more than 55,000 Palestinians.
As I've said elsewhere I don't think the IDF's goal is to kill everyone in Gaza.
It's main goal is to destroy Hamas forces in Gaza but they long ago figured out that the only way they might be able to do this is to make Gaza uninhabitable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nuclear weapons as a deterrent and last resort has been the case since the end of WW 2. But should Iran get the bomb that may no longer apply.
Many of the Iranian leadership are followers of Millenarianism. Which is a death cult within Islam.
They believe in the end of days when the dead will be resurrected and all will be judged by God.
To them nuclear war is no deterrent it is a means to an end
I agree there is such an element in Iran and unfortunately there are also many in the US who believe in the almost identical Chrisitian eschatology and who see support for Israel as the only way to bring about the second coming and the destruction of all non-Christians.
Hopefully there are enough sane people in both the USA and Iran to keep such maniacal minorities under control.
"
Sane people. Now there is a very rare commodity these days.
Thankfully the more extreme God botherers in the US are nowhere near the nuclear button.
In Iran the religious nut jobs go right to the top. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sane people. Now there is a very rare commodity these days.
Thankfully the more extreme God botherers in the US are nowhere near the nuclear button.
In Iran the religious nut jobs go right to the top. "
Now you've got me wondering whether Ali Khamenei has a Diet Coke button on his desk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 5 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"If Iran did move the uranium, I would expect that they would now be in very difficult position.
If they start work rebuilding a centrifuge and anything else needed to get the uranium to 90% enrichment it would not go unnoticed.
That would provoke another attack to remove the capability, I can’t see them improving their military capabilities and would suffer the same outcome we have today.
Regardless of where the uranium is I would consider where we are now with Iran as a good result.
Let's say that tomorrow the Iranians begin to dig back into Fordow and start repairing the damage. At what point does Trump say to the US voters "I was wrong, we need to go back and attack again"?. Then a few months later the same thing and on and on.
"
How many times has trump said “I was wrong “ on any subject thru his entire presidential era?
Next time would be the first time! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
How many times has trump said “I was wrong “ on any subject thru his entire presidential era?
Next time would be the first time! "
You mean the greatest and most humblest EVER president?
Thank you for your attention to this matter! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I would never bet against Israeli special forces to get in and out successfully.
The same forces that are struggling to beat a ragtag bunch of terrorists who they have completely surrounded in an area 4,500 times smaller than Iran.
"
There is a response that answers most of this which you have already acknowledged.
Moving on to Israel’s special forces which is what I’m talking about not the average IDF soldier. Israel’s special forces are becoming if not already leaders in their respective fields, it’s not all balaclavas and rappelling out of helicopters. They wouldn’t go hand to hand with Hamas in Gaza, day in day out… How do you think Israel has taken out so many high profile targets, or hit so many critical pieces of infrastructure?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Israel’s special forces are becoming if not already leaders in their respective fields, it’s not all balaclavas and rappelling out of helicopters. They wouldn’t go hand to hand with Hamas in Gaza, day in day out… How do you think Israel has taken out so many high profile targets, or hit so many critical pieces of infrastructure?"
Right so these tough guys are amongst the best of the best but Netanyahu won't risk them to go hand to hand with semi-professionals in order to rescue Israeli hostages. Or he has risked them and they've failed. Yet they are going to destroy Iran's nuclear programme without even using balaclavas.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Israel’s special forces are becoming if not already leaders in their respective fields, it’s not all balaclavas and rappelling out of helicopters. They wouldn’t go hand to hand with Hamas in Gaza, day in day out… How do you think Israel has taken out so many high profile targets, or hit so many critical pieces of infrastructure?
Right so these tough guys are amongst the best of the best but Netanyahu won't risk them to go hand to hand with semi-professionals in order to rescue Israeli hostages. Or he has risked them and they've failed. Yet they are going to destroy Iran's nuclear programme without even using balaclavas.
"
I’m going to leave this here….,  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Israel’s special forces are becoming if not already leaders in their respective fields, it’s not all balaclavas and rappelling out of helicopters. They wouldn’t go hand to hand with Hamas in Gaza, day in day out… How do you think Israel has taken out so many high profile targets, or hit so many critical pieces of infrastructure?
Right so these tough guys are amongst the best of the best but Netanyahu won't risk them to go hand to hand with semi-professionals in order to rescue Israeli hostages. Or he has risked them and they've failed. Yet they are going to destroy Iran's nuclear programme without even using balaclavas.
"
Nope. It's not like that. Israel had Mossad for foreign operations and Shin Bet for domestic.
Things like the pager attack, the deep undercover infiltration and special operations in Iran represent years and decades of special planning by Mossad. Hezbollah and Iran were viewed as maximum danger.
Hamas caught Israel unawares because Israel (predominantly Shin Bet) considered it a contained threat with limited capabilities. October 7th was low tech and highly coordinated by a very small and insulated group of people. Yahya Sinwar planned it brilliantly (from a tactical, if not strategic perspective) because he had very intimate knowledge of Israeli workings. There are still huge questions about the failings, but that's the difference between Mossad (Iran/Hezbollah) and Shin Bet (Gaza/West Bank).
Think of it as the difference in capability between MI5 & MI6 (if James Bond were real). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope. It's not like that. Israel had Mossad for foreign operations and Shin Bet for domestic.
Things like the pager attack, the deep undercover infiltration and special operations in Iran represent years and decades of special planning by Mossad. Hezbollah and Iran were viewed as maximum danger.
Hamas caught Israel unawares because Israel (predominantly Shin Bet) considered it a contained threat with limited capabilities. October 7th was low tech and highly coordinated by a very small and insulated group of people. Yahya Sinwar planned it brilliantly (from a tactical, if not strategic perspective) because he had very intimate knowledge of Israeli workings. There are still huge questions about the failings, but that's the difference between Mossad (Iran/Hezbollah) and Shin Bet (Gaza/West Bank).
Think of it as the difference in capability between MI5 & MI6 (if James Bond were real)."
Aren't special IDF forces such as the Oz Brigade more like our SAS rather than MI5 or MI6? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope. It's not like that. Israel had Mossad for foreign operations and Shin Bet for domestic.
Things like the pager attack, the deep undercover infiltration and special operations in Iran represent years and decades of special planning by Mossad. Hezbollah and Iran were viewed as maximum danger.
Hamas caught Israel unawares because Israel (predominantly Shin Bet) considered it a contained threat with limited capabilities. October 7th was low tech and highly coordinated by a very small and insulated group of people. Yahya Sinwar planned it brilliantly (from a tactical, if not strategic perspective) because he had very intimate knowledge of Israeli workings. There are still huge questions about the failings, but that's the difference between Mossad (Iran/Hezbollah) and Shin Bet (Gaza/West Bank).
Think of it as the difference in capability between MI5 & MI6 (if James Bond were real).
Aren't special IDF forces such as the Oz Brigade more like our SAS rather than MI5 or MI6?"
Right... You have a bunch of declared and undeclared units. But they work under the direction of one of the intelligence branches.
There's no use sending in a special squad of people if you don't have the intelligence. The problem with the October 7th abductees is that it was a random free-for-all by many different parties.
Intelligence fails because the networks are familial and tribal. That's hard to infiltrate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyway, I think we both agree that the logistics of moving 400 kg of uranium around aren't exactly insurmountable and that the likelyhood that the stockpile was destroyed by the US bombs is close to zero."
Even if the stuff was in Fordo, and the whole mountain collapses on top of it, they could still just dig it out again. The uranium will be in the form of metal if it's highly enriched, or mineral (i e. rock) if it isn't. Either way it'll just sit there waiting to be dug up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyway, I think we both agree that the logistics of moving 400 kg of uranium around aren't exactly insurmountable and that the likelyhood that the stockpile was destroyed by the US bombs is close to zero.
Even if the stuff was in Fordo, and the whole mountain collapses on top of it, they could still just dig it out again. The uranium will be in the form of metal if it's highly enriched, or mineral (i e. rock) if it isn't. Either way it'll just sit there waiting to be dug up."
If Frodo took it to Mount Doom and threw it in, he could make a ring and then just walk into Mordor... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Even if the stuff was in Fordo, and the whole mountain collapses on top of it, they could still just dig it out again. The uranium will be in the form of metal if it's highly enriched, or mineral (i e. rock) if it isn't. Either way it'll just sit there waiting to be dug up."
Yeah, I suppose you are right. The practicalities might be difficult if there was extensive damage but as you say it would effectively be a mining operation. We're not talking about fragile electronic components or a Hobbit's ring lost in a volcano.
My best guess is that almost none of the most enriched uranium will have been on site but there will have been a lot of lower grade uranium inside a large number of centrifuges.
The amount of damage will depend on the blast radius of the 6 MOPs (apparently the actual warhead on GBU-57's is only about 2.5% of the mass of the weapons), the depth they detonated at, how this zone of destruction intersects the three dimensional internal structure of the site, the layout of equipment and stores in the site, the presence of any internal safety barriers such as blast doors etc.
I believe the US had some Israeli supplied intelligence that showed construction plans but to what degree that would help in targetting is hard to judge as the actual internal layout could differ significantly from old plans and the important parts of the plant might not even be inside the area of the perimeter fence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
