4 ms·

> have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program The US Director of National Intelligence testified to congress a few weeks ago that no US intel

> have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program The US Director of National Intelligence testified to congress a few weeks ago that no US intelligence agency believes that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, and that they believed Iran was at least 3 years away from having the ability to build a nuclear bomb even if they tried. What you are saying directly contradicts what US intelligence agencies have said. A couple sources: https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-currently-developing-nuclear-weapons/ https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren... https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2051523 https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

dttze 1y ago
Not to mention the Ayatollah has had a long standing fatwa against the procurement of nuclear weapons.
- ben_w 1y ago
  Yeah, and the ten commandments in the New Testament don't give exceptions for "death penalty" and "war"*, that doesn't stop Christians from signing up for the military or even seeing a contradiction. * on the former, NT has an example of the crowd who want to stone someone, instead being convinced to leave; and the latter NT contains the origin of the phrase "to go the extra mile", which is about helping foreign soldiers occupying your territory and ordering you to help them (Matthew 5:41)
  - dttze 1y ago
    Just because most Christians are hypocrites that worship Mammon doesn't mean the Ayatollah is.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      "Ayatollah" is more like "Bishop" in this analogy. Bishop of Rome doesn't like AI, news reports this, nothing changes.
      - dttze 1y ago
        To be frank, you are ignorant on the topic and should do more research. This isn't the Catholic Church; he is the supreme leader of Iran and the commander in chief of their military. What he says goes.
        ben_w 1y ago
        The Bishop of Rome is more commonly (but technically incorrectly) known as "the Pope". There are thousands of Ayatollah, you mean specifically the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Catholic Church used to be powerful, but it too has had mismatches between even ex cathedra teachings and what people actually do: see also US politics having occasional arguments about if being Catholic disqualified someone from politics because they submitted to the Bishop of Rome over the people. And that's without the way government leaders often tell bold faced lies (and less obvious lies, too).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ngruhn 1y ago
No idea whether that estimate is accurate but 3 years doesn't sound long for an existential risk. If a large astroid hits earth in 3 years, I better do something now. Should probably have invaded 10 years ago.
- mousethatroared 1y ago
  Bibi has been saying that Iran is weeks away from the bomb since the 80s. Meanwhile, he's the only megalomaniac in the region with a Bomb.
  - ngruhn 1y ago
    so you think they're not trying to get a nuke?
    - mousethatroared 1y ago
      I thought I implied that I don't care.
      - noworriesnate 1y ago
        The obvious solution is to get Israel to give up nukes in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. I think that would everyone happy except the Israelis who want to murder people without repercussion.
        ngruhn 1y ago
        It's crazy to me that this is peoples take away. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas have the explicitly stated goal to annihilate Israel and its people. But Israel is the genozidal one. They're attacking military targets in Iran. Iran is bombing urban centers. I'm sure the IDF would very much prefer to only attack military targets in Gaza as well. Unfortunately, the Hamas decided to hide them under houses.
        1y ago
alephnerd 1y ago
> US Director of National Intelligence The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  Is there a better representative of the US intelligence agencies than the Director of National Intelligence? Maybe a true Scotsman?
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    At this moment no. Most administrative and strategy positions for Intel and Foreign Service seats have remained unconfirmed. Maybe the head of the CIA - John Ratcliffe, an avowed Iran+China Hawk - but this administration is hard to read given how disjointed and domestic-driven decisionmaking is. Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The DNI is by law [0] the head of the intelligence community; the role was created to separate that function from the CIA Director (formerly, "Director of Central Intelligence"), who previously was the head of the intelligence community as well as the head of one of the major constituent agencies within that community. The CIA, FBI, and NSA or components of the intelligence community, not "competitors" with the DNI. (And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill", which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.) [0] 50 U.S. Code § 3023(b)(1) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President, the Director of National Intelligence shall— (1) serve as head of the intelligence community; (2) act as the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and (3) consistent with section 1018 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023
whodidntante 1y ago
So, is Tulsi Gabbard now considered a reliable source of intelligence ? And that it should be no one's concern about a regime that is stretched for resources yet has over a dozen very expensive facilities working on militarizing nuclear technology that also publicly and repeatedly calls for the destruction of not just Israel but also America ?
- mousethatroared 1y ago
  This wasn't Tulsi saying it, but the intelligence community going back to the dubbya administration. Some of us are old enough to remember. In honor of W. "fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice? Well you cant fool me twice"
  - whodidntante 1y ago
    I think this is quite different than Iraq. We know Iran has many sites were they are developing nuclear technology, sites that they not only do they not let inspections happen, but that are literally buried deep in the ground. We also know they are acquiring or have acquired the technology to enrich to weapons grade, and they themselves have said they will continue to enrich beyond what a civilian program needs. In other words, this is not a civilian energy program. Maybe they can build a bomb in 1 month, maybe three years. You may not agree whether or not action should be taken, but I do not see that agreement/disagreement based on the difference. In any case, our "intelligence" community has lost a lot of credibility, and has been politicized for decades. I would not bet my life, let alone an entire nation, on what they have to say.
    - mousethatroared 1y ago
      [dead]
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      If the intelligence community is not trust worthy, then upon what are you basing the claims in your post?

dttze 1y ago

Not to mention the Ayatollah has had a long standing fatwa against the procurement of nuclear weapons.

ben_w 1y ago
Yeah, and the ten commandments in the New Testament don't give exceptions for "death penalty" and "war"*, that doesn't stop Christians from signing up for the military or even seeing a contradiction. * on the former, NT has an example of the crowd who want to stone someone, instead being convinced to leave; and the latter NT contains the origin of the phrase "to go the extra mile", which is about helping foreign soldiers occupying your territory and ordering you to help them (Matthew 5:41)
- dttze 1y ago
  Just because most Christians are hypocrites that worship Mammon doesn't mean the Ayatollah is.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    "Ayatollah" is more like "Bishop" in this analogy. Bishop of Rome doesn't like AI, news reports this, nothing changes.
    - dttze 1y ago
      To be frank, you are ignorant on the topic and should do more research. This isn't the Catholic Church; he is the supreme leader of Iran and the commander in chief of their military. What he says goes.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        The Bishop of Rome is more commonly (but technically incorrectly) known as "the Pope". There are thousands of Ayatollah, you mean specifically the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Catholic Church used to be powerful, but it too has had mismatches between even ex cathedra teachings and what people actually do: see also US politics having occasional arguments about if being Catholic disqualified someone from politics because they submitted to the Bishop of Rome over the people. And that's without the way government leaders often tell bold faced lies (and less obvious lies, too).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ngruhn 1y ago

No idea whether that estimate is accurate but 3 years doesn't sound long for an existential risk. If a large astroid hits earth in 3 years, I better do something now. Should probably have invaded 10 years ago.

mousethatroared 1y ago
Bibi has been saying that Iran is weeks away from the bomb since the 80s. Meanwhile, he's the only megalomaniac in the region with a Bomb.
- ngruhn 1y ago
  so you think they're not trying to get a nuke?
  - mousethatroared 1y ago
    I thought I implied that I don't care.
    - noworriesnate 1y ago
      The obvious solution is to get Israel to give up nukes in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. I think that would everyone happy except the Israelis who want to murder people without repercussion.
      - ngruhn 1y ago
        It's crazy to me that this is peoples take away. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas have the explicitly stated goal to annihilate Israel and its people. But Israel is the genozidal one. They're attacking military targets in Iran. Iran is bombing urban centers. I'm sure the IDF would very much prefer to only attack military targets in Gaza as well. Unfortunately, the Hamas decided to hide them under houses.
        1y ago

alephnerd 1y ago

> US Director of National Intelligence The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.

Buttons840 1y ago
Is there a better representative of the US intelligence agencies than the Director of National Intelligence? Maybe a true Scotsman?
- alephnerd 1y ago
  At this moment no. Most administrative and strategy positions for Intel and Foreign Service seats have remained unconfirmed. Maybe the head of the CIA - John Ratcliffe, an avowed Iran+China Hawk - but this administration is hard to read given how disjointed and domestic-driven decisionmaking is. Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The DNI is by law [0] the head of the intelligence community; the role was created to separate that function from the CIA Director (formerly, "Director of Central Intelligence"), who previously was the head of the intelligence community as well as the head of one of the major constituent agencies within that community. The CIA, FBI, and NSA or components of the intelligence community, not "competitors" with the DNI. (And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill", which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.) [0] 50 U.S. Code § 3023(b)(1) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President, the Director of National Intelligence shall— (1) serve as head of the intelligence community; (2) act as the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and (3) consistent with section 1018 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023

whodidntante 1y ago

So, is Tulsi Gabbard now considered a reliable source of intelligence ? And that it should be no one's concern about a regime that is stretched for resources yet has over a dozen very expensive facilities working on militarizing nuclear technology that also publicly and repeatedly calls for the destruction of not just Israel but also America ?

mousethatroared 1y ago
This wasn't Tulsi saying it, but the intelligence community going back to the dubbya administration. Some of us are old enough to remember. In honor of W. "fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice? Well you cant fool me twice"
- whodidntante 1y ago
  I think this is quite different than Iraq. We know Iran has many sites were they are developing nuclear technology, sites that they not only do they not let inspections happen, but that are literally buried deep in the ground. We also know they are acquiring or have acquired the technology to enrich to weapons grade, and they themselves have said they will continue to enrich beyond what a civilian program needs. In other words, this is not a civilian energy program. Maybe they can build a bomb in 1 month, maybe three years. You may not agree whether or not action should be taken, but I do not see that agreement/disagreement based on the difference. In any case, our "intelligence" community has lost a lot of credibility, and has been politicized for decades. I would not bet my life, let alone an entire nation, on what they have to say.
  - mousethatroared 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    If the intelligence community is not trust worthy, then upon what are you basing the claims in your post?