[Briar King]

I’m not an expert on the specifics of the JPOCA. I know many people feel it was just a kick the can down the road deal to now or possibly next term but not way down the line. Bibi told everyone he was going to do this at his Congressional address and he sure didn’t wait to long after the IAEAs report on Iran. I don’t see any reason of having 60% enrichment other then going for weaponizing it and I don’t see how anyone in the West could be unconcerned with that reporting the IAEA put out. Barring using tactical nukes(freeing Russia to use in Ukraine) and attacking the civilians of Iran I THINK I’m ok with his decision today. We can all hope it doesn’t go further than that but there’s no way they won’t attempt to do something back. And for fuck sake don’t take it the regime change route.

[Maark Abbott]

Honestly, I'm less concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than America having them, considering who's in charge of the Big Red Button right now.

[Tsundoku]

Maark Abbott, on 22 June 2025 - 05:36 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm less concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than America having them, considering who's in charge of the Big Red Button right now.

Mmmmmmmm ... hoping you're half joking there Maarky Maark. I can see your point though regarding Dear Leader Trump.
But in all seriousness (what? I can do serious), I believe (hope!) the checks and balances on nukes in the USA are better than what would be in a fundamentalist theocracy that seems to be more concerned with the next world and how to get into it than this one. Or it's own people.

Honestly, I think the strikes were probably too much of an escalation, too soon. May have had more support for something like them a bit further down the line. It's not going to win them any friends. But then again, who knows? The only predictable thing in this whole mess is the unpredictability. And Bibi and Trump doing whatever they think will benefit themselves in the short term.

I'm no expert in nuclear geopolitics, so I can't comment on how soon Iran may have had the ability to a- create a bomb and b- project it by however means.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 22 June 2025 - 06:35 AM

[Maark Abbott]

Tsundoku, on 22 June 2025 - 06:32 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 22 June 2025 - 05:36 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm less concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than America having them, considering who's in charge of the Big Red Button right now.

Mmmmmmmm ... hoping you're half joking there Maarky Maark. I can see your point though regarding Dear Leader Trump.
But in all seriousness (what? I can do serious), I believe (hope!) the checks and balances on nukes in the USA are better than what would be in a fundamentalist theocracy that seems to be more concerned with the next world and how to get into it than this one. Or it's own people.

Honestly, I think the strikes were probably too much of an escalation, too soon. May have had more support for something like them a bit further down the line. It's not going to win them any friends. But then again, who knows? The only predictable thing in this whole mess is the unpredictability. And Bibi and Trump doing whatever they think will benefit themselves in the short term.

I'm no expert in nuclear geopolitics, so I can't comment on how soon Iran may have had the ability to a- create a bomb and b- project it by however means.

Honestly, I don't know if I'm joking. But don't take it as confirmation of trust in Iran - take it as confirmation of the utter lack of trust in the current US administration.

[Tiste Simeon]

Tsundoku, on 22 June 2025 - 06:32 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 22 June 2025 - 05:36 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm less concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than America having them, considering who's in charge of the Big Red Button right now.

Mmmmmmmm ... hoping you're half joking there Maarky Maark. I can see your point though regarding Dear Leader Trump.
But in all seriousness (what? I can do serious), I believe (hope!) the checks and balances on nukes in the USA are better than what would be in a fundamentalist theocracy that seems to be more concerned with the next world and how to get into it than this one. Or it's own people.

I mean you've just described Israel, who are the ones who have not allowed any inspectors in the country, not have they complied with any other international treaties...

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Tiste Simeon, on 22 June 2025 - 08:26 AM, said:

Tsundoku, on 22 June 2025 - 06:32 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 22 June 2025 - 05:36 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm less concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than America having them, considering who's in charge of the Big Red Button right now.

Mmmmmmmm ... hoping you're half joking there Maarky Maark. I can see your point though regarding Dear Leader Trump.
But in all seriousness (what? I can do serious), I believe (hope!) the checks and balances on nukes in the USA are better than what would be in a fundamentalist theocracy that seems to be more concerned with the next world and how to get into it than this one. Or it's own people.

I mean you've just described Israel, who are the ones who have not allowed any inspectors in the country, not have they complied with any other international treaties...

While religious fundamentalists do have an outsized influence in Israel, I don't think they dominate the government.

Quote

Netanyahu was born into a secular Jewish family that did not practice Judaism as a religion and he himself is thoroughly secular. Netanyahu was born into a secular Jewish family that did not practice Judaism as a religion and he himself is thoroughly secular. Nonetheless, he is more than willing to use the Bible to defend the Jewish right-by-birth to the "Land of Israel" from the Jordan River to the sea and willing to call upon the Bible to validate violence.

It is a fact, and a troublesome one, that Hebrew Scripture demands, defends and praises extreme violence in many passages of the text.

https://www.timesarg...91f631fd24.html

Going by what are apparently the latest publicly available survey numbers (according to Wikipedia),

Quote

As of 2009, 42% of Israeli Jews defined themselves as "secular"; on the other opposite, 8% defined themselves as haredi (ultra-orthodox); an additional 12% as "religious"; 13% as "traditional (religious)"; and 25% as "traditional (non-religious)".

https://en.wikipedia...e%20Christians.

So 42%+25% = 67% > 50% of Israeli Jews describe themselves as secular or non-religious. And Israel seems to be a functioning democracy.

My guess is that Netanyahu's less religious than Hitler was. (At least insofar as superstition counts as religion.)

Maybe even less religious than Trump, who might honestly believe he has the grace of kings. Divine providence saved him from that bullet. Made it miraculously not rain on his fascist parade, despite what he claims was a predicted 100% chance of rain, as he kept telling Starmer.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 June 2025 - 10:43 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

Yeah I get that but it's still "promised land" and "God's chosen people" as a part of their reasoning.

[Primateus]

War has begun, it would seem.

[Werthead]

Iran's parliament has passed a resolution approving shutting the Straits of Hormuz. The resolution is not binding, but provides additional legal cover to the political and religious leadership if they choose to proceed.

Oil tankers have been turning away from the straits all day and been heading for other ports instead.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Economists will be closely watching the strait because of global economic repercussions that would almost surely follow any disruptions there.

Analysts at JPMorgan Chase (JPM) have called a blockage there a "worst-case scenario" and suggested the result could be global oil prices reaching $120 a barrel and pushing inflation in the US to 5%.

[...] it benefits Iran to "use low-ranking officials to talk about closing Hormuz," because it sows instability. But it would actually damage Iran to follow through. [...] "If its oil production and terminals are badly damaged, we can then seriously consider the possibility of Tehran shutting the strait."

The overall landscape has led Trump administration to express tempered confidence Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz option is one that won't be taken.

"That would be suicidal," Vance said

https://finance.yaho...-185307643.html

Trump administration: can't let Iran be potentially months away from having a nuke because they're suicidal Islamic extremists.

Also the Trump administration: Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, that would be suicidal.

Wonder to what extent financial analysts and financial media are downplaying the threat to keep people from panic selling (or hoarding oil...).Russian, Norwegian, Latin American and oh right American American oil companies will benefit, among others....

Quote

Satellite Images Undermine Trump's Claim Iran's Atomic Sites Destroyed

[...] Trump said heavily fortified sites were "totally obliterated" [...] Satellite images taken on Sunday of Fordow and distributed by Maxar Technologies show new craters, possible collapsed tunnel entrances and holes on top of a mountain ridge.

They also show that a large support building on the Fordow site, which operators may use to control ventilation for the underground enrichment halls, remained undamaged. There were no radiation releases from the site, the IAEA reported.

New pictures of Natanz show a new crater about 5.5 meters (18 feet) in diameter. Maxar said in a statement that the new hole was visible in the dirt directly over a part of the underground enrichment facility. The image doesn't offer conclusive evidence that the attack breached the underground site, buried 40 meters under ground and reinforced with an 8-meter think concrete and steel shell.

US Air Force General Dan Caine[spawn?] [said] an assessment of "final battle damage will take some time."

https://finance.yaho...-132948201.html

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 June 2025 - 08:10 PM

[Werthead]

Iran has always been a semi-rational actor, in the sense that its actions have at least some basis in logic behind them (even if occasionally myopic). Iran agreed to a suspension of its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief and that worked splendidly until Trump tore up the deal just because Obama had signed it. Recently, the deal Trump had been pushing on the Iranians looked suspiciously like the one that Obama had successfully argued for in the first place.

Iran's argument was that it would cooperate with the west in return for not starving its economy. But once it saw North Korea weaponise its nuclear bombs and immediately all talk of bombing or invading North Korea halted (not this was ever realistic, due to China's proximity), it realised it needed nukes as well, not to use them (as doing so would destroy it instantly) but to prevent any kind of military adventurism against it by Israel or the United States in future, and also safeguard the regime externally. In real terms, despite Iran's extreme rhetoric about Israel, it had never launched any kind of direct attack on Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran would probably be about the level of a nuclear-armed Pakistan (or Israel, for that matter) to deal with, problematic and troublesome, but likely stable and reasonable. A nuclear-armed Iran would almost certainly be less of a headache than a nuclear-armed North Korea, for example.

However, Israel's fear was that a nuclear-armed Iran would be invulnerable and could just fund and push Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis to attack Israel constantly whilst Israel had only limited response options. The US fear was also that a nuclear-armed Iran would be utterly unacceptable to the Sunni nations, so Saudi Arabia would move quickly to secure its own nuclear programme (possibly in collaboration with Oman, Qatar and the UAE, in return for them being put under a Saudi nuclear umbrella), followed rapidly by Egypt and Turkey. The chances of a regional nuclear miscalculation at that point would be high.

Iran's current response options are limited. Closing the straits or attacking US bases would result in additional US strikes on Iranian territory, and possibly a more decisive move to decapitate the regime. An Iranian short-range land invasion of Iraq and Kuwait to destroy American bases could be successful (Iraq would possibly not lift a finger to stop them) but without air cover or AA assets, the ground forces would be pummelled into annihilation. Using Iraqi militias to attack US bases would probably go as well as it usually does (no dead Americans and lots of dead militia). But if Iran does nothing, the regime looks very weak, and they could argue that Israel is constantly hitting their military and government assets anyway, so there might be little difference in the long run, and a sharp poke in the US eye could convince other world powers to step in and try to settle the situation.

Ultimately, Iran cannot be properly stopped from acquiring a nuclear weapon without a full ground invasion and occupation, which would tie up over a million US troops. I don't see that being remotely viable or practical.

[Mentalist]

Honestly, Iran should say "yes, woe is us, US destroyed our nuclear facilities. now lift sanctions, plz"

While moving everything to the last known site (even deeper int he mountains) and accelerate work on the nukes. I'm sure putler could help with that.

I've been saying that it's inevitable that Iran will go nuclear since 2014 (look it up), and nothing we've seen has shaken that belief.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth went on the Sunday shows to reassure the world that the US intervention is not aiming for regime change. But then...

Quote

In a Truth Social post Sunday, the president unraveled the narrative that the U.S. strikes on Iran were not leading up to a "regime change" in the region.

"It's not politically correct to use the term, "Regime Change," but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!"

https://www.thedaily...an-regime-post/

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Suppose US and Israeli airstrikes are able to cause regime collapse.

Between containing the nuclear material, avoiding a mass refugee crisis, and maintaining the flow of oil, many others nations have a vested interest in maintaining stability in Iran. Even China, which imports most of Iran's oil.

And some EU nations and China may be eager to give their militaries (and military technologies) a bit of combat experience. For obvious reasons.

So is an international post-collapse peacekeeping force / occupation to ensure a stable transition out of the question?

Granted, China might not want a democracy.... and installing a foreign-business-friendly autocrat is what led to the fundamentalist revolution before.

[QuickTidal]

Werthead, on 22 June 2025 - 06:54 PM, said:

Iran's parliament has passed a resolution approving shutting the Straits of Hormuz. The resolution is not binding, but provides additional legal cover to the political and religious leadership if they choose to proceed.

Oil tankers have been turning away from the straits all day and been heading for other ports instead.

Good. Even two weeks of it being shut will bring the US economy to a grinding halt, and Trump will be forced to reckon with what the fuck he's done.

Azath Vitr (D, on 22 June 2025 - 08:05 PM, said:

Trump administration: can't let Iran be potentially months away from having a nuke because they're suicidal Islamic extremists.

Also the Trump administration: Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, that would be suicidal.

Right?

LOL, what a clown.


Also, do they TRULY think the "they are just _______ away from a nuclear bomb" argument that they've been using since 1995 is still going to work on a public that is FAR more informed from non-biased (or perhaps just OTHER biased) sources?


Again, the BEST protest sign I saw in the last few years was "It's not 2003 anymore. You can't lie to us."


Saw a great Bsky tweet: "It is possible to hold concurrent thoughts that the current Israeli govt, the regime in Tehran, AND the Trump administration are all evil shits. There's no sides here you need or want to support."

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2025 - 09:47 AM, said:

Suppose US and Israeli airstrikes are able to cause regime collapse.

They can't. Iraq was all flat and was easier to unilaterally bomb. Iran however, is mountainous AF and as such there's far too many places to hide from bombings...they'd need boots on the ground, and that would be even more disastrous than Iraq AND Afghanistan....think Vietnam for shitstorm level.

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2025 - 09:47 AM, said:

Even China, which imports most of Iran's oil.

They do, but sidebar, China (ever smarter than the USA) has been mass stockpiling oil for like 2 decades now, and have like a 500 million barrel surplus. I mean they will back Iran, for sure, but the USA lost any bargaining chips in this - they could ask the Chinese to go to the Iranians to NOT close the Straight of Hormuz...but then China doesn't need to because of their stockpile.. Once again Trump is the nadir of any negotiations by just being his petulant, mercurial nonsense self. So now you have a sitch where China can basically say "'You want our help, nuke your tariffs entirely and let us sell EVs in the States" and Trump has no power to say no.

[HoosierDaddy]

QuickTidal, on 23 June 2025 - 11:41 AM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2025 - 09:47 AM, said:

Suppose US and Israeli airstrikes are able to cause regime collapse.

They can't. Iraq was all flat and was easier to unilaterally bomb. Iran however, is mountainous AF and as such there's far too many places to hide from bombings...they'd need boots on the ground, and that would be even more disastrous than Iraq AND Afghanistan....think Vietnam for shitstorm level.

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2025 - 09:47 AM, said:

Even China, which imports most of Iran's oil.

They do, but sidebar, China (ever smarter than the USA) has been mass stockpiling oil for like 2 decades now, and have like a 500 million barrel surplus. I mean they will back Iran, for sure, but the USA lost any bargaining chips in this - they could ask the Chinese to go to the Iranians to NOT close the Straight of Hormuz...but then China doesn't need to because of their stockpile.. Once again Trump is the nadir of any negotiations by just being his petulant, mercurial nonsense self. So now you have a sitch where China can basically say "'You want our help, nuke your tariffs entirely and let us sell EVs in the States" and Trump has no power to say no.

Not dismissing your point, but to be clear with facts: the US does have the strategic oil reserve that is 714 million barrels at nearly all times.

[QuickTidal]

HoosierDaddy, on 23 June 2025 - 12:14 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 23 June 2025 - 11:41 AM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2025 - 09:47 AM, said:

Suppose US and Israeli airstrikes are able to cause regime collapse.

They can't. Iraq was all flat and was easier to unilaterally bomb. Iran however, is mountainous AF and as such there's far too many places to hide from bombings...they'd need boots on the ground, and that would be even more disastrous than Iraq AND Afghanistan....think Vietnam for shitstorm level.

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2025 - 09:47 AM, said:

Even China, which imports most of Iran's oil.

They do, but sidebar, China (ever smarter than the USA) has been mass stockpiling oil for like 2 decades now, and have like a 500 million barrel surplus. I mean they will back Iran, for sure, but the USA lost any bargaining chips in this - they could ask the Chinese to go to the Iranians to NOT close the Straight of Hormuz...but then China doesn't need to because of their stockpile.. Once again Trump is the nadir of any negotiations by just being his petulant, mercurial nonsense self. So now you have a sitch where China can basically say "'You want our help, nuke your tariffs entirely and let us sell EVs in the States" and Trump has no power to say no.

Not dismissing your point, but to be clear with facts: the US does have the strategic oil reserve that is 714 million barrels at nearly all times.

Right, but the point is that China's oil won't stop, and their back supply will stay put as Iran will deal with their ally over the US...and the US reserve, would take billions and YEARS to replace...no matter what happens, China's position in all this is once again FAR greater than the US.

And all due to Trumps hubris and narcissism, as usual.

[Cause]

The USA gets very little of its oil through the straight of Hormuz, practically none in the grand total of its usage (< 5%). Blocking the straight only works as a tactic in increasing the price of oil by altering the supply. If Iran continues to supply China oil this strategy doesn't really work. That's where the oil is going anyway. Also to India, Japan and South Korea. So either Iran hurts everyone or it doesn't do anything. The USA also as already pointed out sits on the worlds largest strategic reserve of oil (Though its thirst is apporx 1.4 times greater than Chinas) and is also currently a net exporter of oil. As someone said above its not 2003 anymore.

Iran's airforce is not a threat, nor is its navy. Closing the straight would mean firing missiles at an oil tanker. They would be responsible for the ecological damage that would results. The straight is also 33 km wide at its narrowest point. A few sunk ships wont close it either. Attempting to close it would also piss off the rest of the Gulf states who regardless of what they may say publicly are privately pleased to see Iran taken down a peg and are not supporting Iran with their actions, often the opposite.

Trump is a walking, talking disaster as Potus. Israel is not very popular right now. Still as I would not willingly subject myself to live under either the Iranian or Chinese government I am going to hope that America, the country where I do live, comes out on top.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 23 June 2025 - 01:34 PM, said:

The USA gets very little of its oil through the straight of Hormuz, practically none in the grand total of its usage (< 5%).

It's 7% and though you want to downplay that, it's not nothing.

Cause, on 23 June 2025 - 01:34 PM, said:

Blocking the straight only works as a tactic in increasing the price of oil by altering the supply.

Any disruption in supply causes everyone in the oil sector to take a piece of the pie. EVERYTHING goes up. Thinking that gas won't eventually skyrocket as a result of this going on is silly. There's historical evidence it does eventually start affected things a lot.

And if it wasn't doing something, then Rubio would not be asking China to ask Iran not to close it...I assure you the Trump admin is not asking for them not to close it for the benefit of OTHER countries...That's not even a little bit their style.

Cause, on 23 June 2025 - 01:34 PM, said:

Trump is a walking, talking disaster as Potus. Israel is not very popular right now. Still as I would not willingly subject myself to live under either the Iranian or Chinese government I am going to hope that America, the country where I do live, comes out on top.

I didn't realize the US had radicalized you this much Cause, but you do you. Just to be clear...You hope the country where you lives comes out on top of a war THEY started in a foreign sovereign country under spurious reasons at the behest of a totally different foreign govt?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 June 2025 - 04:20 PM