By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:

I agree with this general sentiment. More subtle long-term effects seem to be the most likely consequence of American missile deployment in Iran without much to show for it. While destroying their capabilities to build a nuke is a "win" in a sense, it's absurd that the prize for this whole war is something that Trump gave away in his first term...

However, I personally don't think that we are close to deploying troops to combat in Iran, nor do I think that the American media would support a war the same way they have in the past. I think Trump would get a lot of blowback for a decision to enter the war, which would only be amplified if troops lost their lives because of it.

It will lead to the opposite. Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, but now Iran is turning against the IAEA and potentially considering dropping out of NPT.

Tulsi Gabbard is telling the truth

People are conflating enrichment with a nuclear weapon for obvious purposes, a former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, tells Al Jazeera.

He said that the US administration seems to be “hell bent on dismissing all intelligence and going ahead with what they intend to do”.

“Tulsi Gabbard is telling the truth,” he said, referring to the United States President Donald Trump saying his director of national intelligence was “wrong” when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

“The intelligence community, no matter how bad it has been on Ukraine and other issues, has stayed firm on a judgment made unanimously … in November 2007, that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003”, he noted.


It's all a load of hypocrite bullshit. Israel has about 90 nukes, Israel is not part of NPT (one of five countries, including North Korea, India, Pakistan and South Sudan, that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and is the prime destabilizing factor in the ME.

What Iran sees is NK openly helping Russia with troops and equipment to slaughter more Ukrainians, and gets left well alone. The rest of the world sees this as well, better have nukes if you want to survive Western imperialism or want to fuck over other countries.

The fallout from Trump bombing Fardow will be much greater than the US getting 'dragged' into a regional war over the ME. It will lead to a new nuclear arms race.

The effects of US/Israel destroying international law are already being seen in other conflicts. NPT is next on the list.




Anyway, it's not about nukes, it's about control over oil as usual. 

Trump, Netanyahu want a ‘controllable and not free Iran’

Iran could “easily become the hegemonic power in the region in a matter of a few years”, Professor Lorenzo Kamel, an assistant professor of global history and history in the Middle East and North Africa at the University of Turin, tells Al Jazeera.

Iran has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, the third-largest gas reserves, and approximately 90 million inhabitants, which creates a very strong internal market he said.

The potential of its oil and gas industry means that Trump and Netanyahu want a “controllable Iran, and not a free Iran”, Kamel explained.

This is not the first time the US had acted to control oil production, he noted, including the events of 1953, when the CIA, along with the UK’s MI6, orchestrated the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had moved to nationalise Iran’s oil industry from the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
sundin13 said:

I agree with this general sentiment. More subtle long-term effects seem to be the most likely consequence of American missile deployment in Iran without much to show for it. While destroying their capabilities to build a nuke is a "win" in a sense, it's absurd that the prize for this whole war is something that Trump gave away in his first term...

However, I personally don't think that we are close to deploying troops to combat in Iran, nor do I think that the American media would support a war the same way they have in the past. I think Trump would get a lot of blowback for a decision to enter the war, which would only be amplified if troops lost their lives because of it.

It will lead to the opposite. Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, but now Iran is turning against the IAEA and potentially considering dropping out of NPT.

Tulsi Gabbard is telling the truth

People are conflating enrichment with a nuclear weapon for obvious purposes, a former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, tells Al Jazeera.

He said that the US administration seems to be “hell bent on dismissing all intelligence and going ahead with what they intend to do”.

“Tulsi Gabbard is telling the truth,” he said, referring to the United States President Donald Trump saying his director of national intelligence was “wrong” when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

“The intelligence community, no matter how bad it has been on Ukraine and other issues, has stayed firm on a judgment made unanimously … in November 2007, that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003”, he noted.


It's all a load of hypocrite bullshit. Israel has about 90 nukes, Israel is not part of NPT (one of five countries, including North Korea, India, Pakistan and South Sudan, that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and is the prime destabilizing factor in the ME.

What Iran sees is NK openly helping Russia with troops and equipment to slaughter more Ukrainians, and gets left well alone. The rest of the world sees this as well, better have nukes if you want to survive Western imperialism or want to fuck over other countries.

The fallout from Trump bombing Fardow will be much greater than the US getting 'dragged' into a regional war over the ME. It will lead to a new nuclear arms race.

The effects of US/Israel destroying international law are already being seen in other conflicts. NPT is next on the list.




Anyway, it's not about nukes, it's about control over oil as usual. 

Trump, Netanyahu want a ‘controllable and not free Iran’

Iran could “easily become the hegemonic power in the region in a matter of a few years”, Professor Lorenzo Kamel, an assistant professor of global history and history in the Middle East and North Africa at the University of Turin, tells Al Jazeera.

Iran has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, the third-largest gas reserves, and approximately 90 million inhabitants, which creates a very strong internal market he said.

The potential of its oil and gas industry means that Trump and Netanyahu want a “controllable Iran, and not a free Iran”, Kamel explained.

This is not the first time the US had acted to control oil production, he noted, including the events of 1953, when the CIA, along with the UK’s MI6, orchestrated the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had moved to nationalise Iran’s oil industry from the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Whether or not you think that Iran was building towards a nuke, they had built the capacity to produce a nuke rather quickly. I do think this is a concern, but I don't think it is grounds for war. I think it is grounds for diplomacy, which this war has sabotaged. I agree that it certainly does seem like any reason to trust in international order has quickly vanished between this conflict and Ukraine. There is the appearance that the only way to maintain your own safety is to have nukes instead of trusting other nuclear powers.



It looks like Israel is starting to build an off ramp:

The whole nuclear bomb hysteria was bullshit anyway, but now they can claim their 'special operation' was a success.

Israeli foreign minister claims attacks on Iran set back its building of a nuclear bomb by "2 or 3 years"

Israel has delayed the possibility of Iran building a nuclear bomb by “at least two or three years” after carrying out its recent strikes on the country, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has claimed in an interview.

“What we did until now was already very significant. I believe we, according to the assessment we hear, we already delayed for at least two or three years the possibility for (Iran) to have (a) nuclear bomb,” Sa’ar said in an interview with the Axel Springer media group published today.

The fact that Israel has killed a number of Iranian military officials since June 13 is “extremely important,” Sa’ar said, noting that he does not “believe” in diplomacy with Iran.

“I don’t believe so much in diplomacy with Iran. All diplomatic efforts until now was not successful,” he said. “We already achieved a lot, but we will do whatever we can do. We will not stop until we will do everything that we can do there in order to remove this threat (from Iran),” Sa’ar added.

Nevertheless Israel will keep going as long as they can, yet this suggest Trump is hopefully not ready to jump in with US bombers. However the damage to international law and IAEA / NPT will keep growing the longer the UNSC lets this go on.

And there's still the question whether Netanyahu will be crazy enough to bomb Bushehr active Nuclear plant. That could shut down the straight of Hormuz by radio activity, 20% of world's oil trade blocked.



I don't want Iran to have nukes but at the same time, Israel who is one of the biggest spreaders of terror in that region alongside Iran, who are currently casually bombing civilians in Gaza, have nukes. I want us to deal with Iran diplomatically rather than bombing the shit out of the country and pushing them more quicker to nukes because I feel like it's inevitable.

Unfortunately we have also regressed in the world, Ukraine once had nukes and they surrendered them back to Russia, in return they got "defence assurances" from America, UK, Russia and France and look at where that got them, an invasion by Russia who is currently trying to genocide their entire people, America essentially abandoning them and UK/France's half assed support.

Who decides who is allowed nukes?

Thanks to our half-assed support of Ukraine, we have perfectly demonstrated to the world that you can do whatever you like as long as you have nukes and your opponent doesn't. So we've regressed in the sense that nukes are now once again the only deterrent in the world against an aggressor state and unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, more countries are going to try to get nukes now because we've perfectly demonstrated that defence assurances are worthless and nukes are the only true deterrent in the world.

Not just us though, Russia did too, when their own CSTO ally was attacked and they didn't lift a finger, when Assad was overthrown and they did nothing, they also won't lift a finger to help Iran. The world lately is just showing that you can only rely on yourself and the only confirmed deterrent in the world is nukes and I do unfortunately see a future where even more countries have nukes and so are only American/European allies allowed nukes? When they acquire nukes, how are we meant to stop others from acquiring nukes?

Edit - And NATO, Nukes and NATO, but sometimes I question NATO too with how spineless NATO can be helping Ukraine.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 21 June 2025

Ryuu96 said:

I don't want Iran to have nukes but at the same time, Israel who is one of the biggest spreaders of terror in that region alongside Iran, who are currently casually bombing civilians in Gaza, have nukes. I want us to deal with Iran diplomatically rather than bombing the shit out of the country and pushing them more quicker to nukes because I feel like it's inevitable.

Unfortunately we have also regressed in the world, Ukraine once had nukes and they surrendered them back to Russia, in return they got "defence assurances" from America, UK, Russia and France and look at where that got them, an invasion by Russia who is currently trying to genocide their entire people, America essentially abandoning them and UK/France's half assed support.

Who decides who is allowed nukes?

Thanks to our half-assed support of Ukraine, we have perfectly demonstrated to the world that you can do whatever you like as long as you have nukes and your opponent doesn't. So we've regressed in the sense that nukes are now once again the only deterrent in the world against an aggressor state and unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, more countries are going to try to get nukes now because we've perfectly demonstrated that defence assurances are worthless and nukes are the only true deterrent in the world.

Not just us though, Russia did too, when their own CSTO ally was attacked and they didn't lift a finger, when Assad was overthrown and they did nothing, they also won't lift a finger to help Iran. The world lately is just showing that you can only rely on yourself and the only confirmed deterrent in the world is nukes and I do unfortunately see a future where even more countries have nukes and so are only American/European allies allowed nukes? When they acquire nukes, how are we meant to stop others from acquiring nukes?

Edit - And NATO, Nukes and NATO, but sometimes I question NATO too with how spinless NATO can be helping Ukraine.

Good post ryuu. I believe that the trend of proliferation is going to spread much more in 20 years. I just read about how some energy company is building a 550 mw fusion plant in Tennessee I believe. If fusion becomes feasible, and then actual, then more nations will have nuclear plants. This can only make them consider getting nukes. 

 I also feel that this is better handled diplomatically. What will happen when they build a facility that can't be blown up? They will feel like they deserve such weapons, especially if these attacks keep happening. 



Around the Network



  • Donald the Dove.
  • President of Peace.
  • No More Wars.

MAGA are a bunch of stupid motherfuckers.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 21 June 2025



Trump shares post saying Fordow is ‘gone’

The US president shared a post from an open-source intelligence account stating that the heavily-fortified Fordow nuclear facility is “gone”.

Trump has been known to share information from unverified and frequently inaccurate sources on his social media account.

Iran official says part of Fordow attacked in ‘enemy airstrikes’

The Iranian Tasnim news agency is citing an official in Qom as saying that part of the Fordow nuclear site has come under attack.

“Hours ago, after Qom’s air defenses were activated and hostile targets were identified, part of the Fordow nuclear site was attacked by enemy airstrikes,” Morteza Heydari, a spokesman for the Qom Provincial Crisis Management Headquarters, was quoted as saying.



Trump did not seek Congress approval for strikes

The US Constitution gives lawmakers the power to declare war and authorise military activity. But Trump did not seek the approval of Congress before striking Iran.

In the Senate and House of Representatives, lawmakers from both major parties had put forward legislation to compel Trump to go to Congress before attacking Iran’s nuclear site. But Trump preempted the votes on the bills.



Houthi official says US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is ‘beginning’ of war

Mohamed al-Farah, a member of the Yemeni group’s political bureau, says it is clear that Trump wants the hostilities to be quick and for the war to end. However, “destroying a nuclear facility here and there is not the end of the war, but it’s the beginning”, al-Farah said in a statement.

“The time of hit and run is gone.”

Hours earlier, the Houthis threatened to attack US ships in the Red Sea if Trump joined Israel in attacking Iran.

Ali Khamenei’s Telegram account shares previous warning to US

The Iranian supreme leader’s Telegram account has re-shared televised comments by Khamenei from Wednesday, in which he said that the US would be entering the Iran-Israel conflict “to its own detriment”.

“The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm Iran will encounter,” Khamenei says in the video.

No radioactive material at the targeted sites: Iranian state media

IRNA news agency quotes an official with the country’s public broadcaster as saying: “There are no materials in these three nuclear sites that cause radiation.”

The comment suggests that Iranian authorities may have removed enriched uranium from the facilities before they were bombed.

 

Well fuck. 



Trump announced the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in a post on social media tonight.

[image or embed]

— Christopher Miller (@christopherjm.ft.com) 22 June 2025 at 01:12

We just bombed the shit out of you, please don't respond.

Iran has zero reason not to pursue nuclear weapons now.