"Iran nearing break-away Nuke production capacity" Topic

The ever-effective IAEA says that Iran is approaching "weapons grade" nuclear material production levels. We know that Iran knows how to make a Bomb, being allies of both China and Russia -- plus it's 70-year old tech. Now Iran is reaching its goal of multi-nuke production capacity:

Iran further increases its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, watchdog says

…Iran is…a technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.

link

They already have a nuke. Probably more than one. In my opinion the only thing holding them back is the prevailing winds and the certainty that Israel has more.

That, and they want a production capacity -- which is what I'm referring to, not just one or two. They want to be able to do a Pakistan-style broad deployment.

Indeed, the real risk in the world (at least to me) is that some country in the modern world ever feels a nuclear strike is a positive move (PS: I do feel the attacks on Japan in 1945 were Positive)

Indeed, the real risk in the world (at least to me) is that some country in the modern world ever feels a nuclear strike is a positive move

Yep -- so we're left *hoping* that the Shiite religious theocrats don't actually believe they can bathe the world in fire, thus ushering the "end time" and the return of the 12th Imam and a new era of global peace and dominance for Shiite Islam…or that there's not a civil war in Iran and someone pushes the button. The more nuclear players in the game the less MAD applies…

Yes, that has been predicted a number of times how close they are to having nukes. It didn't help any by the US Gov't giving them millions or billions of $ over the past 3 years. And playing soft ball with them. This is a gov't(?) that rapes & kills women for not wearing their hijabs "correctly(?)". You want them to have nukes?

The very last thing the world needs is a fundamentalist islamic theocracy getting deployable Nuke WMDs. If Iran has them than KSA will want some, etc., etc. I do see having a nuke arms race in that region is a big no go. Where some believe if they themselves are killed when killing infidels, they will go to some sort of "Paradise" …

That just don't cut no ice !

War Between Israel and Iran Is Inevitable

link

Armand

Iran's lack of rationality concerns me a lot more than, say, North Korea's. The Air Force basically burned down every outhouse in North Korea, even without crossing the nuclear threshold. The DPRK's nukes are meant to deter the US and China, pure and simple, and the saber rattling to date is designed to make sure they continue to do so.

The Iranians have always proclaimed their intention to nuke Israel as soon as they can, and nothing we have ever said or done has changed that. I don't know whether it's a pose or a policy.

The other big concern I have about Iranian nukes- and it may ultimately be an even bigger one – is how the Saudis would respond. I have always assumed they would buy them from the Pakistanis- and over the long term, Saudi Arabia (or a successor state) with nukes could be a gigantic problem.

I have always assumed that Israel was the big check on Iran's ambitions, nukes or no nukes. Now, with the way Israel's national security was handled before Oct. 7 and their ability to take out Hamas still somewhat in question, I am not so sure. They live in a world of enemies close by, they survive by their own toughness and US help. They may not be enough of a buffer after all.

But the US has missed an opportunity for some sort of strike on Iran during the current conflict, especially considering Irans role in the Houthi shipping attacks, not just their support for their other terrorist proxies. Why have we never figured this out, going all the way back to Reagan's weapons deals with them? You cannot cut any deals with these guys, they have institutionalized their politics with their religion.

Nine pound mentions the ultimate nightmare…a Middle East full of nuclear armed nations and terrorist proxies. If this comes to pass, the game will change for the worse, big time.

Again, our leadership dropped the ball on this one too. They are playing Chess, while our elected and appointed leaders are playing Checkers, again.

They fail to get it … You can't trust islamic terrorists … What's so hard to understand ?

If Iran does not have deployable nukes already, they will. Then there will be "a wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth" in the white buildings where the cherry blossoms grow near the banks the Potomac. Will ask how this could this happen ? But by that time, it may be too late.

I think if one is looking for blame for the Iranian situation, it was one administration ahead of Reagan. The handling of Iran and the subsequent hostage crises, was an embarrassment for the US, worldwide. Actually an embarrassment that was worse, or as bad, as the Afghanistan "withdraw".

35th agree completely. We had no clue, no idea of the coming Terror Wars. Cater was not able to see it, just did not know what to do.

As for the Afghan comparison, I think 1980 set the stage for a lot of bad choices in the coming years. Most here will not agree, and my examples may not be complete. I think the US as a nation has not dealt with Iran and its stable of proxy fighters.

The 1980 hostage crisis was tainted by the allegations, now confirmed by Ben Barnes but still not fully believed by some, that he and Connelly went to the Middle East to give the word that Iran would get a better deal on weapons to fight Iraq if Iran waited until Reagan was elected. Whether you believe him or not, the release occurred within minutes of the inauguration. And soon after the weapons were supplied.

Beirut was our worst disaster in the Middle East, made worse by the subsequent empowerment and rise of Hezbollah as a result, all supported by Iran. But Reagan kept trying to deal with the Iranians. He never got it either. He was otherwise a great President and a Cold War fighter, but the ME was not his thing.
Beirut and Afghanistan seem like the worst president-specific actions, in the ME,IMO. Others will disagree.

I think a ton of trouble goes way back with Iran. Along with the growing return of ISIS they are the biggest threat to peace in the ME, but we do not do anything.

We should have never allowed a fundamentalist Muslim country of stature to arise in the ME. It never bodes well for the world.

I believe Beirut was a direct result of Iran, the hostage situation and the weakness Carter showed the Muslim world.

I think it was the "symbolic" acts he took and the disaster of a poorly planned rescue attempt, that left me in disgust of him. Especially the Christmas tree lights. I could just see the Muslims laughing at him and us. 😡

"President Carter took symbolic steps to express Americans' concern and anger. He asked Americans to fly the flag and send Christmas messages to the hostages, and hundreds of thousands responded. He refused to light the Christmas tree behind the White House, allowing its darkness to serve as a reminder of the hostages' plight. In response to threats from the militants to try the hostages, the President held out the possibility of economic sanctions and even a naval blockade."

Yes, this is what I meant by saying Carter just did not know what to do. Some action was needed. A blockade would have been something. He just did not have it in him, and got played by Iran.

But Reagan's mistakes were his own. His inexperience and his team's lack of unity led to the devastating attack that made Hezbollah an ME power, backed by Iran, IMO. Iran Contra also…

Whatever the history, Iran's relationship with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi, the nukes, their hatred of the west all point to a proxy war with us today. We could have at least sunk the Iranian ships giving the Houthi their target info, tried hunting down their missile shipments. Our navy did a great job defending against the Houthi, but how about ending the threat?