4 ms·

This is just theater. With or without cooperation, western countries will rely on espionage to assess what Iran is doing with its nuclear program. Iran was pro

This is just theater. With or without cooperation, western countries will rely on espionage to assess what Iran is doing with its nuclear program. Iran was probably never fully transparent with the IAEA, and despite declaring everywhere that their nuclear program is "peaceful", they enriched uranium to levels far beyond what is necessary for power - while developing systems and mechanisms required for a nuclear bomb such as a massive ICBM industry and warhead R&D. It is so blatantly obvious that Iran was doing this while trying to dupe the IAEA, that it somewhat reminds me of the martians from Mars Attacks who keep playing the "we come in peace" message while running around shooting lasers. Hopefully Iran's facilities suffered enough damage to create new opportunities.

NomDePlum 1y ago
Have you got sources for those claims? IAEA inspections are not just theater — they are the formal mechanism for verification under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). So not sure why you state that. Iran had a good record of compliance until the US started moving goalposts around about 2018. Even since then it's been less transparent but partly that can be attributed to others shifting position. It's not one sided. Enrichment has been above normal civilian use but also it's been a fair way off weapons grade. So that's not correct. Warhead R&D in this area is commonly held to have stopped around about 2003. So again I don't believe your claims are correct. The current situation with Iran appears highly manufactured. There is a fair amount of rhetoric in your claims which doesn't help either.
- nickff 1y ago
  Not the parent, but the IAEA did find Iran to be non-compliant just before the Israeli strike: https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-finds-iran-in-non-compliance-with-nuclear-obligations https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-find...
  - NomDePlum 1y ago
    Sure, that's true and reasonably serious. However, the non-compliance was the first time in 20 years and based on not providing timely co-operation. So largely procedural and not close to being an indication that a verified weapons programme was being undertaken. Certainly it did not merit the Israeli strikes at all as that more than anything sets back the oversight of Iran.
    - nickff 1y ago
      I am not sure what would 'merit' military action; that's a difficult political question, especially when one party suspects that their counter-party is lying.
      - NomDePlum 1y ago
        Pre-emptive strikes are illegal under international law except for in very narrow circumstances. The circumstances in this case where nowhere close to that. So I wouldn't agree it's a difficult political question. Israel and the US are parties to those laws and clearly broke them. It's unclear why, it does appear politically motivated rather than actually about any actual threat or particular intelligence.
        nickff 1y ago
        In your view, would the USA, Japan, or South Korea have been justified in striking North Korea’s nuclear program at any point before or after their development of nuclear weapons? If so, when? Note that North Korea has repeatedly threatened to re-unify the country by force.
        NomDePlum 1y ago
        I'm not really aware of the circumstances of that so hard to say. I'm more aware of Iran because of recent events. I'd doubt it would have been legal and if that was the case I would not see it as justified. I'm not aware of any illegal wars this century that I do see as justified. I personally don't believe any country should have nuclear weapons.
- tguvot 1y ago
  iaea report about iran having undeclared locations/programs/materials/etc going back 15 years and more https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
  - NomDePlum 1y ago
    Those are dated in the 1990s to early 2000s do they not? There aren't similar current findings I don't believe.
    - tguvot 1y ago
      they not. spelled out in the document
nickff 1y ago
It is well-known that Iran has enriched Uranium to 60%, much more than the 5% which is commonly required for nuclear reactors, and also more than the 20% required by some specialized reactor designs. Iran has clearly tried to position itself as a 'threshold nuclear power', as enriching to 90% (from 60%) is relatively quick and easy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

NomDePlum 1y ago

Have you got sources for those claims? IAEA inspections are not just theater — they are the formal mechanism for verification under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). So not sure why you state that. Iran had a good record of compliance until the US started moving goalposts around about 2018. Even since then it's been less transparent but partly that can be attributed to others shifting position. It's not one sided. Enrichment has been above normal civilian use but also it's been a fair way off weapons grade. So that's not correct. Warhead R&D in this area is commonly held to have stopped around about 2003. So again I don't believe your claims are correct. The current situation with Iran appears highly manufactured. There is a fair amount of rhetoric in your claims which doesn't help either.

nickff 1y ago
Not the parent, but the IAEA did find Iran to be non-compliant just before the Israeli strike: https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-finds-iran-in-non-compliance-with-nuclear-obligations https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-find...
- NomDePlum 1y ago
  Sure, that's true and reasonably serious. However, the non-compliance was the first time in 20 years and based on not providing timely co-operation. So largely procedural and not close to being an indication that a verified weapons programme was being undertaken. Certainly it did not merit the Israeli strikes at all as that more than anything sets back the oversight of Iran.
  - nickff 1y ago
    I am not sure what would 'merit' military action; that's a difficult political question, especially when one party suspects that their counter-party is lying.
    - NomDePlum 1y ago
      Pre-emptive strikes are illegal under international law except for in very narrow circumstances. The circumstances in this case where nowhere close to that. So I wouldn't agree it's a difficult political question. Israel and the US are parties to those laws and clearly broke them. It's unclear why, it does appear politically motivated rather than actually about any actual threat or particular intelligence.
      - nickff 1y ago
        In your view, would the USA, Japan, or South Korea have been justified in striking North Korea’s nuclear program at any point before or after their development of nuclear weapons? If so, when? Note that North Korea has repeatedly threatened to re-unify the country by force.
        NomDePlum 1y ago
        I'm not really aware of the circumstances of that so hard to say. I'm more aware of Iran because of recent events. I'd doubt it would have been legal and if that was the case I would not see it as justified. I'm not aware of any illegal wars this century that I do see as justified. I personally don't believe any country should have nuclear weapons.
tguvot 1y ago
iaea report about iran having undeclared locations/programs/materials/etc going back 15 years and more https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
- NomDePlum 1y ago
  Those are dated in the 1990s to early 2000s do they not? There aren't similar current findings I don't believe.
  - tguvot 1y ago
    they not. spelled out in the document

nickff 1y ago

It is well-known that Iran has enriched Uranium to 60%, much more than the 5% which is commonly required for nuclear reactors, and also more than the 20% required by some specialized reactor designs. Iran has clearly tried to position itself as a 'threshold nuclear power', as enriching to 90% (from 60%) is relatively quick and easy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran