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

[coolcarer]

Just now, NoDisplayName said:

 

Trump exited the treaty, Europe never fulfilled.

JCPOA no longer applies.

NPT does not set limits on enrichment.

 

I know you hate Trump but it’s also not allowed by IAEA. Sorry

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, DezLez said:

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

If you think it is single BBC report then probably not. But you think wrong, it’s not.

The fact this was found 2 years ago is very important as well.

[Magictoad]

I don't know anything about this except I sent/ watched the Beach Boys video BUT if the Iranians drove 15 massive waggons/ lorries out of these places wouldn't someone have noticed where they went? Where they parked up? One might have thought the combined resources of the Israelis & the Murikans would have noticed something, IF they were looking in that direction. Just a thought.

[NoDisplayName]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

I know you hate Trump but it’s also not allowed by IAEA. Sorry

 

The IEAE is not a treaty, it is a UN organization that monitors individual nations' nuclear programs based on provisions of the NPT.

 

The NPT does not set limits on enrichment.

 

Sorry.

[DezLez]

11 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

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

And make more sense and tell no lies!!

[candide]

11 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 trashed this deal in 2018. 

 

After that, and after the US killed a high ranked person, Iran declared it was not bound any more by this treaty.

 

It is still adhering the NPT, until now!

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, candide said:

Trump trashed this deal in 2018. 

 

After that, and after the US killed a high ranked person, Iran declared it was not bound any more by this treaty.

 

It is still adhering the NPT, until now!

How is that relevant to the post I replied to disproving his claim?

[coolcarer]

9 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

The IEAE is not a treaty, it is a UN organization that monitors individual nations' nuclear programs based on provisions of the NPT.

 

The NPT does not set limits on enrichment.

 

Sorry.

Man you can’t even name the IAEA correctly let alone know it’s function to monitor And inspect 

 

Iran is a party to the NPT and thus subject to IAEA oversight including inspections meant to ensure that no nuclear material such as uranium is "diverted" for use in atomic bombs.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/limits-un-nuclear-watchdogs-oversight-iran-2025-06-23/

[NoDisplayName]

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Man you can’t even name the IAEA correctly let alone know it’s function to monitor And inspect 

 

Iran is a party to the NPT and thus subject to IAEA oversight including inspections meant to ensure that no nuclear material such as uranium is "diverted" for use in atomic bombs.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/limits-un-nuclear-watchdogs-oversight-iran-2025-06-23/#:~:text=The IAEA's oversight is limited,for use in atomic bombs.

 

Nowhere in there does it limit enrichment.

[NoDisplayName]

9 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

How is that relevant to the post I replied to disproving his claim?

 

On November 19, 2015, the State Department sent a letter to then-Representative Mike Pompeo that severely undercuts the notion that the Iran deal represents any form of binding American commitment. It turns out that the Obama administration not only acknowledged that the deal wasn’t a treaty (obvious enough), but it also admitted that it wasn’t “an executive agreement” or even a “signed document.”

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iran-nuclear-deal-not-signed-document-not-binding/

 

In a letter recently released by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), the State Department emphasized that the Iran deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – is not binding under international law. The letter was in response to Pompeo’s inquiry about why the JCPOA transmitted to Congress lacked signatures.

 

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-department-affirms-iran-deal-only-political-commitment

 

Sorry.

[coolcarer]

6 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Nowhere in there does it limit enrichment.

Why are you ignoring Irans obligations under the treaties it signed.

 

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

 

It is still in and signatory to JCPOA

 

 

[NoDisplayName]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Why are you ignoring Irans obligations under the treaties it signed.

 

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

 

It is still in and signatory to JCPOA

 

 

 

Not a treaty, and not an international legal obligation, according to..................the US government.  

 

See above.

 

Can't have it both ways.  A political "deal" isn't binding on the Iranians if it's not binding on the other parties to the "deal."

 

I'll let you google it if'n ya like, but I recall one of the provisions of the "deal" was that restrictions on Iran would be nullified if one of the other parties exited the "deal" or if the promised sanctions relief was not accomplished.

[coolcarer]

10 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Not a treaty, and not an international legal obligation, according to..................the US government.  

 

See above.

 

Can't have it both ways.  A political "deal" isn't binding on the Iranians if it's not binding on the other parties to the "deal."

 

I'll let you google it if'n ya like, but I recall one of the provisions of the "deal" was that restrictions on Iran would be nullified if one of the other parties exited the "deal" or if the promised sanctions relief was not accomplished.

What part of the US not being a signatory but Iran is do you not understand, along with. 

 

China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and along with the European Union

[Smokin Joe]

4 hours ago, BLMFem said:

If these assessments are correct it puts Trump (and by extension Netanyahu) in a very difficult situation. He's been adamant that all must respect the declared ceasefire, but if the Iranians can have the enrichment plants up and running in a fairly short time then what does he do? Bomb again? The first bombing was already very unpopular with most Americans.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/video/cnn-poll-us-strikes-iran-poll-americans-digvid

 

"According to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, President Donald Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Iran is broadly unpopular with Americans, with 56% to 44% disapproving of the strikes."

 

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

 

Yes, that is exactly what he would do. If the enrichment equipment is salvageable it is buried under a few hundred feet of concrete. It will take a lot of heavy equipment a lot of time to get down to it. Easy to monitor the progress and just as easy to put a stop to salvage efforts.

 

And that is assuming it can be salvaged at all.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

How is that relevant to the post I replied to disproving his claim?

That's the 2015 deal you mentioned. I don't support Iran, but as the deal was trashed by the U.S., they had no reason to respect it.

 

As concerns the NPT, there's no enrichment percentage limit, but a high level may be considered as a clue that enrichment activities may be diverted towards weapon development.

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, candide said:

That's the 2015 deal you mentioned. I don't support Iran, but as the deal was trashed by the U.S., they had no reason to respect it.

 

As concerns the NPT, there's no enrichment percentage limit, but a high level may be considered as a clue that enrichment activities may be diverted towards weapon development.

Did you miss the string again?

11 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

What part of the US not being a signatory but Iran is do you not understand, along with. 

 

China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and along with the European Union

 

[Social Media]

@NoDisplayName second troll baiting post making false claims removed.

[dinsdale]

BTW with all this orange man bad delusion going on how's the ceasefire going? The cease fire that those with Trump living 24/7 in their heads said wasn't real. 

[candide]

16 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Did you miss the string again?

 

The other members actually tried to save the agreement. However, due to the de facto extraterritoriality of U.S. sanctions, they could do nothing. They were compelled to follow the U.S. sanctions. In 2020, Iran declared it was not bound any  more by this agreement.

[Yagoda]

6 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

BTW with all this bad man delusion going on how's the ceasefire going? The cease fire that those with Trump living 24/7 in their heads said wasn't real. 

Seems to be going well, despite the Trump haters wishing for it to fall apart so more people die. 

[BE88]

2 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

L’AIEA ha dimostrato di passare l’intelligence agli Stati Uniti, e l’Iran non ha ricevuto i benefici dovuti nell’ambito del trattato di non proliferazione, né il JCPOA è mai stato onorato dagli Stati Uniti o dall’Europa.

 

L’Iran ha ora tutto il diritto di uscire dal trattato con sei mesi di preavviso, cacciare gli ispettori e continuare con il loro pacifico programma civile nukular.

 

Trump può ora entrare in elicottero su uno dei suoi supercarrier con uno striscione che proclama "Missione compiuta".

 

Since the Iranians are not that stupid and have understood that having the atomic bomb will now do as North Korea did, they will build the atomic bomb for sure.

 

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Trump will just continue to lie that it was an enormous success.

Supported by Rubio and hegseth. 

 

Unfortunately i don't know if the intelligence can be trusted to remain truthful.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Well, well, well, what have we here. So the sites weren't obliterated anyway? Wonder who'll take the fall for this.

 

 

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

 

"The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.

The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said."

 

 

 

Shock, horror. Another CNN scoop of poop.  

[BLMFem]

13 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

BTW with all this bad man delusion going on how's the ceasefire going?

 

Seems to be holding up for now, just like Iran's nuclear sites it would appear.

[dinsdale]

Watch this. Very interesting. Puts a bit of a different light on what this thread is based on and so many of the bad man comments.

 

[coolcarer]

19 minutes ago, candide said:

The other members actually tried to save the agreement. However, due to the de facto extraterritoriality of U.S. sanctions, they could do nothing. They were compelled to follow the U.S. sanctions. In 2020, Iran declared it was not bound any  more by this agreement.

Now read the UN statement a few days ago that I linked to. They disagree with you.

[candide]

2 hours ago, BLMFem said:

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

Not being in denial of reality=Trump hate topic!  🤣

[BLMFem]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Supported by Rubio and hegseth. 

 

Unfortunately i don't know if the intelligence can be trusted to remain truthful.

True. Tulsi is skating on extremely thin ice and there will be nothing coming from the U.S. intelligence community that contradicts Trump's claims if she can help it.

[BLMFem]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Shock, horror. Another CNN scoop of poop.  

Agreed. It really doesn't look good for Trump.

[candide]

40 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Now read the UN statement a few days ago that I linked to. They disagree with you.

The agreement still technically exists on paper, but no one respects it. It's a kind of ghost treaty.