Trump Vs Iran

[Loren Pechtel]

No one's giving nukes to Iran.

Nobody with nukes wants more crazies with nukes. But if there is economic or political utility to propping up a threat of more crazies with nukes, then it will be done.

Realistically, what country would give nukes to Iran, thereby unnecessarily exposing itself to grave consequences? It's just not going to happen.

Even conventional weapons will be a problem to supply Iran with, let alone nukes. Russia is in no position to help Iran, China won't do it for obvious reasons, and neither will any other Arab states. Pakistan may be a possibility, but they're not official allies and their relations are strained.

In short, Iran stands almost wholly alone.

I agree that the U.S.'s military strike was stupid and will have predictable fallout, but in terms of nukes and military capability Iran doesn't inspire much fear.

Good post. I agree. As an aside, why does Iran have to be at war with Israel anyway? What is the root of their wanting war? I actually understand why a country would want nuclear weapons. But why do they want war?

Conquest. Note how Iran has effective control over a lot more than just their country.

And the war with EastAsia is very useful. It must continue.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems too early to say if the bombings were effective. I suspect that even U.S. intelligence is still analyzing the situation.

won’t the intelligence agencies just say whatever Trump wants them to say anyway?

It appears not, at least for now. The intel showed Iran was not close to building a bomb. Trump disregarded it.

Listen again. They were weaseling.

The thing is, building the bomb is the easy part. The hard part is the materials. It doesn't matter if they're building a bomb or not, what's important is if they have the weapons grade U-235. They have no civilian use for such, it's extremely expensive to produce, thus it's only for a bomb. Nor do you bury a civilian facility that deeply. It's unquestionably a bomb program.

Pay attention. If they are not close to building a bomb, then the stated rationale for the attacks of “they are close to building a bomb” is invalid, assuming everyone has the same notion of “close”.

Recalling that Israel has claimed Iran has bern close for 30 years, one might think they have to correct sometime. On the other hand, on this issue, given their track record, why take their word?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn’t want war. It wants an enemy to direct their people’s attention against. That way they can divert attention of the public from the mess they have made of the nation’s economy and their tyrannical social policies. Israel is an easy enemy for an Islamic theocracy since Israel is a Jewish state. If Iran did get a nuclear weapon, it would never use it. To do so would be national suicide.

1) It's a deterrent when they do something nasty. They saw what happened to Afghanistan, they don't want their heads on the chopping block when they pull off 9/11 2.0.

2) If Riyadh goes up in a mushroom cloud is the world going to do anything about it?

 

[steve_bank]

The only tricky part of a nuclear bomb is the trigger mechanism and the shape of the nuclear material.

If the reaction rate of fission as the material is quickly brought together is too low it fizzles, if it is too much it blows apart without a big release of energy.

Little Boy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Little Boy was a type of atomic bomb created by the Manhattan Project during World War II. The name is also often used to describe the specific bomb (L-11) used in the bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay on 6 August 1945, making it the first nuclear weapon used in warfare, and the second nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity nuclear test. It exploded with an energy of approximately 15 kilotons of TNT (63 TJ) and had an explosion radius of approximately 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) which caused widespread death across the city. It was a gun-type fission weapon which used uranium that had been enriched in the isotope uranium-235 to power its explosive reaction.

Russia, North Korea, or Pakistan could give Iran a working trigger.

I doubt how to design a basicbomb is secret, its been in books since WWII. The skill is minimizing size and maximizing yield.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/middleeast/israel-nuclear-weapons.html

Israel - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though the country neither acknowledges nor denies the existence of a nuclear arsenal. Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not accepted IAEA safeguards on some of its principle nuclear activities. Their...

armscontrolcenter.org

Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though the country neither acknowledges nor denies the existence of a nuclear arsenal. Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not accepted IAEA safeguards on some of its principle nuclear activities. Their policy of nuclear opacity has been generally tolerated by both allies and adversaries.

Most estimates posit that Israel possesses about 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and has produced enough plutonium for 100-200 weapons. These estimates have been fairly consistent for decades, which points to a nuclear posture defined by Israel’s deterrence needs. Israel appears focused strictly on survival and does not seek to threaten other nuclear-armed states.

It is widely believed that the plutonium for Israel’s nuclear weapons program was produced by a reactor built with French assistance. The IRR-2 research reactor at the Negev Nuclear Research Center is commonly referred to by the city that hosts it, Dimona. It is officially a 26-megawatt thermal reactor, but some believe that is an underestimation of its capacity. The facility is not under IAEA safeguards. The IRR-2 went critical in December 1963 and likely helped Israel produce its first nuclear weapon in 1966-67, although these reports have not been officially confirmed. The declassification of sensitive government documents show that at least by 1975 the U.S. government was convinced Israel had nuclear weapons.

 

[thebeave]

Don't forget Clinton's missile strikes and Obama's bombing of Iraq to support anti Qaddafi rebels ending in the fall of Qaddafi. Neither had congressional approval and both argued the attacks were outside of congressional war powers authority.

The result of removing Qaddafi is a fractured violent Libya.

Trump is is line with American foreign policy oing back decades,

The Tonkin Gulf resolution that authorized general militray action in Asia was based on a bogus naal attack on American ships by North Vietnam.

Johnson called for congress to act.

On August 2, 1964, the US destroyer USS Maddox was allegedly attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. A second incident, possibly involving a misinterpretation of radar signals, was reported two nights later.
Johnson's Response:
President Johnson used these incidents to call for Congressional support for a resolution that would allow him to respond forcefully to the attacks and protect American interests in Southeast Asia.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Southeast Asia Resolution, Pub. L. 88–408, 78 Stat. 384, enacted August 10, 1964, was a joint resolution that the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

It is of historic significance because it gave U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, to use conventional military force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the president to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty." This included involving armed forces.

Trump and Iran is a continuation of our foreign policy. We installed the brutal Shah which eventually led to the Iranian revolution and takeover by the Islamic clerics.

Trump is just more stupid, short sighted, and openly authoritarian.

Right. Congressional approval doesn't seem to be necessary. With regard to Obama:

Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

• Then-U.S. President Barack Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs on seven countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — in 2016 alone. We determined this by looking at data from the U.S. Air Force, Council for Foreign Relations, the Long War Journal and the New America Foundation.
• Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal. Congress passed a broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to approve war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which Obama relied on to justify his military activities. However, Obama stretched use of the 2001 AUMF to target militant groups that either did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001, or were not al-Qaida affiliates.
• U.S. presidents have repeatedly conducted military activities in other countries without seeking approval from Congress. President Donald Trump justified military activities during his first administration by citing the AUMF as well.

In sum …​

Obama did use more than 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone against seven countries. However, while he did not get congressional approval at the time, he relied on older congressional authorizations as the legal basis for such strikes, a practice that Trump also continued.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Obama wore a tan suit once, too. That wouldn’t make it right for Trump to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The U.S. has illegally and unconstitutionally attacked Iran.

Illegally?

Iran attacked the US in 1979. No peace has happened since. Thus we have technically always been at war with them.

Let me guess. You picked up this nugget of total nonsense from the right-wing Washington Times, right?

I was alive in 1979. Old enough to have some idea of what was happening in the world. Even saw Iran before they went bonkers.

When the students handed the hostages over to the new government and they weren't promptly released that was an act of war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It seems too early to say if the bombings were effective. I suspect that even U.S. intelligence is still analyzing the situation.

won’t the intelligence agencies just say whatever Trump wants them to say anyway?

It appears not, at least for now. The intel showed Iran was not close to building a bomb. Trump disregarded it.

Listen again. They were weaseling.

The thing is, building the bomb is the easy part. The hard part is the materials. It doesn't matter if they're building a bomb or not, what's important is if they have the weapons grade U-235. They have no civilian use for such, it's extremely expensive to produce, thus it's only for a bomb. Nor do you bury a civilian facility that deeply. It's unquestionably a bomb program.

Pay attention. If they are not close to building a bomb, then the stated rationale for the attacks of “they are close to building a bomb” is invalid, assuming everyone has the same notion of “close”.

Recalling that Israel has claimed Iran has bern close for 30 years, one might think they have to correct sometime. On the other hand, on this issue, given their track record, why take their word?

You're missing the point.

Building the bomb isn't an issue. They're enriching uranium, a gun type device isn't perfect but the odds of it working are well above 90%. It would take weeks at most. Thus whether they have started or not is a total red herring. The only thing that matters is how much uranium enriched to what level do they have.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems too early to say if the bombings were effective. I suspect that even U.S. intelligence is still analyzing the situation.

won’t the intelligence agencies just say whatever Trump wants them to say anyway?

It appears not, at least for now. The intel showed Iran was not close to building a bomb. Trump disregarded it.

Listen again. They were weaseling.

The thing is, building the bomb is the easy part. The hard part is the materials. It doesn't matter if they're building a bomb or not, what's important is if they have the weapons grade U-235. They have no civilian use for such, it's extremely expensive to produce, thus it's only for a bomb. Nor do you bury a civilian facility that deeply. It's unquestionably a bomb program.

Pay attention. If they are not close to building a bomb, then the stated rationale for the attacks of “they are close to building a bomb” is invalid, assuming everyone has the same notion of “close”.

Recalling that Israel has claimed Iran has bern close for 30 years, one might think they have to correct sometime. On the other hand, on this issue, given their track record, why take their word?

You're missing the point.

Building the bomb isn't an issue. They're enriching uranium, a gun type device isn't perfect but the odds of it working are well above 90%. It would take weeks at most. Thus whether they have started or not is a total red herring. The only thing that matters is how much uranium enriched to what level do they have.

If building a bomb isn’t an issue, then the enriched uranium is not a threat.

Either they are close to building a bomb (as Israel has claimed for 30 years) or they are not (as US intelligence believes).

 

[Elixir]

 

[steve_bank]

Don't forget Clinton's missile strikes and Obama's bombing of Iraq to support anti Qaddafi rebels ending in the fall of Qaddafi. Neither had congressional approval and both argued the attacks were outside of congressional war powers authority.

The result of removing Qaddafi is a fractured violent Libya.

Trump is is line with American foreign policy oing back decades,

The Tonkin Gulf resolution that authorized general militray action in Asia was based on a bogus naal attack on American ships by North Vietnam.

Johnson called for congress to act.

On August 2, 1964, the US destroyer USS Maddox was allegedly attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. A second incident, possibly involving a misinterpretation of radar signals, was reported two nights later.
Johnson's Response:
President Johnson used these incidents to call for Congressional support for a resolution that would allow him to respond forcefully to the attacks and protect American interests in Southeast Asia.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Southeast Asia Resolution, Pub. L. 88–408, 78 Stat. 384, enacted August 10, 1964, was a joint resolution that the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

It is of historic significance because it gave U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, to use conventional military force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the president to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty." This included involving armed forces.

Trump and Iran is a continuation of our foreign policy. We installed the brutal Shah which eventually led to the Iranian revolution and takeover by the Islamic clerics.

Trump is just more stupid, short sighted, and openly authoritarian.

Right. Congressional approval doesn't seem to be necessary. With regard to Obama:

Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

• Then-U.S. President Barack Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs on seven countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — in 2016 alone. We determined this by looking at data from the U.S. Air Force, Council for Foreign Relations, the Long War Journal and the New America Foundation.
• Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal. Congress passed a broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to approve war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which Obama relied on to justify his military activities. However, Obama stretched use of the 2001 AUMF to target militant groups that either did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001, or were not al-Qaida affiliates.
• U.S. presidents have repeatedly conducted military activities in other countries without seeking approval from Congress. President Donald Trump justified military activities during his first administration by citing the AUMF as well.

In sum …​

Obama did use more than 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone against seven countries. However, while he did not get congressional approval at the time, he relied on older congressional authorizations as the legal basis for such strikes, a practice that Trump also continued.

On the left or right authoritarian is as authoritarian does....

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor FDR asked Congress for a declaration of war. Since then Congress slowly ceded war power to the president.

You can't accuse Trump of illegality for skirting the rules and then justify Obama.

The clear intern of the framers of the Constitution was to prevent the chief executive from engaging in militray adventurism.

The Constitution establishes a permanent Navy to protect the shores. It did not establish a permanent army. It has to be reauthorized periodically.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution establishes the framework for a standing army, though it also includes checks and balances to prevent potential overreach. While the Constitution doesn't explicitly use the term "standing army," Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to "raise and support armies". This power is further defined by specifying that appropriations for the army shall not be for longer than two years

Obama aiding in the downfall of Qaddafi led to instability in North Africa.

Toppling Hussein led to regional instability and removed a major check on Iran.

The long term results of Trump's attack on Iran areunpredictable. Worse if we topple the government.

In the first gulf war Bush decided to not go into Iraq and remove Husein because the results would be unpredictable.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't matter if they're building a bomb or not

Except that they probably weren't, and now they probably are.

So that's another completely predictable win for the law of unintended consequences.

 

[bilby]

You can't accuse Trump of illegality for skirting the rules and then justify Obama.

You're right. Both should be removed from office at once and never allowed to run for President again.

 

[pood]

The U.S. has illegally and unconstitutionally attacked Iran.

Illegally?

Iran attacked the US in 1979. No peace has happened since. Thus we have technically always been at war with them.

Let me guess. You picked up this nugget of total nonsense from the right-wing Washington Times, right?

I was alive in 1979. Old enough to have some idea of what was happening in the world. Even saw Iran before they went bonkers.

When the students handed the hostages over to the new government and they weren't promptly released that was an act of war.

There was no formal declaration of war by either side and so there is no ongoing “war” to justify Trump’s attacking Iran. This is total nonsense.

Moreover, as someone pointed out, the first aggression was the U.S. illegally toppling the Iran government in 1953.

 

[pood]

Let’s emphasize the point: There has never been a state of “war” between the U.S. and Iran, and the idea that the 1979 hostage-taking justifies bombing Iran now is just totally off-the-wall bonkers bullshit.

There was never even a war in 1979, because there was no declaration of war by Congress. Technically, all U.S. military (mis)adventures since the end of World War II were unconstitutional since none of them were declared by Congress, but in many cases they were given a small fig leaf of justification by congressional votes of “authorization” or, in the case of Korea, by dressing up our war there as a “UN police action.” But in 1979 in Iran, there was not even any of that. So don’t let anybody get away with the bullshit claim that we have been “at war” with Iran since 1979.

 

[pood]

“Entangling alliances with none” — Jefferson

“[America] goes not aboard in search of monsters to destroy” — J.Q. Adams

MOOB (Mind Our Own Business) — me.

 

[steve_bank]

Don't forget Carter's disastrous attempt to rescue the hostages by military force.

Operation Eagle Claw - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Artemus]

Trump posts video with ‘Bomb Iran’ song amid ceasefire

Words fail me.

 

[scombrid]

ButteryMales Obama! SOROS!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Israel has played their hand about as well as they could have. October 7th was their declaration of war on Iran. Their military efforts, regarding Iran have been methodical. They took care of the proxies before heading to Iran. And now with the proxies toothless, Iran's options for responses appear limited. They still have asymmetrical options, but their ally list is unimpressive. While Russia and China could help them, there appears little in it for Russia and China. And of course, there is the other thing... the enriched Uranium. Where is it? Destroying the capacity to make more is helpful... if that was even accomplished... but what about what already exists? I'm hearing nothing about that stuff.

Pay attention. If they are not close to building a bomb, then the stated rationale for the attacks of “they are close to building a bomb” is invalid, assuming everyone has the same notion of “close”.

Recalling that Israel has claimed Iran has bern close for 30 years, one might think they have to correct sometime. On the other hand, on this issue, given their track record, why take their word?

You're missing the point.

Building the bomb isn't an issue. They're enriching uranium, a gun type device isn't perfect but the odds of it working are well above 90%. It would take weeks at most. Thus whether they have started or not is a total red herring. The only thing that matters is how much uranium enriched to what level do they have.

And all that would matter is that the enriched uranium was buried now under 1000 feet of earth. And I haven't heard a single person in the Trump Admin say we destroyed their access to the produced uranium.

And then we get to the next issue. If there is regime change, who do you think takes over? The Revolutionary Guard. And what will they be thinking? They are in charge now because the Iranians chose not to pull the trigger and build the bomb. They'll look to North Korea and see that the stability of their reign will be the completion of a nuke.