I Don't Understand This About Iran

[georgephillip]

They say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and yet they enriched Uranium to far beyond that level, very close to weapons grade.

They had been refusing to hand over the excessively enriched Uranium. Why? Why do they need near weapons grade Uranium?

Then Iran offered to halt any further enrichment for 5 years. Why? Do they want to enrich Uranium to weapons grade after 5 years? Why, if their program is for peaceful purposes?

The US has offered 20 years but, again, I say why? And, if Iran accepts that, then they can enrich Uranium again to near weapons grade after 20 years? Why, if their program is for peaceful purposes?

Tehran offered to halt any further enrichment for five years, while the US insisted on a 20-year freeze

Trump: Iran has agreed to hand over its uranium

Iran has agreed to hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium, Donald Trump has claimed, saying the US is “close” to a peace deal to end the war.

www.yahoo.com

I hope the US doesn't settle for 20 years. It should be permanently, as in forever. If we accept this deal it gives Iran 20 years to rebuild their battered military capabilities and defenses, including ballistic missiles which would be able to reach the US and then they start enriching Uranium again to make nuclear bombs. Then, if that happens, we are worse off than being back to square one because Iran will have had 20 years to rebuild and plan, including importing weapons and defenses from Russia and China.

Trump blamed Obama's 10 year deal with Iran as being stupid and he was right but I say the very same thing about a 20 year deal. It's stupid.

Iran's enriched uranium may be a bargaining chip with the US to unfreeze economic assets and return confiscated money.

Imho, Trump's latest lunacy has made it far more likely Iran will buy nuclear weapons, possibly from North Korea.

 

[Zavulon]

And yet you're still losing to poorly supplied conscripts. Imagine that ...

We are not losing. We are denazificating them. And it's a way better to kill them in trenches, than allowing them to commit terroristic acts after their territory get liberated.

 

[Zavulon]

Iran's enriched uranium may be a bargaining chip with the US to unfreeze economic assets and return confiscated money.

Cocked and loaded gun usually provides better negotiation posture than cartridges for sale. Make one testing nuclear burst and America will willingly return all frozen assets.

Imho, Trump's latest lunacy has made it far more likely Iran will buy nuclear weapons, possibly from North Korea.

Exactly. Or, if on the NPT conference in May or June Russia decide to quite the threaty, they will be more likely buy really modern nukes directly from Russia.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Oh, my dear mushroom. Didn't they tell you about numerous pro-government demonstrations?
Like:

View attachment 1245435


View attachment 1245436

There are two basic ways to "solve" current crisis. First one - to surrender on American mercy (there is no such thing), see their country destroyed, and leave it or live even in much deeper poverty. Second one - to fight and defeat the USA, and then - make US return their money, lift sanctions and collect money for protection from Hormuz Strait and Gulf states.
Most of Iranians prefer the later.

There were pro Assad demonstrations in Syria, too, before the country was plunged into civil war and the Assad government. The ayatollahs have two choices, just as the Assad's did: step down and allow the Iranian people to choose a new government or continue to torture the Iranian people through civil war just as the Assads tortured the Syrian people.

Between the war and the growing antigovernment protests, there is no rational scenario in which the ayatollahs survive.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's just empty propagandistic rhetoric. North Korea survived and Iraq didn't. That's all what matters. And now Irainian people have to choose - suffer some pain but gain nukes or accept American demands, surrender and be totally destroyed.
Right now they say, that they are not going to surrender. And they are still alive and kicking.

North Korea is alive and kicking because it was in no danger since the end of the Korean war in 1953. After not being in any danger for half a century, NK began producing nukes, not to protect itself but to try to discourage the US from aiding its South Korean ally if North Korea invades, as it frequently threatens to do.

 

[Zavulon]

There were pro Assad demonstrations in Syria, too, before the country was plunged into civil war and the Assad government. The ayatollahs have two choices, just as the Assad's did: step down and allow the Iranian people to choose a new government or continue to torture the Iranian people through civil war just as the Assads tortured the Syrian people.

Between the war and the growing antigovernment protests, there is no rational scenario in which the ayatollahs survive.

And there were (and are) anti-Trump protests in America. Does it mean, that Trump should leave now and allow Democrats build new regime? I don't think so. Trump still have a chance to politically survive and even not get impeachment.

And, talking about positions of the sides:
1) Iranian government: we are going to defend our land and return our assets by defeating America and Zionist regime. We need only victory because the price of defeat will be much more terrible.
2) American government: we do want take Iranian oil and protect oil of our "allies" in the region by defeating Iran. They are weak and already defeated. There will be no need to pay any price more than few thousands of thousands of US soldiers. And it worth it.
3) American opposition: we do want Iranian oil, but we can't afford this war, and all the oil of Persian Gulf doesn't worth even few destroyed American cities or death of even one million of American soldiers.
4) Mythical Iranian opposition [as you described it]: we should give Americans everything they want, and may be, they won't kill us.

The latter seems pretty stupid, and I don't think that there are a lot of sane people who can believe in this BS. What is even more important, patriots (whoever they understand the best interests of their country - is it a regional nuclear war or prevention of such war) can fight and die for their ideas. But the cowards (who simply afraid of Americans) are also afraid of the government, and they are not going to sacrifice their lifes fighting against the regime (whatever they think about it).

 

[Zavulon]

North Korea is alive and kicking because it was in no danger since the end of the Korean war in 1953. After not being in any danger for half a century, NK began producing nukes, not to protect itself but to try to discourage the US from aiding its South Korean ally if North Korea invades, as it frequently threatens to do.

Of course it was in danger their whole history, especially when they were marked as a part of "Axis of Evil" alongside with Iraq, Libya and Iran, and with all those rare earth metals.

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly. Or, if on the NPT conference in May or June Russia decide to quite the threaty, they will be more likely buy really modern nukes directly from Russia.

That would prove a much bigger threat to the US empire than a North Korean source as would a repeat of the Caribbean Crisis of 1962.

I can remember those '62 events, and I can't help wonder how Americans today would react to Oreshnik's in Cuba

 

[toomuchtime_]

And there were (and are) anti-Trump protests in America. Does it mean, that Trump should leave now and allow Democrats build new regime? I don't think so. Trump still have a chance to politically survive and even not get impeachment.

And, talking about positions of the sides:
1) Iranian government: we are going to defend our land and return our assets by defeating America and Zionist regime. We need only victory because the price of defeat will be much more terrible.
2) American government: we do want take Iranian oil and protect oil of our "allies" in the region by defeating Iran. They are weak and already defeated. There will be no need to pay any price more than few thousands of thousands of US soldiers. And it worth it.
3) American opposition: we do want Iranian oil, but we can't afford this war, and all the oil of Persian Gulf doesn't worth even few destroyed American cities or death of even one million of American soldiers.
4) Mythical Iranian opposition [as you described it]: we should give Americans everything they want, and may be, they won't kill us.

The latter seems pretty stupid, and I don't think that there are a lot of sane people who can believe in this BS. What is even more important, patriots (whoever they understand the best interests of their country - is it a regional nuclear war or prevention of such war) can fight and die for their ideas. But the cowards (who simply afraid of Americans) are also afraid of the government, and they are not going to sacrifice their lifes fighting against the regime (whatever they think about it).

Thank you for sharing your fantasies about the conflict in Iran, but Syria and Iran are alike in that neither state allows for free elections, so the people have no choice but to overthrow the government if they want change, but in the US an unpopular government can be overthrown at the polls. If you were indoctrinated, er educated, in Russia this might be difficult for you to understand.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course it was in danger their whole history, especially when they were marked as a part of "Axis of Evil" alongside with Iraq, Libya and Iran, and with all those rare earth metals.

So they were in danger of being called names and that's why they decided to build nukes after half a century of peace? Noth Korea has continuously threatened to invade and conquer South Korea, a US ally, and they built nukes to discourage the US from coming to the aid of South Korea if the North invaded.

 

[Zavulon]

That would prove a much bigger threat to the US empire than a North Korean source as would a repeat of the Caribbean Crisis of 1962.

I can remember those '62 events, and I can't help wonder how Americans today would react to Oreshnik's in Cuba

Actually, we are more close to a nuclear war now than we were in 1962. And I don't see a real possibility to avoid nuclear conflict.

American today would react as TV will say they to react. And there is no need for Oreshnic on Cuba, when Russia can send (and sometimes actually send) SSBNs with even more precise missiles to M'Clure Strait.

 

[georgephillip]

Cocked and loaded gun usually provides better negotiation posture than cartridges for sale. Make one testing nuclear burst and America will willingly return all frozen assets.

I can't find the source right now; however, one opinion I've heard lately imagined Iran buying five nuclear weapons and testing one of them in a remote location broadcast world-wide online.

I suspect there would be a wide divergence of possible US responses to such a demonstration in America, but Tel Aviv would certainly have second thoughts about colonizing southern Lebanon.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I can't find the source right now; however, one opinion I've heard lately imagined Iran buying five nuclear weapons and testing one of them in a remote location broadcast world-wide online.

I suspect there would be a wide divergence of possible US responses to such a demonstration in America, but Tel Aviv would certainly have second thoughts about colonizing southern Lebanon.

That sounds stupid enough to be one of the ayatollahs ideas. Over 90% of the missiles fired at Israel by Iran have been intercepted, so if Iran fired four missiles at Israel, it is unlikely any would reach Israel. On the other hand, scientists have agreed Israel possesses in excess of 100 nukes and 70% of Iranians live in cities and Iran has no effective air defenses, so an Israeli nuclear response would likely kill 40 to 50 million Iranians and leave Iran a wasteland.

To actually destroy Israel in a nuclear attack, Iran would probably need to fire 100 nuclear armed missiles at it. Clearly, the ayatollahs want nukes only to use as terrorism in support of their imperialist ambitions.

 

[Independent thinker]

Iran's enriched uranium may be a bargaining chip with the US to unfreeze economic assets and return confiscated money.

Imho, Trump's latest lunacy has made it far more likely Iran will buy nuclear weapons, possibly from North Korea.

Iran was bound to get nuclear weapons one way or another. That's why we need regime change. I mean real regime change. Get rid of all of the thugs in power. Bring on a more peaceful regime and we get rid of the nuclear threat.

 

[georgephillip]

Iran was bound to get nuclear weapons one way or another. That's why we need regime change. I mean real regime change. Get rid of all of the thugs in power. Bring on a more peaceful regime and we get rid of the nuclear threat.

Iran has called for a nuclear weapons-free zone across the Middle East; Israel and the US have ignored the call.

Israel is a nuclear power and it uses that capacity to spread terror across the Levant since 1967, at least.

We need regime change in Israel.

 

[Independent thinker]

Iran has called for a nuclear weapons-free zone across the Middle East; Israel and the US have ignored the call.

Israel is a nuclear power and it uses that capacity to spread terror across the Levant since 1967, at least.

We need regime change in Israel.

Israel is but an itsy bitsy small country, surrounded by billions of Muslims. Iran is 81 times bigger than Israel. Of course Iran would like Israel to get rid of it's nukes. How stupid are you?

 

[georgephillip]

That sounds stupid enough to be one of the ayatollahs ideas. Over 90% of the missiles fired at Israel by Iran have been intercepted, so if Iran fired four missiles at Israel, it is unlikely any would reach Israel

Do you have any evidence to support that hasbara?
GoogleAI Overview:
"Based on data from the 40-day war in early 2026, approximately 25% (one in four) of Iranian missiles penetrated Israeli air defenses, marking a rise in penetration rates as the conflict continued, according to a Haaretz analysis.

"While earlier reports indicated over 90% interception, the later stages saw increased impacts, with 77 missiles causing damage."

Without US backing, Iran would destroy Israel in a matter of weeks or worse.

 

[georgephillip]

o actually destroy Israel in a nuclear attack, Iran would probably need to fire 100 nuclear armed missiles at it. Clearly, the ayatollahs want nukes only to use as terrorism in support of their imperialist ambitions.

It isn't Iranians who are being credibly accused of genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing and collective punishment on the West Bank, and invading and occupying Lebanon and Syria.

Which state is responsible for those crimes?

 

[georgephillip]

Israel is but an itsy bitsy small country, surrounded by billions of Muslims. Iran is 81 times bigger than Israel. Of course Iran would like Israel to get rid of it's nukes. How stupid are you?

Not stupid enough to support religious fundamentalists in Tel Aviv.

You?

 

[Independent thinker]

Not stupid enough to support religious fundamentalists in Tel Aviv.

You?

Now that's something. Iran is run by radical extremist religious fundamentalists and you post that? Really?