Early assessment suggests US strikes didn’t destroy Iran’s nuclear sites

[theshu25]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

He lies constantly  That's a given. 

Only when he opens his mouth.

[DezLez]

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

But the American people voted for him knowing that.

Twice.

What is wrong with you people?

What was wrong with those people when they voted for him twice.

[DezLez]

14 minutes ago, theshu25 said:

Only when he opens his mouth.

He also does so whenever he starts typing!

[coolcarer]

1 hour ago, Wingate said:

A major key that backs up that assessment is:

 

Radiation

 

US satellites can detect radiation, just as they do when the DPRK conducts an underground nuke test.

 

If the bunker buster bombs had actually penetrated the chamber, there would be a radiation signature. There is none.

 

The other possibility is that Iran suspected the strike would come and moved all their U-235 beforehand.

 

It certainly seems all the 60% enriched U-235 Iran had last week, they still have.

 

Mission NOT Accomplished.

No, the radiation may be all contained underground as happened in the Israel strikes that destroyed Natanz nuclear facility. Read the IAEA report on it,

[coolcarer]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Trump made his feelings about CNN and their assessment quite clear and this leaked report has been refuted as incorrect. It's impossible to to tell until actual battle damage assessment is done on the ground IMO. My assessment is two bombs were dropped down the vents. Looking at the pic there are 6 penetrating holes and this is said be be into vents. 12 mops were dropped. Initial hit was 6 but how far they actually penetrated is speculative. After the initial 6 went in this was followed by another six one more each into each of the now penetrated sites. Amazing stuff. I can't think of any other scenario. 12 bombs six holes. That's 2 bombs per hole with the second one penetrating further down. The circled holes are the only hits I've heard talked about on the strike on Fordow.

Excellent analysis but wasted on a hate Trump topic

[NoDisplayName]

2 hours ago, BLMFem said:

but if the Iranians can have the enrichment plants up and running in a fairly short time then what does he do?

 

The IAEA has been shown to be passing intelligence to the US, and Iran has not been receiving the benefits due under the non-proliferation treaty, nor was the JCPOA ever honored by the US or Europe.

 

Iran now has every right to exit the treaty with six months notice, boot out the inspectors, and continue with their peaceful civilian nukular program.

 

Trump can now helicopter onto one of his supercarriers with a bigly banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished."

 

[NoDisplayName]

1 hour ago, short-Timer said:

All that bluster from Trump, but now the US is looking pretty impotent. Dropped 14 of those big old 30,000 lb bombs, but hardly did any damage. Russia and China are taking notice. Not a good look for America. 

 

At $20,000,000 each, they appear just as effective as our floating piers.

 

Effective at supporting luxurious MIC lobbyist lifestyles.

[BarraMarra]

Trump and his clones are appearing now infront of the cameras at the G7 meeting you wouldn't believe the sh  t there coming out with they did this they did that anyone trying to say they did not prevent it there called liars and fake news from CNN and NYT Trump has just called them Scum. Pathetic.

[carlyai]

34 minutes ago, Wingate said:

Even if Iran's high speed centrifuges were destroyed (maybe, maybe not), they still needed better and faster centrifuges to get beyond the 60% enrichment their machines could reach. To make a bomb they need 93% enrichment. Russia, North Korea and China could supply those centrifuges.

 

They needed to upgrade regardless of the strike, so the strike probably didn't actually set them back at all. They did not have the capability to go from 60% to 93% anyway, which is why Gabbard made the statement about "3 years", which she subsequently pulled back.

 

The intel signature a competent intel community should look for is an extremely efficient power plant, because at the speed the centrifuges spin, even a minor fluctuation in the current causes them to wobble and self-destruct. I would assume Mossad is competent enough to monitor power construction and upgrades, but I don't think the US still retains that level of competence.

Was I the only one who saw that big green pool of water where the bombs hit? What's going to live under that?

By the untrained eye look no collapse of earth at top but 4 of those high power bombs must have caused big problems underground.

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Multiple assessments are stating that the almighty bunker bomb destroyed the entrance of the tunnel and didn't come anywhere near the vital equipment, many additional experts are saying that it's very likely that the enriched uranium was removed long in advance, after all why would they keep them in a facility that was being targeted? 

 

So is Trump may have started a Forever War, one which he promised he would not start during the campaign, for absolutely nothing in return. 

You can clearly see from the above pic that the entrances were not targeted. 

[dinsdale]

53 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

continue with their peaceful civilian nukular program.

Uranium enriched to 3.67% is enough for civil nuclear energy. 60% is not far off of the 90% needed for weapons grade uranium.

[swerve]

.

[pedro01]

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

A major key that backs up that assessment is:

 

Radiation

 

US satellites can detect radiation, just as they do when the DPRK conducts an underground nuke test.

 

If the bunker buster bombs had actually penetrated the chamber, there would be a radiation signature. There is none.

 

The other possibility is that Iran suspected the strike would come and moved all their U-235 beforehand.

 

It certainly seems all the 60% enriched U-235 Iran had last week, they still have.

 

Mission NOT Accomplished.

 

Not at all.

 

The bombs wouldn't even need to have made it as far down as the labs.   The shockwave they caused is what destroyed everything. 

[NoDisplayName]

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Uranium enriched to 3.67% is enough for civil nuclear energy. 60% is not far off of the 90% needed for weapons grade uranium.

 

 

20% needed to fuel the Tehran reactor for medical isotopes.

60% enrichment is not prohibited under the NPT.

Exit the NPT and they, too, can make nukes for defense.

 

Winning!©

[BLMFem]

1 hour ago, coolcarer said:

Excellent analysis but wasted on a hate Trump topic

The attack might have been far less effective than Trump claimed it was=Trump hate topic.😄

[dinsdale]

1 minute ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

 

20% needed to fuel the Tehran reactor for medical isotopes.

60% enrichment is not prohibited under the NPT.

Exit the NPT and they, too, can make nukes for defense.

 

Winning!©

Ok I'll go with the 20% but 60% is not far off nukes. Iran has stated over and over it wants to destroy the "little devil and the "big devil". There has been majority support for the strikes from nations globally. No one wants the worst fundamentalist, Islamist, murderous, terrorist sponsoring regime on the planet to have nukes. We should all be hoping their capability to produce nukes has been destroyed not hoping it hasn't just to say orange man bad, orange man lies. It's pitiful and totally deranged.

[coolcarer]

3 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

The attack might have been far less effective than Trump claimed it was=Trump hate topic.😄

Read the hate trump posts. Besides this was an unfinished early report. The report from IAEA paints a very different assessment and they should know

[coolcarer]

10 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

 

20% needed to fuel the Tehran reactor for medical isotopes.

60% enrichment is not prohibited under the NPT.

Exit the NPT and they, too, can make nukes for defense.

 

Winning!©

What about 83% enriched uranium that was found?

[NoDisplayName]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

What about 83% enriched uranium that was found?

 

Not prohibited under NPT.

[NoDisplayName]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Ok I'll go with the 20% but 60% is not far off nukes. Iran has stated over and over it wants to destroy the "little devil and the "big devil". There has been majority support for the strikes from nations globally. No one wants the worst fundamentalist, Islamist, murderous, terrorist sponsoring regime on the planet to have nukes. We should all be hoping their capability to produce nukes has been destroyed not hoping it hasn't just to say orange man bad, orange man lies. It's pitiful and totally deranged.

 

60% is permitted under the NPT.

 

Iran voluntarily committed to a 3.5% ceiling under the JCPOA.

 

Trump unilaterally exited, applied sanctions.  Europe did not fulfill their part of the deal.

 

JCPOA is dead, NPT applies.............for now.

 

I was not correct in 6 months notice to exit the treaty.

The requirement is 3 months.

 

 

 

 

[DezLez]

13 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

 The report from IAEA paints a very different assessment and they should know

What report?

[Magictoad]

2 hours ago, Trippy said:

Did you listen to his opponent? 

But, but but he was so eloquent; no I mean She was so eloquent...

[dinsdale]

3 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

60% is permitted under the NPT.

 

Iran voluntarily committed to a 3.5% ceiling under the JCPOA.

 

Trump unilaterally exited, applied sanctions.  Europe did not fulfill their part of the deal.

 

JCPOA is dead, NPT applies.............for now.

 

I was not correct in 6 months notice to exit the treaty.

The requirement is 3 months.

 

 

 

 

Odd that they were also developing ICBM's wouldn't you think?

[coolcarer]

6 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Not prohibited under NPT.

Obviously not true, its proof they would be looking to make weapons and were very near it

 

 

Under the terms of a 2015 nuclear deal with the international community, Iran is permitted to enrich the naturally occurring radioactive material to less than four per cent.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164766

[BLMFem]

1 minute ago, Magictoad said:

But, but but he was so eloquent; no I mean She was so eloquent...

To be fair, compared to Trump even a donkey with a stutter can be considered a great orator. 

[Jingthing]

Trump took an incredibly consequential unilateral gamble without backing of even his own government. 

I wish he had succeeded in actually wiping out Iran's nuclear program even if I would have hated seeing him gain even more political power.

The gamble failed. 

Now what?

[BLMFem]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Trump took an incredibly consequential unilateral gamble without backing of even his own government. 

I wish he had succeeded in actually wiping out Iran's nuclear program even if I would have hated seeing him gain even more political power.

The gamble failed. 

Now what?

Exactly, this was the worst possible outcome.

[coolcarer]

5 minutes ago, DezLez said:

What report?

You didnt know?

 

Iran nuclear: IAEA inspectors find uranium particles enriched to 83.7%

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145

[NoDisplayName]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Obviously not true, its proof they would be looking to make weapons and were very near it

 

 

Under the terms of a 2015 nuclear deal with the international community, Iran is permitted to enrich the naturally occurring radioactive material to less than four per cent.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164766

 

Trump exited the treaty, Europe never fulfilled.

JCPOA no longer applies.

NPT does not set limits on enrichment.

 

[DezLez]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

You didnt know?

 

Iran nuclear: IAEA inspectors find uranium particles enriched to 83.7%

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145

We are supposed to know about a single BBC report over 2 years old?