297
no increase in radiation following US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
297 points (97.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3035 readers
1036 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I find it a little hard to swallow that since inspections ended (thanks to Trump) that Iran hasn't started enriching some weapons grade uranium. It's not like it takes different equipment.
The "intelligence" that Iran is weeks away from getting a weapon is obviously complete bullshit. I'm just saying that I'm sure they have been working that direction, maybe just preparing for a time when it made more strategic sense to start building them. If they ever want nukes, they will need to make a whole lot at once, just to avoid getting invaded after the first test.
So you pulled that out of your ass or back up your claims?
Khamenei is my uncle.
What uses for 60% enriched uranium that don't involve nuclear weapons are you aware of?
Go explain it to the IAEA since you know better than them 🤡
The IAEA agrees with me. They are very concerned that Iran has almost certainly moved their 60% stock to an undisclosed location.
60% is still a long ways off from making a bomb, but there is also no reason to get it that far except to go further.
They don't agree with you.
They didn't want it blown up by the US terrorists.
US broke the deal, IAEA is also not impartial and despite all that Iran cooperated while they didn't need to.
Cry all you want, I hope Iran starts on the bomb or Pakistan gives them one.
They deserve it.
I didn't say they blamed Iran, but concerned is concerned and it's pretty damn easy to Google. I'm not crying, I'm not supporting US actions, I'm not saying Iran is the devil. None of this has been part of this conversation until now, it's just the argument you want to have, and I'm not interested.
great, good riddance
Indeed, I agree. I phrased that sentence with great care, to point out that there are plenty of legitimate, non-weapons reasons for Iran to have a nuclear materials enrichment program, and it is well-documented that it has been using its program for exactly that. That's the important point, here: Iran has a right to enrich uranium for domestic use, and had been doing so under the supervision of IAEA inspectors who verified that it was for domestic use, but the U.S. regime is deploying propaganda to bury that fact.
Maybe the government also had a secondary aim of maintaining a "breakout capability" to be able to produce material for weapons in a relatively short time. I wouldn't be surprised, because... that's exactly what I think I would do were I in their shoes, facing a genocidal, revanchist enemy enabled by a superpower that spends stunning amounts of money on invading and destroying other nations.
This part is just wrong. The IAEA has continued to report on Iran as best they can, but their monitoring equipment has been removed and there have been no inspections for over four years. I don't want to repeat myself, but elsewhere in this discussion I included excerpts from the most recent IAEA quarterly report that back this up.
How is this wrong? If the monitoring equipment was removed, it had to have been there at some point. Thus, Iran had been doing enrichment under IAEA supervision, which is what the JCPOA was all about until TACO tanked it.
I don't think anybody is saying Iran didn't have inspectors and monitoring at some point, but four years is a lot of time.
I also think it's pretty common knowledge that Trump tore up Obama's agreement. I still think it should be mentioned more, as well as Biden's 180 on his campaign promise to reinstate it.