When Will Trump Declare War on Iran?

Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
There are so many problems with this article and your assertions I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, WHY would anyone believe what Bibi Netanyahu says about anything, but particularly and more specifically about Iran? Bibi is as big a liar as Trump and it was Bibi who gave Trump his marching orders about getting OUT of the Iranian deal. So Trump DID...and now he and Bibi are genuinely surprised that Iran is suddenly doing what it wants regarding radioactive materials? What did they expect would happen?
Second, anyone who is under the impression that nuclear components can just be packed up in boxes-- and moved to other locations is batty as hell. This isn't like packing a suitcase, for Pete's sake.
Iranian labs and factories contain millions of valves, machines, storage tanks, mixing vats, pumps, compressors, voltage regulators, pressure sensors and fuel rods, as well as miles of piping and tons of deadly materials, including the radioactive kind. The job of inspecting is so daunting that the agency’s inspectors frequently describe themselves as buried.
Third, this isn't 1980. Inspections today involved high-tech surveillance--in real-time, including laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks that let the inspectors closely monitor Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
AND last, WHY SHOULD Iran continue to follow rules set by the International Atomic Energy Agency when other countries like the U.S. have backed out? The minute--the second Trump renigged on the agreement--it was over--no matter how many other countries stayed and hoped for the best. Everyone KNEW what Iran would do--eventually. AND THEY DID and somehow RW Americans are surprised?
Well, there is certainly a lot of infrastructure that needs to be in place, especially when utilizing less advanced, early design centrifuges, when any country starts enriching unenriched uranium, mainly because of the large quantity of material that needs to be processed.

However, this said, that infrastructure can be significantly scaled down once enough low and especially medium enriched uranium is stockpiled because most of the material processing work has already been done by those enrichment stages. Also, if Iran were to utilize centrifuges of their most advance design, of which they recently publicly stated they are currently investigating doing, just a small fraction of infrastructure is needed when compared with when they utilize their current active early design centrifuges, even when they begin with entirely unenriched feedstock.

(Indeed, I suspect that one of the factors in the decision-making of the Obama administration when they decided to try to make a deal with Iran is that Iran already had a significant quantity of low and medium enriched material to work with on-hand, as well as working designs of more advanced centrifuges...all of which would mean that, if Iran had decided to breakout and produce missile-ready nuclear weapons, they could potentially do that with very little infrastructure that would be much easier to keep hidden from prying eyes.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
I bet that was the plan.
In a way, I don't blame Iran for, starting as of mid-year last year, somewhat slightly exceeding its uranium enrichment level and stockpile limits, as a response to the US unilaterally reneging on the nuclear deal and insisting on a new deal while applying sanctions on Iran.

This said, though, I suspect Iran might just be testing the waters, so to speak, to see how the international community responds when Iran doesn't live up to it's commitments regarding the nuclear deal. And, pending that response, I suspect they will either go back to staying within the constraints of the nuclear deal or they will act further outside the constraints of the nuclear deal. And, so far the response from the International community has been rather mute.

Thus, even if the Trump administration was relying on Iran to act outside the constraints of the nuclear deal in response to the US's actions under the Trump administration, I suspect that the Trump administration expected much more of a response from the international community since Iran has already gone outside the constraints of the nuclear deal without much of a response from the international community. But, I guess that kind of response should be expected when the US unilaterally backs out of an international deal that other countries-particularly Iran-were adhering to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Feb 2018
2,306
1,591
Oregon
I've heard some analysts say that if the US had never meddled in Ear-RON, today they would probably be a democracy. It's interesting to contemplate that and think what a difference it would have made in our ME policy as well as world peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Sep 2019
232
85
CA
I've looked through the IAEA reports. I didn't turn up any official report on the matter.

To everyone, I understand there's a lot of conflicting information out there and some of it may even be false. Problem is, we need to error on the side of caution when it comes to a nation that has proven to be threatened by our very being. Iran, North Korea, and others have all proven unreliable to keep promises in the past. That's not to say they couldn't, only that we should error on the side of caution and gradually have loosened the reigns rather than unfreezing billions of dollars overnight.

Is there evidence showing that they did or didn't comply? Well, I'm not a Nuclear Physicist so I defer those questions to people who are in the field to determine. Now, I am totally against Obama and Biden releasing the funds like they did without approval and shipping out some of Iran's frozen funds in the dead of night. That screams to me how crooked and secretive it was for our leader to take such egregious steps in the middle of the night as opposed to in the day with everyone watching.

So, was there some hints that Iran wasn't being totally honest...maybe. Was it enough to want to look deeper? Absolutely. We need to have less nuclear warheads in the world, not more and for a nation like Iran which is predominately led by religious belief, it's pretty scary because all it takes is for them to think we're persecuting their beliefs and suddenly they can justify using such nukes. At least in this government, like it or not, we require far more checks and powers to initiate a nuclear strike. Our presidents have the power to send drone strikes like Obama's 500+ or Trump's recent one that took out a terrorist. But not a nuclear strike...the same can't be said about Iran which is why we NEED to be sure before we ever released their funds that could be used to further their nuclear program.

I get it, many of you are optimists...I'm a pessimist. I expect the worst and when I don't get it, I'm happy because I'm never caught off guard. As an Optimist, you expect the best and you're constantly disappointed when people you put your trust in fail you. Like Iran, you want to believe they deserve to be treated fairly and are upholding their part...I don't think they are based on some findings and I always expect the worst from them because historically, they've proven me right too often.
 
Sep 2019
232
85
CA
There are so many problems with this article and your assertions I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, WHY would anyone believe what Bibi Netanyahu says about anything, but particularly and more specifically about Iran? Bibi is as big a liar as Trump and it was Bibi who gave Trump his marching orders about getting OUT of the Iranian deal. So Trump DID...and now he and Bibi are genuinely surprised that Iran is suddenly doing what it wants regarding radioactive materials? What did they expect would happen?
Second, anyone who is under the impression that nuclear components can just be packed up in boxes-- and moved to other locations is batty as hell. This isn't like packing a suitcase, for Pete's sake.
Iranian labs and factories contain millions of valves, machines, storage tanks, mixing vats, pumps, compressors, voltage regulators, pressure sensors and fuel rods, as well as miles of piping and tons of deadly materials, including the radioactive kind. The job of inspecting is so daunting that the agency’s inspectors frequently describe themselves as buried.
Third, this isn't 1980. Inspections today involved high-tech surveillance--in real-time, including laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks that let the inspectors closely monitor Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
AND last, WHY SHOULD Iran continue to follow rules set by the International Atomic Energy Agency when other countries like the U.S. have backed out? The minute--the second Trump renigged on the agreement--it was over--no matter how many other countries stayed and hoped for the best. Everyone KNEW what Iran would do--eventually. AND THEY DID and somehow RW Americans are surprised?
And there is it...."WHY would anyone believe what Bibi Netanyahu says about anything"

Seriously, that is the entire problem with you and people like you. You would rather only listen to people who agree with you and trust that information over consider anything else.

You're a waste. If you don't at least consider other information and research it yourself to see if there's a reason or justification, then you're a mindless idiot with your head firmly planted up your own ass. Seriously, no one needs to waste anytime reading anything from you since all you want to do is dismiss anyone who doesn't pat you on the back and say you're special. I'm so tired of people like you acting like you're so right and smart when you won't even look at other information to see when you're wrong.

I'm over wasting time with you since you clearly won't even consider contrary information.
 
Sep 2019
232
85
CA
...and the evidence that "Iran apparently was moving the materials around to avoid UN inspection" is...?

…and the evidence that "(Iran was) relocating materials from buildings about to be inspected" is...?

And, perhaps more importantly, the evidence that any of the alleged activities above had occurred after the JCPOA had gone into force via a UN Security Council Resolution is...?

:rolleyes:
Let's consider for one second. We have nuclear material...it's no longer in the warehouse but we can see the devices are saying it was here. It's now NOT here...and you ask the question, Where's the proof it moved and where's the proof it was Iran moving it. Wow.

Right now, to put this into perspective...there's an 8 month pregnant lady in front of you. I'm saying she's pregnant and you're asking where the father or the video showing she had sex. There HAD to be nuclear materials for there to register the trace amounts they got. Those materials aren't there anymore so it begs the question, WHERE ARE THEY! not what proof do we have that Iran moved them because clearly they moved them since they aren't there anymore. SO WHERE ARE THEY? That should be the question you ask yourself and others but instead, you prefer NOT to be logical or reasonable and instead prefer to be antagonistic.

Honestly, I really can't understand the stupidity of your questions. Even if you didn't believe the evidence from Israel, it should still warrant the question that materials were there and they aren't now. Logically they were moved so where are they? That at least makes logical sense. Any other nonsense is just that...nonsense.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,545
30,752
Colorado
Did you read my earlier post? Bibi directed the inspectors to a location where it was known that a small amount of uranium had been stored. Understand please, a record of this location was on hand, and the inspectors had free rein to do their job.

Traces of uranium, not enriched uranium but uranium, were found. Of course they were. Probably, unless the warehouse had been vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum some traces would remain.

The Iranians were compliant with the terms of the agreement. As for Bibi.....

He wants regime change and he wants the US to expend our blood and treasure to get it, like usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rescue Basket