Oh that's just naughty
US & Israel attack Iran
- Thread starter johnny crossan
- Start date
Oh that's just naughty
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 91,428
That video was crazy, seeing a small twinkling light that looks like a Chinese lantern barely moving, seeing the three patriots fire up at it and then whoosh and the thing comes in at several times the speed of sound.
Made me very glad I’m not within a few thousand miles of the Middle East right now.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 91,428
Iran had agreed to nuclear inspectors.
Oman were mediators in the talks, they have never claimed anything about being give access it would have been UN nuclear inspectors.
Even the Rubio isn’t claiming this war is about nuclear weapons.
They've let UN inspectors in with greater and greater access since I think 2008ish. They committed to stopping their nuclear weapons programme around 2003. Their latest deal was to give the inspectors greater access than they have in any other country on Earth and they agreed.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 91,428
He read the headline at best and definitely didn’t watch the 3 minute interview.
As I said, he’s just annoyed it’s pissed all over his point, such that it was.
What is that noxious smell? Like I'm in the countryside? Sheep? No wait, cow? Ah that's it, it's the bullshit spewing from your mouth. Can we have the proof please?
I expect you must be dizzy from the u-turns you have to keep doing?
That's the thing in wars involving barbaric practices by The State Of Israel and Netenyahu (wanted for war crimes, dontchaknow?) the wrong tend to be apologists.
Good to see you haven't changed a bit.
Last edited:
cleavers
Moderator
You keep saying this, but how do you know ?
I don't believe they were that close either, but I'm not about to just trust their propoganda either. We've witnessed what this regime is all about, and we know their goal, I'm not sad that the IRGC are getting the crap bombed out of them.
My dad was there during the Islamic revolution there, and the stories he told when he finally got out after being "missing" for several days, where pretty horrible, both sides were coming into the place he worked (engineer in their oil industry) and just shooting people. It was barbaric under the Shah, and changing the regime then, didn't change a lot, in the unlikely event it changes again, it still won't change much.
All very tragic really, as it's a beautiful and very varied country, with clever, and generally nice friendly people from everything I've ever seen (and my dad said the same). I've only seen it from the air over a few hours, but was very impressed, such a variety of places to visit, and it was one country on my bucket list (as was russia - I had a goal to do the trans Siberian railway, once I'd retired), though due to my empoyment (retired now) would be out of the question with this regime.
This is the USA's justification for the war from Rubio just now.
“There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was, that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed that they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.”
This is like something out of Catch-22.
We had to attack you first because we believed if we attacked you first, you were going to respond to that attack.
“There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was, that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed that they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.”
This is like something out of Catch-22.
We had to attack you first because we believed if we attacked you first, you were going to respond to that attack.
thelantern
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2024
- Messages
- 360
- Team supported
- manchester city
You could ask anyone on here posting their views whilst being in possession of very little to no information.
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 12,934
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia
I should have a read it's very long but enlightening.
PS I very rarely get annoyed about anything.
They have pursued a policy of nuclear latency since 2005, which is how they can get away with allowing inspectors in and have focused more on ICBM development.
They could easily have the capabilities of creating a nuclear missile if they put the two together. Numerous other countries have done the same and don't officially posses nuclear weapons.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 91,428
“According to Albusaidi, Iran’s existing stockpiles of enriched uranium would be blended down to the lowest enrichment levels and converted into nuclear fuel in a way that would be irreversible. He added that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would be granted full access to nuclear facilities to verify compliance. If a fair and durable deal were secured, he said he was confident that even American inspectors could be allowed access at some stage.”Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I should have a read it's very long but enlightening.
PS I very rarely get annoyed about anything.
Can you give some examples of those countries and how they evaded the IAEA inspectors that led to a nuclear weapon?
I can't say this clearly enough, there are no experts in the field that I've read who have claimed that Iran are close to building nuclear weapons. And there was a bombing run on them around 4ish months ago which the bombing leader claimed they've set them back 20 years.
What are you reading that I'm not reading?
There's no mechanism to go from "nuclear power" to "nuclear weapons" easily. I could get all physicsy here but I won't. They're very different.
According to the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI), sources in Tehran reported that in October 2025, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had authorised the development of miniaturised nuclear warheads for ballistic missiles, despite denials issued at earlier dates. The report stated that although such warheads would require uranium enriched to 90%, this could be achieved in a matter of weeks if Iran were to process its existing stockpile of 441 kg of 60% uranium with its advanced IR-4; and circulated accounts indicate the existence of an ultra-secret enrichment program at one of Iran's covert nuclear sites, to which the IAEA has not been given access.
IAEA board declares Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations
It's the most significant resolution against Iran in years.
www.reuters.com
So, me being me, I read your source. Here's what they say:
Despite repeated accusations from Israel and often from the United States as well, up until the Twelve-Day War – the military confrontation between Israel and Iran in June 2025 – Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, had always blocked the final decision to move to 90% enrichment and to begin developing miniaturised nuclear warheads small enough to be deliverable. This was despite pressure from various quarters within the regime, above all the Revolutionary Guards. All the sources consulted by the author’s researchers over the years have always denied that any decision had been taken on this matter and, clearly, if Khamenei had intended to produce atomic bombs when, in 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu, then merely an MP, began accusing Iran of pursuing that goal, Iran’s bomb would have been with us for several years already.
Iran’s nuclear programme: where do things stand?
With uranium enriched to 60%, of which Iran had 441 kg according to the IAEA’s June 2025 report, it is already possible to build atomic bombs, but not models compact enough to be carried by Iran’s largest missiles, such as the Khorramshahr, which have a range of 2,000 km and a payload of almost 2 tonnes. To produce compact atomic bombs, highly enriched uranium is required. Moving from 60% to 90% enrichment would take only a few weeks, provided there are enough working advanced-model centrifuges, such as Iran’s IR-4 and IR-6. So if Iran had wanted to build an atomic bomb, by far the most logical option would have been to do so immediately after accumulating a substantial quantity of uranium enriched to 60%. Clearly, this had not yet happened, on the basis of the IAEA’s latest inspection. It would instead appear that Khamenei meant to use breaches of the non-proliferation framework to force the Americans to restore the 2015 agreement (JCPOA) or something similar.Feel they support our position to be honest. If you have a different source then I'd be interested to read it
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 14,833
- Team supported
- City
Nothing worse than being in the sights of a rocket. Strangely, you get used to it.
Crazy stuff.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I have seen online posts where the iron dome looks a bit like a jelly dome over Tel Aviv tonight as Iran launches some new ballistic missiles rather than drones
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 12,934
The truth is no one one here knows, I think it’s extremely naive to believe the Iranian regime wasn’t attempting to construct a viable atomic weapon, others believe they weren’t.it’s whether you’re prepared to take that risk.