Post New

...except some here and anybody who though the "Iran deal" that Obama signed was smart policy.

It wasn't.

Let's ask Russian president and now Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev - the guy that Obama asked for more flexibility from after his election - about Iran's nuclear ambitions:

https://x.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1936725544017...

What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?

1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.

Editor's note: LOL, Ivan.

2. The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.
3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.

What an astonishing set of things there. First, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knew the mullahs were enriching uranium for The Bomb. When you combine that fact with their development of ICBM's...there's no other reason to build an intercontinental ballistic missile UNLESS you intend to hang a nuke or two on it.

For those who won't want to grasp why that is, consider this scenario. You're the President and you're in the Oval Office and an aide of yours comes rushing in:

"Mr. President! NORAD reports the Iranians have fired an ICBM and it's headed for New York City! ETA is 45 minutes! What are your orders?"

No US President is going to sit there and twiddle his/her thumbs while waiting to see if NYC gets atomized. He/she would first ask if there was any way to shoot it down and could we evacuate New York in time. When the answer would come back NO to both then the next question is very simple:

What's our nuclear strike package look like for Iran, and how would we do it?

The Mullahs know that. Any nation on the receiving end of an ICBM HAS TO ASSUME it's packing a nuclear payload. The stakes are too high not to.

So, yes. Iran was working on a bomb the entire time. Likely with some help from what's left of the AQ Khan network.

The next insane part of that tweet is the "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads". Sure, Dimitri. And make themselves targets of retaliation as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russias-forme...

"When you give somebody a nuclear weapon, and they can use it, you can't guarantee how they're going to use it," Lowther said. He added that with Tel Aviv and Washington so focused on preventing Iran from fielding nuclear weapons, Tehran would probably have only two choices if it does receive a warhead: Use the bomb or lose it.

And if Iran detonates a gifted nuke, Lowther added, American forensics would easily be able to trace the fissile material and bomb design to identify where the weapon originated.

"Then that country would be on the US's hit list," Lowther said.

So, nope.

Dope1: ...except some here and anybody who though the "Iran deal" that Obama signed was smart policy.

It wasn't.

The Financial Times wrote specifically about the success of the JCPOA. Here's a chart that shows that from the time the nuclear deal was implemented in January, 2016 until Mad King Donald withdrew from the agreement, Iran had zero activity installing centrifuges at any sites.

After Mad King Donald killed the agreement, Iran restarted their program and quickly escalated their nuclear activity.

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:z6rujpf4u56jfie7a...

In short, this is all on Mad King Donald.

Dope1: What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?

1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.

Editor's note: LOL, Ivan.

Umm, buddy, the IAEA said there has been no rise in radiation levels at the bombarded Iranian nuclear sites.

None.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar confirmed that radiation levels remain normal across the Gulf region.

Mad King Donald signaled to Iran that an attack was imminent and there are videos of a convoy of trucks that likely removed their enriched uranium out of the sites in the run-up to the U.S. strikes.

The New York Times is reporting that Fordow -- as the Pentagon/DTRA assessed -- was not "obliterated".

Essentially, we bombed several mostly abandoned bases to make Mad King Donald feel tough and shift the news -- SQUIRREL! -- and they responded by giving us advance notice so we could abandon one of our bases before bombing it so they could feel tough.

Wag the Dog times two.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/122...

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441734/satel...

Here's a chart that shows that from the time the nuclear deal was implemented in January, 2016 until Mad King Donald withdrew from the agreement, Iran had zero activity installing centrifuges at any sites.

...that anyone knew about. You're assuming they were just sitting there.

You were wrong:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o

The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.

Nineteen of the 35 countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted for the motion, which was backed by the US, UK, France and Germany.

It says Iran's "many failures" to provide the IAEA with full answers about its undeclared nuclear material and activities constitutes non-compliance. It also expresses concern about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons.

Iran condemned the resolution as "political" and said it would open a new enrichment facility.

It follows a report from the IAEA last week which criticised Iran's "general lack of co-operation" and said it had enough uranium enriched to 60% purity, near weapons grade, to potentially make nine nuclear bombs.

How'd they magically get to that high of a level just in the <6 months since Trump's been President? Oh, right. They were cheating all along.

Umm, buddy, the IAEA said there has been no rise in radiation levels at the bombarded Iranian nuclear sites.

Umm, you do understand that it's relatively easy to move the 900 lbs of material they had...and that wasn't the only reason to bomb Fordow, right?

Or maybe not.

The New York Times is reporting that Fordow -- as the Pentagon/DTRA assessed -- was not "obliterated".

Oh, right. Yeah, they would know for sure. LOLOLOL.

Essentially, we bombed several mostly abandoned bases to make Mad King Donald feel tough and shift the news -- SQUIRREL! -- and they responded by giving us advance notice so we could abandon one of our bases before bombing it so they could feel tough.

"Abandoned" bases. Okay.

Hey Dope,
We get it, you love Trump.

Hi genius, if trumps post is true, huge IF, even you will become a trumper.

...except some here and anybody who though the "Iran deal" that Obama signed was smart policy.
It wasn't.

Remember “the very best people” that Trump appointed to his cabinet?

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson : He was part of an "axis of adults" who reportedly wanted Trump to remain in the deal.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster: Similar to Tillerson, he was seen as a relatively sober adviser who favored remaining in the deal.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis: He was also reportedly among the advisors who encouraged caution and staying within the agreement. Mattis was considered the most influential of these "adults".

There were others, including lots of prominent Republicans who begged Trump not to withdraw from the agreement, which was largely being followed by Iran. Other Republicans were trying to sell the “We can negotiate a better one”, which like their plan to “repeal and replace” Obamacare came to nothing:


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that the Iran deal “was flawed from the beginning” and that he looks forward to working with the president on the next steps. [There were no “next steps - Goofy] “My own view is it’s a flawed deal and we can do better,” he said. “Clearly there’s a next step beyond this and we’ll look forward to seeing what he recommends.”

But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who opposed the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama’s administration and world powers in 2015, said the Trump White House appears to have a slogan but no plan.

The administration — and even Trump himself — briefed leaders ahead of Tuesday’s announcement. One top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also spoke with European leaders and said he looks forward to negotiating better terms of the deal. [There was no better deal even proposed, much less negotiated - Goofy]

“It is disappointing that the administration was unable to reach an agreement with our allies,” Corker said. “However, based on conversations I have had in recent days, it is my sense that the administration will move quickly to work toward a better deal.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he hopes during the sanctions implementation period — 90 days for some, 180 days for others — the U.S. will “work with our allies to achieve consensus on addressing a range of destabilizing Iranian behavior_both nuclear and non-nuclear.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the withdrawal “a mistake of historic proportions.” Trump’s action “isolates the United States from the world at a time when we need our allies to come together to address nuclear threats elsewhere, particularly in Korea,” said Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

It’s a view shared by some Republicans who opposed the deal.

Arizona GOP Sen. Jeff Flake says allowing Iran to skirt the restrictions imposed on its nuclear program “would be foolhardy.” Pulling out of the accord is a mistake, he said, and sends a poor message to U.S. allies.

“We’re having enough problems around the world in terms of our reliability,” Flake said. “If you’re our allies, you’ve got to be scratching your head, whether it’s a trade deal or security arrangements. Is America reliable anymore?” [Note to Senator Flake: “No.” - Goofy]

But Trump had a feeling in his gut……

Maybe it was just indigestion from too many Big Macs

There were others, including lots of prominent Republicans who begged Trump not to withdraw from the agreement, which was largely being followed by Iran.

lol. They were happily taking pallets of cash from the US while merrily building ballistic missiles (which the stupid deal didn’t address at all) as well as cheating with uranium enrichment.

Even the IAEA - the proverbial Three Blind Mice - eventually threw up their hands.

I outlined back in the day why it was a stupid deal. Guess what? Dope was right. Again.

But Trump had a feeling in his gut……

No. He has more than 2 working brain cells. Anyone with such saw that Iran was always intent on building a nuclear weapon.

One other point.

Argumentatively, you people are in a box.

If Iran was complying with the deal, then the strikes on Fordow and others should have demolished their nuke program. After all...if they were operating in good faith that would be all they had, right?

But if you want to claim that the strikes weren't effective because Iran's a big country and they had more things hidden elsewhere...then they weren't really following the deal, were they?

Quite the logical box to work yourselves out of. Good luck with that.

Here, let's finish off the Iran Nuke deal with this:

https://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-disastrous-...

In his famous 1897 essay, “The Path of the Law,” Oliver Wendell Holmes said that to understand the law, it would be necessary to adopt the perspective of the famous “bad man,” the one “who cares only for the material consequences” of his actions, but “does not care two straws for the axioms or deductions” of natural law. Our bad man just wants “to know what the Massachusetts or English courts are likely to do in fact.”

Indeed.

The remaining parties are our nominal allies who must believe that this nuclear deal represents a retreat from the basic proposition of Pax Americana—the guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of its allies. Our allies may well become less hostile to Russia and China precisely because they cannot count on U.S. leadership in tough times. The situation is starker still for the Israelis, who fear that the deal will embolden the Iranians to create more mischief in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Saudis are probably next in line in this belief. And both are surely right.

Iran’s promises count for nothing. Iran is quite happy to fund Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to back Hamas, and to launch terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. It is eager to confront its Sunni rivals, most notably Saudi Arabia, by supporting their enemies. It is eager to annihilate Israel. Indeed now that the agreement seems in place, the Ayatollah says flat out that deal or no deal, “we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.”

Quite prophetic, this.

As I said. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together...

They were happily taking pallets of cash from the US

The evidence piles up; you are in the tank for the Right Wing Reality Show, broadcast daily on FoxNews, with a complete cast of former FOXNews “personalities” and a former reality show host as the main character.

Look at Donnie tweet this morning on Truth Social:



"ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran, All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly 'Plane Wave' to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!"

The man is not well, but MAGA continues its elevation of his insanity to the level of “4D chess”.

After all...if they were operating in good faith that would be all they had, right?

They had a stockpile of fissile uranium purified to 60%- for years.

Now it’s probably hidden and recent events have impressed upon Iranian leadership that purifying it to weapons grade is not a bad idea.

They had a stockpile of fissile uranium purified to 60%- for years.

Now it’s probably hidden and recent events have impressed upon Iranian leadership that purifying it to weapons grade is not a bad idea.

Yeah. Before Trump they NEVER had any intention of doing that, amirite?

They were happily taking pallets of cash from the US...

You make it sound like taxpayer money. It was their cash, released to them after having been frozen for many years.

while merrily building ballistic missiles (which the stupid deal didn’t address at all)

True. It didn't. Wasn't meant to.

as well as cheating with uranium enrichment

Evidence? Inspectors found -at most- minor violations, if that.

Face it...given the situation, it was the best deal we could have hoped for. Unless you invade the country, you can't really control it. They could have thumbed their noses at us, and enriched to 90%+. But they didn't. We loosened our grip a bit, they gave a bit to get that. It's what a "deal" is. You almost never get everything you want from any deal.

Dope was right. Again.

You haven't been right in a long time. I don't mean that as an insult. But you haven't written much on this board that was correct, and others have provided evidence that you were wrong. I don't think you're unintelligent, but you have really bad sources of information.

Yeah. Before Trump they NEVER had any intention of doing that, amirite?

Intention- perhaps.

Imminent threat?

Not until Trump started bleating and Bibi started bombing.

Yes, yes, FOXNews has been blaring the imminent threat for weeks now.

The actual intelligence community has been more measured in its assessment.


I know. I know… who you gonna believe? The actual experts? Or a guy who doesn’t read, has skipped most of his daily intelligence briefings, and who knew better than US intelligence sources because Bibi told him Iran was getting ready to assemble a bomb?


Oh….. and that FOXNews feedback loop in which Trump watches hours of FOX everyday, then calls in to tell them what he’s gonna do… which more often than not is exactly what they suggested he do.

Our foreign policy is being guided by Faux News.

We are truly screwed and it will take a long time to unscrew us… IF we survive the remainder of Trump’s time in office.

Intention- perhaps.

Imminent threat?

Not until Trump started bleating and Bibi started bombing.

The Mullahs were building bombs and ballistic missiles. The only reason you build the latter is to put the former on it. And yes - damn straight they wanted to use it.

You people need to grow up and move past your I hAtE tRuMp posturing.

The Mullahs were building bombs and ballistic missiles.

Ballistic missiles- yes they were. In fact, they’ve shot them at Israel over the past week, armed with conventional warheads.

Nuclear bombs/warheads? Congratulations, you’ve just made a fact free claim.

Ballistic missiles- yes they were. In fact, they’ve shot them at Israel over the past week, armed with conventional warheads.

Nuclear bombs/warheads? Congratulations, you’ve just made a fact free claim.

lol. Yeah.

https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-...

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13035

Missile Research and Development

Experts have debated the extent to which Iran is able to produce longer-range missiles, such as intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and to adapt such missiles to carry nuclear weapons. Some U.S. intelligence officials and U.S. allies, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have expressed concern about the potential dual purpose of Iran's space launch vehicle program, noting that such a program could be used to develop ballistic missiles. In 2025, DIA assessed that Iran could use its SLVs to "develop a militarily-viable ICBM by 2035 should Tehran decide to pursue the capability."

Totally nice guys, all on the up and up.

TDS. Afflicting libs since 2015.

Totally nice guys, all on the up and up.

Has nothing to do with "nice." It's all about incentives.

A regime like Iran wants nuclear weapons because they confer a lot of power - and especially a huge defensive deterrent. If you have a nuke, it's probable that no one will ever invade you to overthrow your regime. If Iran signals that in the event of invasion the last act of their government would be to vaporize Israel, they'd be relatively safe from military force against them from either Israel or the West. They're vastly better off having a nuke than not.

However....Israel and the U.S. know this. So if the current regime were to try to actually develop a nuke, that might precipitate Israel or the U.S. overthrowing the regime pre-emptively. We don't want chaos in Iran...but we don't want them to have a nuke, either. If it looks like they're getting close in a way that we can't stop by physically attacking the nuclear program itself, then either the U.S. or Israel or both would invade to overthrow the government and stop them.

So having a nuke protects you from regime change, but pursuing a nuke can precipitate regime change. Conflicting incentives. Iran's response has been a rational one, from the regime's point of view: get far enough along so that you can move to a nuke quickly in extremis, but not so far as to trigger an invasion. The reason they don't go from 60% to 100% right now is because they don't want to get attacked.

If you make them feel like their regime is safe from direct military action from the West, then they don't have a massive incentive to rush to a nuke. Because the rush is very dangerous for them, so it's not worth the risk if they are otherwise in a stable position.

If they end up getting attacked anyway, then their incentives change. If it looks like the West is going to try to overthrow their government anyway, they now have 100% incentive to just try to race to a nuke. They only need a delivery mechanism capable of putting it somewhere between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to guarantee their safety.

So even though they've always wanted a nuke, they faced powerful incentives not to get close enough to it for the West and Israel to decide to just take out the regime. Attacking them shifts those incentives....

Totally nice guys, all on the up and up.

You’d have a point if anyone actually believed they were “totally nice guys, all on the up and up.”

But nobody does, so you don’t.

If they end up getting attacked anyway, then their incentives change. If it looks like the West is going to try to overthrow their government anyway, they now have 100% incentive to just try to race to a nuke. They only need a delivery mechanism capable of putting it somewhere between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to guarantee their safety.

So even though they've always wanted a nuke, they faced powerful incentives not to get close enough to it for the West and Israel to decide to just take out the regime. Attacking them shifts those incentives....

You're assuming rationality on their part. Thus far in their 46 or so years of existence they've...

*Created, funded, led and directed attacks by multiple terrorists around the world
*Taken over what amounts to 3 countries (Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria) with their terror proxies
*Provided safe harbor and trained terrorists in the making and deployment of Improvised Explosive Devices that were used in quantity on US Troops
*Arranged the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon

...and much, much more.

Trump's strategic calculus was this:

Do nothing:
-Maybe let the Israelis finish the job, knowing they don't have the capability the US military has
-But what if the Mullahs get desperate and decide to hang whatever they have on top of a ballistic missile? And aim it at Tel Aviv or Qatar?
-What if Israel can't quite push the mullahs to the brink and another Green revolution doesn't start? Missed opportunity.
-What if Israel inflicts what damage it can, but it's not enough and Iran waits them out? They still have their nuclear card to play.

Do something:
-Make an attack, try to take the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran off the table
-Sue for peace, but make it clear that the United States won't tolerate the status quo in the region

Trump went with the Do Something option.

You’d have a point if anyone actually believed they were “totally nice guys, all on the up and up.”

The level of FantasyLand being written around here with respect to Iran and the idiotic nuclear deal suggests otherwise. Or are all of either naive enough or hate Israel enough to believe that deal was good for anybody?

Trump went with the Do Something option.

Sure. But sometimes the Something that you Do is the wrong Something. Sometimes it's better to not Do Something than Do Something, even if the status quo is bad. As you point out, if you attack them bad enough to scare them into desperation, they might do something catastrophic - which has been one of the strategic considerations against attacking them in the past.

One prong of non-proliferation has traditionally been trying to make Iran feel like it isn't facing an actual existential threat, so that you don't make them feel that they have no choice but to sprint for a nuke.

I'm open to the possibility that the attack was not a mistake. So far, the region hasn't caught any more on fire, and there is still the chance that we really set them back a fair ways. But there are very serious downsides to direct military action against Iran and making it clear that the U.S. "won't tolerate the status quo" in the region.

I'm open to the possibility that the attack was not a mistake.

Agreed. I'd feel better if I knew POTUS read intelligence reports and paid attention in briefings. But I know the opposite to be true (from his first term), so it is up in the air whether it was a good idea.

The reports I have seen indicate that we likely set back their program by a matter of months, not years. Certainly not "obliterated".

You had an excellent point about conflicting imperatives. This likely would tip the scale towards "race for a nuke". I have no idea if that will be the result, however. Did it tip it enough?? Hopefully not. I don't think this gave any momentum to the anti-regime forces in Iran (such as they are). It may have worked against them.

On our side, we don't have a lot of those MOPs. And we just burned several of what we do have. Fourteen, to be exact. I saw one source that says we probably have about 30, but I can't confirm that. So we used up half, if that report was correct.

Now it’s probably hidden and recent events have impressed upon Iranian leadership that purifying it to weapons grade is not a bad idea.

Ukraine gave up its nuke capability, premise being they'd be protected from The Bear.

Look how that's turned out.

Can't blame Iran for not wanting the ability to protect itself from its perceived enemies.

...which is not to say I want any theocracy to have that kind of power. I do not.

But Trump had a feeling in his gut……

We need Riley to kill the alien--again !!!

I'm open to the possibility that the attack was not a mistake. So far, the region hasn't caught any more on fire, and there is still the chance that we really set them back a fair ways. But there are very serious downsides to direct military action against Iran and making it clear that the U.S. "won't tolerate the status quo" in the region.

No one is suggesting anything more (at the moment) than what went on.
Iran's other threat of closing the Straits of Hormuz backfired because they can't selectively jam ship navigation. They wound up sending some Chinese-flagged tankers back to port and that merited a sharp phone call from Beijing to Tehran (since about 50% of the oil coming out of the Gulf is destined for China).

They have no air defenses left and their terrorist armies can't threaten Israel any more as they've been decapitated. All that's left are lone-wolf style attacks in Western countries plus cyber.

0% chance trump viewed this anything other than jumping on bibi's 'winning' momentum.
i have yet to see israel denied any requested offensive or defensive aid.

100% chance gop will glom on to an ever-changing and contradictory retrospective strategy...which has never existed. let's just go with 'peace through civilian annihilation', being israel's default mode whenever possible.

as reliably as any peace brokering, trump will let us all know the scoop in 2 weeks.
(trump believes his '2 weeks' to be the greatest subterfuge since the art of war. simpsons and SNL, get on it!)

"There were others, including lots of prominent Republicans who begged Trump not to withdraw from the agreement, which was largely being followed by Iran. Other Republicans were trying to sell the “We can negotiate a better one”, which like their plan to “repeal and replace” Obamacare came to nothing"

It should also be noted that Israeli intelligence services were generally supportive of the agreement as a means to prevent Iran from getting nukes. However the intelligence services were overrode by Israeli political leadership (meaning Netanyahu) who saw the agreement as a barrier to their decades long dream of outright war with Iran.

Netanyahu found a friend in Trump who pulled out of the agreement with Iran without a plan for a replacement and then Netanyahu got what he always wanted: outright war with Iran.

Trump's ineptness has literally caused a shooting war in the Middle East.

“Someday I must read this scholar Everyone. He seems to have written so much--all of it wrong.”
― Tamora Pierce, Emperor Mage

Trump's ineptness has literally caused a shooting war in the Middle East.

And the MAGA-verse is demanding a Nobel Peace Prize for Donny.

Post New

Retirement Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.