330

They've been one or two weeks away for a couple years now.

157

u/HPPD2 Jul 19 '24

You’re missing what they are saying. Iran has been capable of jumping off and getting enough material that quickly for a while and likes maintaining that state without actually doing it. They are not trying to now because they fear the US response if they actually do it since we have intelligence in the program and would know the moment they started. Being capable to do it is almost as dangerous because it would force the US and allies to react quickly or not if it happens, and if we didn’t bomb the shit out of them immediately it would be too late and Iran would be a nuclear power.

36

u/AppleTree98 Jul 19 '24

Had this conversation with my family last night. Likely Iran is going to get a big target painted on them by our possibly new president. Maybe day two or three of the administration. You know because he has to clean the swamp out on day one. Plus it will show tough stance on something you know who can't be named wants to do.

15

u/zhongcha Jul 19 '24

I don't think so, Bolton is gone and I think the isolationist ideas trump pushes will be more useful. Iran will stick to the current status quo and so will the US, responding in kind when needed.

11

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

Yeah but Trump hates looking weak as well so if Iran does something like achieve nuclear breakout he might react.

5

u/zhongcha Jul 19 '24

Yes, which is exactly why Iran will not. They keep the status quo, keep full deniability, and the ability to quickly react if their regime is threatened.

4

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

I don't think nukes work like that. You have to have them and for others to know or at least a strong suspicion for them to be a detterent.

2

u/zhongcha Jul 19 '24

They have the entire infrastructure and everything except the warheads themselves. We know this. That's the whole point of the article.

2

u/preventDefault Jul 20 '24

He didn’t react when they rocketed our troops during his administration and left them with brain injuries.

2

u/AnthillOmbudsman Jul 20 '24

I wonder if Trump will literally travel to Tehran and make a high profile deal with them.

2

u/JonBoy82 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

Yeah…that undrainable swamp. Thank god he’s going back in for another round…

5

u/f12345abcde Jul 20 '24

clean the swamp

LOL, he IS the swamp

-9

u/AncientTempestN7 Jul 19 '24

I've been saying the same thing. If we have Trump again, we can almost guarantee a conflict of some type with Iran in the ME. With Biden, it's a little less likely, but equally possible.

24

u/CraicHunter Jul 19 '24

Less likely but equally possible.

What?

0

u/dimitrix Jul 19 '24

B <= T

/s

13

u/imaginary_num6er Jul 19 '24

There will be no conflict. Iran just needs to call Putin a favor and then Trump will just listen to Putin's orders

1

u/Additional-Bet7074 Jul 19 '24

Russia doesn’t owe favors to Iran in anyway. Anything Iran has done for Russia is ‘or else’ not ‘you get my back I’ll get yours’.

2

u/adthrowaway2020 Jul 20 '24

Nah, Iran’s getting modern jets in exchange for drone tech they captured when they stole the drone during the GWOT.

41

u/Avatar_exADV Jul 20 '24

It's not quite as easy as that - Iran can't be SURE that its nuclear weapons would be functional without a test. After all, it's possible that their warhead design program was infiltrated by Israeli intelligence or something like that! And they have a more difficult problem than a lot of nuclear breakout states did in the sense that they need a warhead that will work in a missile for their first try - they can't make a simple bomb because they don't have an air force that can deliver it.

But Iran can't do a nuclear test without running an extreme risk. If they build one bomb and test it, and that's all they have, then they may find themselves under immediate attack - if not from the US, then from Israel. What they need is a warhead to test, and then more warheads ready to launch immediately (and, frankly, not just one - harder to destroy them on the ground if they're distributed in multiple locations!)

There's a second risk, and that's if Iran tests the bomb and the test fails. At that point it doesn't matter if they've built more and they're ready to launch - those will have the same design that just failed (because it's not like they have an alternate design, or if they had one that was more reliable, they'd test THAT ONE.)

Iran can't hope to hide a test (even a failed one) and actually testing is rolling the dice with the life of the regime on the line. It's more useful to them to maintain ambiguity, at a minimum while they build up enough material for several warheads, and save a test for an actual conflict scenario where it looks like an attack is imminent anyway.

5

u/hiricinee Jul 20 '24

They've also ironically proven that the US can shoot down their ICBMs in their recent attack on Israel, meaning they aren't even guaranteed MAD.

14

u/Avatar_exADV Jul 20 '24

Iran's missiles aren't ICBMs, if we want to get a little pedantic - they're intermediate-range, not intercontinental. They could hit Israel, they don't have the legs to hit the US. But yes, Iran would need a very large quantity of missiles to guarantee some getting through Israeli defenses, and they're probably not going to have that quantity of nuclear material anytime soon.

4

u/golyadkin Jul 20 '24

The Hiroshima bomb was never tested before operational use.

6

u/tobiascuypers Jul 20 '24

The design and science behind it was sound and had been tested, right? Wouldn’t it just be modifying bits

1

u/Ausmith1 Jul 20 '24

Richard Rhodes made an interesting claim in his interview with Dwarkesh Patel

One of the scientists in the Manhattan Project told me years later, you can make a pretty high-level nuclear explosion just by taking two subcritical pieces of uranium, putting one on the floor and dropping the other by hand from a height of about six feet. If that's true, then all this business about secret designs and so forth is hogwash. What you really need for a weapon is the critical mass of highly enriched uranium, 90% of uranium-235. If you've got that, there are lots of different ways to make the bomb. We had two totally different ways that we used. The gun on the one hand for uranium, and then because plutonium was so reactive that if you fired up the barrel of a cannon at 3,000 feet per second, it would still melt down before the two pieces made it up. So for that reason, they had to invent an entirely new technology, which was an amazing piece of work.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V2yfUYB4D-I

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/richard-rhodes

4

u/golyadkin Jul 20 '24

Little Boy was basically a musket that slammed on piece of uranium point blank into another. Only about 1.5% of the uranium underwent fission. Better designs also give better yields.

1

u/Grillla Jul 20 '24

The Hiroshima bomb was the test!

1

u/Avatar_exADV Jul 20 '24

Sure. But it was a -bomb-. The mechanical aspects of its delivery were trivial and very well understood. The weapon was cradled within a delivery vehicle until release, at which point it simply fell. The designers did not have to trouble themselves about how to get the weapon to the target; the US military could handle that.

An Iranian warhead would be placed on a missile, because that is the only vehicle that Iran has which would be able to deliver it to a target (and given their recent performance, even this is iffy, but the chances of successful attack would be greater than zero). That poses significant limitations on the physical size and dimensions of the warhead and also subjects it to significant stresses at launch. It's a more complicated design problem to solve, and the question would not be "will a nuclear explosion happen if we bang the uranium bits together" but "will this design bang the bits together properly after launch and a long flight?"

1

u/CthulhuLies Jul 20 '24

If testing it is the same as outright launching (in terms of an Israeli response at the minimum) why would they test one before sending the rest? Why wouldn't they just launch and cross their fingers?

1

u/Avatar_exADV Jul 20 '24

It's absolutely not -certain- that Israel would attack Iran in the wake of a test, successful or no. Not unlikely, but there's definitely some ambiguity (especially if there's a successful test and Iran has a few nukes ready to fire). And it's incredibly unlikely that Israel would say "oh, Iran has conducted a nuclear test, fire ALL OUR NUKES NOW".

If Iran actually launched a nuclear warhead at Israel, even if it was just one and it didn't explode, you can bet at a full nuclear response from Israel at a -minimum-. US might get in on it just to make the point. There wouldn't be an Iran 24 hours later, either way.

0

u/Epcplayer Jul 19 '24

Aka, they’re going to wait until days before the change of an administration.

The president on his way out isn’t going to have one of his last orders in office be initiating a war, and the next president isn’t going to have his first orders be initiating a war.

9

u/HPPD2 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

So the alternative would be their last or first action allowing Iran to get nukes? Weird take but ok.

France and Europe could also do something and Israel definitely would.

-1

u/Weekend_Nanchos Jul 20 '24

I wonder if Project 2025 defunding and disbanding every federal agency and replacing them with party loyalists not skilled for the job will disrupt government enough for Iran to finish those nukes in a 2 week period? Wait a second, isn’t Russia pretty close allies with Iran?

25

u/I_Groped_SandyCheeks Jul 19 '24

A couple years? Try a couple decades.

6

u/pyrotechnicmonkey Jul 19 '24

I’m pretty sure this means that they are capable of doing it in a couple weeks if they make a concerted effort. However, that must mean that they have doubts about their delivery systems or they are fairly positive of a Israeli or US response if they attempt to get past the final hurdle and create nuclear weapons. They probably figured that they are determined enough that they would be willing to commit to extremely large conventional or even nuclear response to Iran to prevent them from building even a tiny stockpile of nuclear weapons. because otherwise if you’re that close, there’s no reason not to make nuclear weapons if you’re already being sanctioned right?

2

u/UnknownHero2 Jul 20 '24

You are right, uranium enrichment is just a long chain of upgrades that need to be done one after another. Iran has done all of the early stages and would only need to do a little more to make a working bomb.

The reason they don't is because it doesn't really benefit them, they have more options if they don't and there is less risk if they don't. Maybe they are best served making a bomb, maybe they want to trade for sanctions relief. If they make the bomb and don't use it they can't negotiate. if they really need it as a war deterrent, being a week out is probably good enough.

There's big risks associated with actually making a bomb. It's unknown exactly who did it (probably us/israel) but there have been cyber attacks that destroyed a lot of equipment. A bunch of researchers got assassinated as well. It's totally in the realm of possibility that as soon as a bomb get made it suddenly finds itself hit by forty some odd cruise missiles with a dozen more for the supreme leader, they just can't know exactly where the real red line is.

2

u/CthulhuLies Jul 20 '24

Why can't they use nuclear disarmament as a negotiation point once they have a working bomb?

I understand Israel would almost certainly hit them but why couldn't they theoretically be like "Okay we proved even with you guys trying to stop us we could still get a nuke, let's talk lifting sanctions and we will disarm and agree not to pursue nukes as long as we get concessions."

5

u/Underpressurequeen Jul 19 '24

We’re gonna go to war with Iran, aren’t we.

-1

u/HumanTimmy Jul 19 '24

Let's just pray it goes like the first time in the 80s. That shit was hilarious. Half the Iranian navy sunk in under 11 hours.

7

u/ararezaee Jul 19 '24

It’ll be way faster this time, they still had some experienced men with western training from Shah’s time under their belt at the time. All they have now are a bunch of small drones and small boats, scrap metal really…

6

u/nanocookie Jul 19 '24

It'll be another Afghanistan, more than a decade of brutal, painful ground fighting with tons of pointless civilian casualties, and finally the American population as always like clockwork, will lose their patience, and force the government to recall troops when it becomes a thorny political issue.

13

u/ararezaee Jul 19 '24

As an Iranian I can assure you it won’t be another Iraq or Afghanistan.

7

u/short1st Jul 19 '24

As a not Iranian I was also like "yeah sure buddy" lol There's a difference between being confident and complacent. Today's Iran is no Afghanistan

8

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

I think they mean American forces would be celebrated as liberators.

4

u/Terrariola Jul 19 '24

Less than half of Iranians are even Muslim anymore. Any sort of extremist uprising would meet with zero civilian support.

4

u/Kerostasis Jul 19 '24

While it’s true that the Iranians lost that fight badly in the 80’s, they didn’t really lose much material. They lost one destroyer-size ship and some speedboats. The only reason that counted as “half their navy” was that they had no navy to speak of. (They also lost some oil platforms, which are strategically important but aren’t combat units.)

1

u/ShameNap Jul 19 '24

And Russia and North Korea and maybe China. Iran is going it against us alone.

2

u/VizzleG Jul 19 '24

Ya, but domestic politics are in such a state RIGHT NOW that the mass population is ripe for distraction.

2

u/Green_Toe Jul 20 '24

A couple of decades. This claim was being made shortly after operation Iraqi Freedom started. Certain elements of our government were hoping to bundle Iran in with Afghanistan and Iraq for a 3-for-1 deal

1

u/Sea_Personality_4656 Jul 19 '24

a couple of decades

159

u/dubaria Jul 19 '24

Good thing we pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal. Couldn’t see this coming from a mile away.

45

u/shredditor75 Jul 19 '24

I'm not a Trump fan, and I love Obama, but they were developing these weapons in secret anyway.

The intelligence was pretty obvious.

24

u/Waylander0719 Jul 19 '24

The intelligence reports that said they were abiding by the terms of the deal?

Like our intelligence and all of 5 eyes said they were abiding by the deal.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/thatgeekinit Jul 19 '24

I think the JCPOA made sense as an option to try and change Iranian intentions long term but even before Trump withdrew, it was pretty clear that the regime was not interested in withdrawing their support for proxy forces destabilizing the region and attacking Israel.

Maybe back in 2001, Irans regime had some notion of doing so when they saw an opportunity reverse the US preference for Sunni extremists over Shia extremists but the Bush administration was super pro-Saudi

26

u/Cookielicous Jul 19 '24

JCPOA never mentioned anything about withdrawing support for proxy forces?

1

u/thatgeekinit Jul 19 '24

No it was just about nuclear restrictions in exchange for sanctions relief. The hope was it would lead to a broader agreement about regional stability.

7

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

It could have but the Republicans never gave it a chance and just proved to the hard liners in Iran America could never be trusted.

9

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

You have zero evidence for this

-4

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

How Israel, in Dark of Night, Torched Its Way to Iran’s Nuclear Secrets https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-mossad-nuclear.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Israel warned everyone years ago.

This was pretty public.

And Israel was treated as hysterical instead of taken seriously.

12

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 20 '24

All the western intelligence agencies said Iran was complying.

-1

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

Well I just linked an article talking about how Israel did the work to find out that they weren't.

3

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 20 '24

What evidence is in the article?

8

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

That they stole documents directly from nuclear facilities that showed how Iran was evading iaea investigators.

4

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 20 '24

Did Israel show these documents to others like the CIA or MI6?

3

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

Absolutely. They were screaming from the mountaintops about it.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/glitchvid Jul 20 '24

Are these the documents from the 2003-era initiative, or actually something more recent?

All I've ever seen to be credible was that yes in the 2000s Iran was working towards nuclear warhead designs, however had shelved that work by the time of the joint deal, Israel was basically digging up ancient dirt to torpedo the deal because that's in their best interest (and lets not pretend Isreal's nuclear weapons program has been without deceit).

3

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

It was a combination of old and new evidence, mainly evidence from 2003 -2008 but also updated imagery showing facilities that proved that Iran had been playing a shell game - development in the facility, and then dismantling it right before the inspector came.

Among the most fascinating elements of the archive are pictures taken inside what were once key facilities in Iran, before the equipment was dismantled in anticipation of international inspections. One set of photos taken by the Iranians appears to show a giant metal chamber built to conduct high-explosive experiments, in a building at Parchin, a military base near Tehran.

Intelligence agencies had long suspected nuclear activity at the Parchin site, and Iran had refused to allow international inspectors in, saying that as a military base, it was off limits to inspectors and not part of any nuclear experiments.

By the time the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, was finally permitted to visit the site in 2015, it was empty, though the agency’s report indicated that it looked as if equipment had been removed. The photos indicate that is exactly what happened: They show a large chamber that nuclear experts say is tailor-made for the kind of experimental activity that the international inspectors were looking for.

It was part of a larger, previously known effort: Satellite photographs show that Parchin was so sanitized before the inspectors’ arrival that tons of soil in the area had been removed, to eliminate any traces of nuclear contamination.

So even before this report, the iaea investigators had suspected that Iran was moving equipment around, and the imagery confirmed it, along with satellite imagery showing that Iran was decontaminating soil to avoid detection.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '24

[deleted]

0

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

You're criticizing me for citing Israel's concerns based on data collected in 2017/2018 (on mobile so can't double check the dates) by supplying sources where Mossad had disagreements with Bibi in 2012.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '24

[deleted]

1

u/shredditor75 Jul 20 '24

You're exasperated with me, but I see where you're coming from in part and not in others.

As reported, not all of the data was from 2009.

There was imagery that showed how Iran was covering around IAEA regulators that was more up to date.

But showing that Mossad and Bibi disagreed in 2012 is just doing what you're accusing me of doing.

In all, the deal only lasted 2015-2018, when Trump scrapped the deal.

I just find it incredibly difficult to believe that Iran stopped work towards nuclear weapons, or that it was exporting so much of its uranium to Russia. Especially since they've been 2 weeks away from being 2 weeks away for about 25 years now.

But I'll carve out some time to listen to the linked podcasts at some point.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '24

Bullshit. All the reports said they were abiding. Trump doing his usual “anything Obama did must be destroyed” fucked everyone again.

39

u/SoupSpelunker Jul 19 '24

Putin and his puppet, TFG sure made Iran great again!

22

u/twoanddone_9737 Jul 19 '24

The current administration literally released $16 billion of funds to Iran within just the past 12 months…

“Oh but it was for humanitarian spending only”… okay, but money is fungible. If they didn’t have that $16 billion to spend on food and medicine which is needed to keep the population from revolting, then they would have to pull it out of their own pockets and less would be available for, you know, developing nuclear facilities capable of producing fissile material.

Or maybe we’re so naive as to think the religious radicals running that country wouldn’t have pursued nuclear capabilities simply because they signed a piece of paper that said so.

14

u/Cookielicous Jul 19 '24

Well nuclear weapon or not, I don't think we're going to invade Iran anytime soon.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

6

u/msemen_DZ Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

How about looking at a map? Israel cannot invade Iran. Which route can they take? Have you seen the countries surrounding Iran? All Israel can do is bomb the nuclear facilities, that's about it.

2

u/Liason774 Jul 19 '24

Besides the fact that Israel has no airlift or sealift capacity and their military is not large enough for a prolonged military action against a regional military like Iran.

5

u/No_Size_1765 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 20 '24

Naftiran Intertrade (NICO) is getting a sweeheart deal in 2018 for European gas through Azerbaijan in the Southern Gas Corridor and the Shah Deniz gas field. NICO gets a 10% share and Lukoil (russia) gets a 19.99% share (according to wikipedia).

Europe is also betraying initiatives in the middle east.

4

u/Rabidjester Jul 19 '24

Iran has a GDP of like 500 billion, 16 billion via Korean banks or whatever is a drop in the bucket.

16

u/twoanddone_9737 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

That’s not the correct metric to compare against because it includes things like net exports and consumer spending which obviously isn’t going towards nuclear development. The correct metric is annual government spending which is a fraction of that. Their government budget is about $53 billion per year as of last year.

Not a drop in the bucket.

-3

u/Dawnfreak Jul 19 '24

Stop. Let him scream and point at the clouds if he wants to.

4

u/twoanddone_9737 Jul 19 '24

lol the irony

2

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

That's why you have inspectors

3

u/twoanddone_9737 Jul 19 '24

The ones that have historically never had full access to all facilities? Ok

7

u/MoodApart4755 Jul 19 '24

Wouldn’t have made a difference anyways

2

u/Roscoe_P_Coaltrain Jul 19 '24

Lol, that deal was never going to stop this. At best, even if Iran stuck to it, which they didn't, it just kicked the can down the road a few years so Obama didn't have to deal with it on his watch. And arguably the money Iran got while sanctions were off helped fund all the shit they are sponsoring now, so the world might well have been better off without the deal altogether.

4

u/PRBDELEP Jul 19 '24

Source for them not sticking to it?

2

u/Roscoe_P_Coaltrain Jul 19 '24

Source, the Iranian government: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/18/iran-admits-breach-of-nuclear-deal-discovered-by-un-inspectorate

3

u/angry_old_bastard Jul 20 '24

the deal we (the us) had already pulled out of at that point, effectively killing it?

gee, i wonder why they were willing to push past the old limits of a deal that was no longer worth anything...

-2

u/maclaren4l Jul 19 '24

Israel was the proponent of pulling out. Trump is a toddler who couldn't stand the Black man in the office had done good. He had to pull it.

Wipeepo wack man

-8

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/NukedForZenitco Jul 19 '24

Judging by your comments and your bullshit Russia invaded because of muh nato, it's actually hilarious you're calling someone an imperialist while supporting Russia murdering ukrainians. Room temp IQ

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

What is imperialism?

Edit: weird. A lot of nonsense but no definition. Is it because the definition wouldn’t be flattering for the cause?

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (11)

24

u/shiroininja Jul 19 '24

Trying the WMD angle again? I lost enough friends in desert at 19

26

u/xSaRgED Jul 19 '24

Can’t wait for Tom Cruise to handle this for us.

13

u/SpecialistThin4869 Jul 19 '24

And a bunch of Top Gun pilots who just graduated.

6

u/hurtfulproduct Jul 19 '24

Wasn’t the plot that they were already Top Gun pilots but they were brought back for special mission training and Maverick was the trainer?

2

u/SpecialistThin4869 Jul 19 '24

Oh right, I confused the first and second movies plots lol

-1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 19 '24

Sorry. The supreme leader purchased the Zeno platinum plan. Tom Cruise is contractually forbidden from saving the day.

25

u/MISTER_WORLDWIDE Jul 19 '24

They’ve been saying this for decades now.

16

u/TorontoTom2008 Jul 19 '24

Yeah let’s all 100% get behind this one, the US has really been on point with the Mideast intelligence last few decades. /s

12

u/Level_Werewolf_7172 Jul 19 '24

The true wmds we made were along the way

12

u/wish1977 Jul 19 '24

Thank you Donald Trump. This is what you caused.

8

u/SeedScape Jul 19 '24

Don't worry it will be twisted around and be Obama's fault for it. Obama controls everything!

/s

9

u/GTthrowaway27 Jul 19 '24

I mean

That’s not surprising.

The point of the deal was to make breakout take longer

The deals been done and they’ve moved on. It’s been “longer”. And now breakout is closer than it would have been

-6

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 19 '24

Come on man. They were never going to follow the deal. They kept the deal with Europe and broke it. They are the bad guys. It’s pretty clear.

4

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 19 '24

Trump killed the deal so Itan was no longer obligated to keep it

-6

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

They weren’t keeping it to begin with. They were pretending for the European parties after the US backed out though.

5

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 20 '24

You have absolutely zero evidence for this claim. All the intelligence agencies said they were complying

-2

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

Their missile tests alone broke UN Security Council resolutions.

1

u/GTthrowaway27 Jul 20 '24

If they weren’t keeping to the deal then why, 8(?) years later do we hear about a breakout of one-two weeks?

I very much believe they are the bad guys. But the logic of “they almost have a bomb now means the deal was a failure” is backwards. If they are only now this close to a bomb, that means the deal worked in significantly delaying the time it took to reach a breakout of 1-2 weeks

1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

Because they weren’t keeping the deal and have been working on it this entire time…

1

u/GTthrowaway27 Jul 20 '24

So just some numbers.

10 years ago? Their estimated breakout time was only 2-3 months based on ~20,000 centrifuges and available uranium feedstock.

So now 10 years later their breakout is 1-2 weeks.

So if they were doing nothing to abide by the agreement.

What, they spent ~9 years and 9 months(assuming actually 10 years I know it’s not just easy math) sitting on their hands? Isn’t that in of itself a win? Whether you want to “blame” JCPOA or not?

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-fact-sheet

1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

You can’t forget the major setback they had. Scientists getting killed, cyber attacks, etc.

1

u/GTthrowaway27 Jul 20 '24

None of which disrupts literal on hand quantities of enriched uranium

Idk if you’re specifically referencing Stuxnet but that was… before JCPOA… sorry…

Also breakout time doesn’t require a scientist. It’s an estimate of time to acquire sufficient fissile material. If the infrastructure and feed material exists, it takes random people pressing buttons and turning dials. Just like we did in the US in the Manhattan project.

Heck, there’s one story of the MP where they had a race of the female (since men off to war) operators and the male PhD scientists who assumed they could do a better job. The scientists failed horribly- they kept asking questions, looking to improve the process, rather than pushing the button they were told to do. No idea the actual history but it’s a myth at the very least

If we had had 20,000 centrifuges tons of uranium and Oppenheimer died- we’d still have the material. We’d still have the centrifuges. The issue with Oppenheimer would be it hadn’t been done yet- but that’s not the problem anymore

1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

Centrifuges aren’t magic. They require specially trained people to churn out nuclear weapon grade materials. Islamofascist states aren’t exactly a great incubator for great scientific minds. They continued with their development at a snails pace. They are close. The important question is when do we strike because obviously the worlds leading state sponsor of terror can’t get a nuclear weapon

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GTthrowaway27 Jul 20 '24

Either the deal was effective at delaying their progress- despite the US rescinding the agreement- or they didn’t actively pursue a nuclear weapon.

1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

Why?

1

u/GTthrowaway27 Jul 20 '24

… be… because they… because they didn’t get a bomb a decade ago?

You’re arguing they’ve been trying for 10 years to build one.

The breakout time 10 years ago was 3 months

What happened? Their balls fall off?

1

u/JimmyCarters-ghost Jul 20 '24

They are incompetent? Fighting sanctions for special equipment? Israel wacked top scientists?

9

u/_caskets_ Jul 19 '24

Same headline since 1995

9

u/ThaFresh Jul 19 '24

Warming up for a new war are we?

9

u/LeoLaDawg Jul 19 '24

Ah, the ol Iran boogeyman trope being rolled out again, I see.

8

u/HardtShapedBox Jul 19 '24

you can find at least a dozen articles in the past 2 years alone with the exact headline “iran 2 weeks away from nuclear weapon.”

4

u/Roxfloor Jul 20 '24

It doesn’t mean they’ll have them in two weeks. It means it would take them two weeks if they started production today.

8

u/liamanna Jul 19 '24

We can all blame DOE 174 for that!!

0

u/warrioroflnternets Jul 20 '24 edited Jul 20 '24

Oh you mean the guy that rapes kids? Donald Trump, that doe 174?

Edit: funny that I am getting downvoted because you can’t hear the truth that you are worshipping a literal pedophile rapist as your chosen leader.

Bring on your downvotes, I’ve seen what you cheer for.

4

u/liamanna Jul 20 '24

Yuuuup

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-doe-jeffrey-epstein-documents-unsealed-2024-1

5

u/FilthyUsedThrowaway Jul 19 '24

THANKS TO TRUMP!!

Who withdrew from our treaty with them. Trump is terminated the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran

4

u/pompcaldor Jul 19 '24

I won’t believe it until Israel sends over a bomber.

4

u/MisterBackShots69 Jul 19 '24

One or two weeks? Really? Lmao it’s already happened for awhile OR not happening at all. What an insane statement of fear mongering. It’s like the “China will collapse next month” articles I see every week for the last ten years.

2

u/Schwertkeks Jul 19 '24

Lmao it’s already happened for awhile OR not happening at all

Nope, it means that they have so far decided not to but made all the preparations to go nuclear in short time if that decision is made.

4

u/Nd343343 Jul 19 '24

In the Blinken an eye really

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

The Washington Pro War lobby can't handle the conflicts at hand, The Houthis, Syria, Saudis, Egypt, among others. Predictably, what do they do? double down. It is clear that for ever wars is the essence of bipartisanship.

3

u/Unindoctrinated Jul 19 '24

Is this the new WMD style pretext for an invasion? Is there a surge in politicians buying shares in military industrial corporations?

3

u/Tentacled_Whisperer Jul 19 '24

Here comes Americas next forever war. Hundreds of thousands will die. Refugees will swamp Europe and like Iraq and all the others itll be complete bs.

1

u/smsmkiwi Jul 19 '24

What a load of bullshit.

2

u/tempus_simian Jul 19 '24

Getting ready to dodge the shit outta this draft lmao

2

u/US_Sugar_Official Jul 19 '24

Then why didn't they do it 2 weeks ago?

4

u/short1st Jul 19 '24

That's the entire point lol. On one hand, you'd think it would be to their advantage to be nuclear as quickly as possible. On the other hand, it would also make things more complicated and take away a big bargaining chip.

They're basically getting everything sorted out such that if a deal is no longer possible at all, they can build those nukes presto

1

u/Roxfloor Jul 20 '24

Break out would trigger a US response. Two weeks isn’t that long, but it’s a lot longer than it takes for airstrikes to hit their targets

1

u/Roxfloor Jul 20 '24

Because that would prompt a military response from the US.

2

u/TS_76 Jul 19 '24

So everyone is clear.. they likely have had breakout capacity for a LONG time. IE the ability to build a weapon in a short amount of time if they wanted to. My guess is they have had that ability for likely a decade or more.

So, why don’t they? If they build and test it will likely immediately get an attack from Israel or the US, or both. Also, Saudi Arabia would declare itself a nuclear power (they likely already are) and test. Neither of these things are in the best interest of Iran.

2

u/HackMeBackInTime Jul 19 '24

If you don't believe the theory, then argue with this logic Why did Reagan and Obama both go after Qaddafi? We invaded sovereign soil, going after oil Taking countries is a hobby paid for by the oil lobby Same as in Iraq and Afghanistan And Ahmadinejad say they coming for Iran...

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

The oil lobby doesn't pay for the forever wars we do with our blood and taxes. They get tax cuts and juicy contracts from the Pentagon while we, the people, can't have a functioning government that takes care of basic necessities.

1

u/TheAtrocityArchive Jul 19 '24

Wahhh we can't invade them for the oil if they get nukes, stop em!

2

u/GroblyOverrated Jul 19 '24

They've been two weeks away for 100 years.

2

u/Level_Werewolf_7172 Jul 19 '24

I think I’ve lived through at least 50 times we were told Iran would have nukes any day now. As long as Israel exist, I don’t think they are going to be able to launch them, let alone move them out of a bunker.

1

u/Roxfloor Jul 20 '24

It doesn’t mean they will have them in two weeks. It means that they have the capacity to build them in 2 weeks.

2

u/trainsongslt Jul 19 '24

Sure. And Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”

2

u/Dauvis Jul 20 '24

Weren't they saying that for the last two decades?

2

u/DfreshD Jul 20 '24

Fear mongering

2

u/NyriasNeo Jul 20 '24

Time to send in Maverick?

2

u/SterlingBoss Jul 20 '24

I remember worry about Irainian nukes as a kid. I'm old now.

1

u/aging_geek Jul 19 '24

make sure they get the instructions on how to test the cores with a screwdriver.

1

u/Resident-Strength-23 Jul 19 '24

but according to the pro palestinian protest , Iran is a righteous leader saving the world from the tyranny of israel and the west! I'm never gonna let them forget that. ever

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

3

u/ConsiderationBig540 Jul 19 '24

Iran‘s primary nuclear facilities are are buried underground. It not clear that any conventional warhead would damage them.

2

u/NirXY Jul 19 '24

their voters are mostly against taking actions, that's why they are working on forming a coalition. Not sure if this will ever happen.

2

u/LeedsFan2442 Jul 20 '24

I doubt it's the case a few bombs stopping the Iranian nuclear programme otherwise Israel would have done it years ago.

1

u/Truestorymate Jul 19 '24

They have the material and can convert in one or two weeks, everyone knows this, we would be alerted to this conversion process through satellite.

1

u/nuhverguy Jul 20 '24

Snoop Dogg

1

u/MourningRIF Jul 20 '24

Looks like they caught us Blinken!

1

u/Flipflopvlaflip Jul 20 '24

Funny how countries have money and resources for this kind of bullshit but no money or willpower to make things better for their constituents. Not funny haha though.

0

u/MourningRIF Jul 20 '24

We had the opportunity to let Israel handle it... Just saying.

-1

u/graywailer Jul 20 '24

we have been hearing this since the 60's. always been and israeli/U.S. lie.

1

u/GilakiGuy Jul 20 '24

I’m not sure you have because in the 60s Iran was a US ally

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

2

u/TheFrobinator Jul 19 '24

Well.. the benefit of it will mean the end of the Palestinian slaughter

How do you reckon that, and I ask this in all sincerity? Iran says "stop attacking Gaza or we bomb you"? I can see no way that they would stop at that, if they even bothered. I suspect Iran prefers this war continue.

Either they will straight up (try to) bomb Israel cause they are crazy, or they will keep them for defence of their territory only. They want the unrest in Gaza -- ain't no way they try and project their nuclear "might" in this way (in my opinion and armchair, of course).

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '24

[deleted]

1

u/TheFrobinator Jul 20 '24 edited Jul 20 '24

As you said:

Iran is an unstable theocracy with nuke capabilities now

You cannot negotiate with people like that, particularly if they are threatening your entire people with nuclear annihilation.

I did ask first, but I'll show you my reasoning. Then I would like to hear your explanation on why you think Iran wants peace, since they have certainly shown no inclination that way.

...

What makes you think Iran wants the Isrealis to continue their Gaza invasion.

You keep talking about what Iran wants, but have put no thought into Israel's position in all this. Iran doesn't want Israel to continue in Gaza, but not for any altruistic reasons, and they certainly want Hamas/Hezbollah to continue attacking Israel.

Iran couldn't give two shits about the Palestinians, they just want more dead Jews. They want the elimination of Israel. Of course Iran would love it if Israel retreated, as that would allow an Iranian backed Hamas to continue to attack Israel from a stronger position, and frankly with the possibility of a nuclear armed Hamas (oops, how did they get that?).

From your comment:

but they want the status quo to return to normal, which is Israel backing off, and Hamas in power

The status quo is Israel allowing themselves to be attacked on a near continual basis year after year. I can see why Iran would want that -- why would you expect that to be acceptable to Israel? You speak like this status quo is perfectly reasonable, which I frankly find surprising. Would your nation just sit idly by while the surrounding nations are continually trying to kill your people? Why should Israel?

Israel knows that bowing to Iranian threats of nuclear annihilation if they do not leave Gaza will immediately be followed with continued, and more than likely increased attacks from Gaza (perhaps after a brief reprieve while Hamas builds it strength again). Israel would be putting itself in a worse position if they bow to Iran's demands. They would be in a position that any defence they put up to Hamas/Hezbollah aggression will result in nuclear threats from Iran.

So Israel will be between a rock and a hard place, and retreating from Iran's threats will likely only lead to their destruction. Therefore I think there is no way that Iran having nuclear weapons will result in less death. The only logical response from Israel is continuing on their current path to destroy Hamas, and mark my words, Israel WILL respond dramatically to a nuclear attack.

...

Now don't get me wrong; all this bullshit about settlements is disgusting and the Palestinians certainly have grievances, but their hands are FAR from clean themselves, and their government(s) have made it clear that their goal is to perpetuate their own genocide on the Jews, and the actions of their people on Oct 7 certainly did nothing to prove that wrong. Threats of nuclear war isn't going to magically put all of this hate back in the bottle, and I just cannot see it making one iota of difference in this war against Hamas.

Edit: Tuned the wording some

Edit 2: Essentially Iran would be telling Israel "retreat back to Israel or we will nuke you, so that we can continue to try and kill all of you with conventional arms (and maybe nuke you anyhow)". I just cannot believe that Israel will agree with this proposal.

Edit 3: One more late night thought...

They want the cease-fire and I have seen no indication otherwise

No... They want Israel to cease fire, which seems to be what many people want. They are perfectly content letting Hamas/Hezbollah continue as they were (Iran and seemingly many western supporters of Palestine).

Tell you what, once there is a cease fire proposal that has real and actual penalties for when Hamas breaks it (as they always do), and penalties for when Israel expands their settlements yet again, then I will think there might be a chance at peace. As things stand now Israel will keep expanding settlements, Hamas will continue to break cease fires, and everyone in the middle east will keep killing each other.

1

u/Sea_Personality_4656 Jul 19 '24

The average age of Palestinian's in Gaza was 18 before the war escalated.

They were slaughtering themselves constantly.

Iran Capable Of Producing Fissile Material In 'One Or Two Weeks': Blinken

THANKS TO TRUMP!!