3 ms·

> "conclude that they were not developing nukes." You're misreading your own sources. The 2007 NIE and Gabbard's 2025 testimony both describe a nuclear weapons

> "conclude that they were not developing nukes." You're misreading your own sources. The 2007 NIE and Gabbard's 2025 testimony both describe a nuclear weapons program that Iran "suspended in 2003". They confirm a nuclear weapons program existed, the opposite of what you're claiming. And you want an official source: the IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s using undeclared material. Then it found Iran in formal non-compliance in June of last year. "Not building a warhead today" and "never pursued weapons" are different claims, and you swapped one for the other. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-introductory-statement-to-the-board-of-governors-9-june-2025 https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-gen...

hypeatei 4mo ago
I never swapped claims. We're talking about nuclear weapons and why the US started a war with Iran this year due to this supposed "crisis" (in your words) but there's no evidence that a threat is imminent. The NIEs were just one data point against your claim; the burden is still on you to show who else agrees with the assesment that this is a crisis. > IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s "nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath.
- tristanj 4mo ago
  Name the civilian use for Iran's 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium. There isn't one. No power reactor uses it (those run on 3-5%), no research reactor needs it (~20% max), and it sits 98-99% of the way enriched weapons-grade. Iran has enough fissile material for multiple bombs with under two weeks of further enrichment. There is no civilian use for this material. Iran enriched this material, under a mountain, in violation of IAEA requirements, at a site it hid from IAEA investigators until it got caught lying, while stonewalling compliance investigators for years. Even your own source, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment report, states: "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." What's your justification for Iran producing this material, if not for a nuclear weapons program?
  - kelnos 4mo ago
    Did that 2025 assessment conclude that Iran was building toward a nuclear weapon, or didn't it?
    - tristanj 4mo ago
      The 2025 unclassified report does not assess that, but the 2024 one did. Money quote: Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so. Also, that 2025 unclassified report was released before the June 2025 enrichment numbers I shared; these numbers would have influenced the report, and you dodged the question: What's your justification for Iran producing 440kg of highly enriched 60% material, in secret deep under a mountain in violation of IAEA agreements, if not for a nuclear weapons program?
      - Hikikomori 4mo ago
        Because they were under sanctions after trump left the jcpoa. They were not enriching other than for civilian use or working towards a bomb during the agreement and for years after trump left it. Sanctions never ended so might as well work on a bomb then?

hypeatei 4mo ago

I never swapped claims. We're talking about nuclear weapons and why the US started a war with Iran this year due to this supposed "crisis" (in your words) but there's no evidence that a threat is imminent. The NIEs were just one data point against your claim; the burden is still on you to show who else agrees with the assesment that this is a crisis. > IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s "nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath.

tristanj 4mo ago
Name the civilian use for Iran's 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium. There isn't one. No power reactor uses it (those run on 3-5%), no research reactor needs it (~20% max), and it sits 98-99% of the way enriched weapons-grade. Iran has enough fissile material for multiple bombs with under two weeks of further enrichment. There is no civilian use for this material. Iran enriched this material, under a mountain, in violation of IAEA requirements, at a site it hid from IAEA investigators until it got caught lying, while stonewalling compliance investigators for years. Even your own source, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment report, states: "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." What's your justification for Iran producing this material, if not for a nuclear weapons program?
- kelnos 4mo ago
  Did that 2025 assessment conclude that Iran was building toward a nuclear weapon, or didn't it?
  - tristanj 4mo ago
    The 2025 unclassified report does not assess that, but the 2024 one did. Money quote: Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so. Also, that 2025 unclassified report was released before the June 2025 enrichment numbers I shared; these numbers would have influenced the report, and you dodged the question: What's your justification for Iran producing 440kg of highly enriched 60% material, in secret deep under a mountain in violation of IAEA agreements, if not for a nuclear weapons program?
    - Hikikomori 4mo ago
      Because they were under sanctions after trump left the jcpoa. They were not enriching other than for civilian use or working towards a bomb during the agreement and for years after trump left it. Sanctions never ended so might as well work on a bomb then?