Netanyahu: Iran War Not Over Until Uranium Removed

World - war will be over when Netanyahu is arrested and imprisoned for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Why not allow the KKK to have the bomb too?

This conflict is certainly changing the narrative around nuclear weapons.

North Korea has just changed their constitution, mandating nuclear strike in case their leadership gets killed by a foreign country.

To Donald and Bibi: In case you didn't realise - North Korea actually does have an arsenal of nukes mounted on intercontinental missiles...

What is even better is for the Middle-East to be nuke free. The Middle-East Nuclear weapon Free Zone (MENWFZ) was created to be a legally binding treaty and was pursued by Eqypt and Iran in the 1960s. Unfortunately it was never concluded and Israel remain the only Middle-East country to possesss nuclear weapons. Netanyahu want Israel to be the only country in the Middle-East to have nuclear weapons to threaten ME countries into submission to his Greater Israel vision. Will not be suprised if Turkey develope their own nuclear vision.

Likewise the war can’t be considered over until Netanyahu and his mass murdering clowns have been sentenced and executed!

11 hours ago, webfact said:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the conflict with Iran cannot be considered finished until the country’s highly enriched uranium is removed and its nuclear enrichment infrastructure dismantled.

Get today's headlines by email

Speaking in an interview broadcast Sunday on the TV programme 60 Minutes, Netanyahu said that despite a fragile ceasefire involving the United States and Iran, key elements of Tehran’s nuclear capability remain intact.

Netanyahu told the programme’s chief Washington correspondent, Major Garrett of CBS News, that Israel had significantly weakened Iran’s military and nuclear-related capacity during the conflict but that further action was still required.

Uranium removal central to Israeli position

Netanyahu said that highly enriched uranium held by Iran must be taken out of the country and that enrichment facilities should be dismantled to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

“Now, we’ve degraded a lot of it,” he said, referring to Iran’s nuclear programme as well as the capabilities of allied militant groups in the region and Iran’s missile production.

“But all that is still there, and there’s work to be done,” he added.

International monitoring bodies estimate that Iran retains about 970 pounds (roughly 440 kilograms) of uranium enriched to levels close to weapons-grade.

According to Netanyahu, removing that stockpile would be a crucial step in ensuring that Iran cannot quickly advance towards producing a nuclear weapon.

Possibility of negotiated solution

Netanyahu said that reaching an agreement with Iran to remove the enriched uranium would be the most effective path.

“You go in, and you take it out,” he said when discussing how such material might be removed.

If a deal could be negotiated, he said, it would represent “the best way” to eliminate Iran’s highly enriched uranium reserves.

His comments come as diplomatic efforts continue following a fragile ceasefire arrangement involving the United States and Iran, aimed at halting direct hostilities and preventing a wider regional escalation.

No timetable for further action

The Israeli leader declined to say what actions Israel might take if an agreement with Iran is not reached regarding the nuclear material.

Netanyahu said he would not provide a timetable for any further steps but emphasised the importance Israel places on the issue.

“I’m not going to give a timetable to it,” he said, describing the removal of Iran’s enriched uranium as “a terrifically important mission”.

The remarks underline Israel’s continuing focus on Iran’s nuclear programme even as ceasefire efforts attempt to stabilise the situation following recent tensions.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 11 May 2026

View full article

And what has Israel been doing in Iran since the first week they started the war???

Dismantling Israel's nukes would make for a more peaceful Middle East. Don't wanna? Well, Iran gets the bomb. Good luck with that.

As long as the criminal case against him is there he will continue the war. Israeli credibility getting lower by the day.

To remove this enriched uranium is just not a matter of a bulldozer and go get the enriched uranium, it is a highly specialized job, enriched uranium is stored as a gas uranium hexafluoride (UF6) if the gas containers are not damaged ok can be recovered if not then containment problems not a simple job in a war

What we know. Israel has nukes. It hasn't used them.

What we don't know. Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel. Repeatedly. On the record. But a fatwa is words, and words aren't launches. The question isn't whether Iran wants to. It's whether a regime that has survived this long on calculated proxy warfare would trade national existence for one strike. Rational actors don't. The problem is, a theocracy that believes martyrdom is divine reward doesn't run on the same rational calculus. That's precisely what makes the question unanswerable, and the risk unacceptable.

What we can assume. If Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia follows. Then the UAE, Turkey, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait. You've just turned one of the world's most contested regions into a multi-party nuclear standoff. The margin for catastrophe collapses.

It's a blunt read, but it holds up: Is the only reason Iran hasn't obliterated Israel is because Israel has nukes ? And Israel, for all the criticism it draws, shows considerable restraint in not using them - an accurate take ???

The distinction matters too. Israel isn't at war with the Iranian people. It's the theocratic regime that has made Israel's destruction a state objective. The optics are reversed constantly, but that's the underling fact.

Iran's behavior also extends well beyond Israel. It sponsors the Houthis, a group whose founding slogan calls for death to America and Israel, but the shipping lane disruption serves Iran's broader strategic interests more than any specific grievance against Israel. Iran has no geographical claim to the Gulf of Aden or the Bab el-Mandeb. So it manufactures leverage by proxy, threatening one of the world's most critical maritime corridors and extracting influence it was never entitled to. This is a regime that exports conflict as foreign policy.

If Israel dismantled its nuclear arsenal tomorrow, Israel would cease to exist - thats the widely accepted narative - whether true or not is a question no one wants to risk being answered, except the anti-Israel lobbyist who seem to vastly under-estimate the Iranian regime. The world would then be forced to respond to Iran for making good on a promise it stated openly, for decades, in public.

Iran's nuclear capability has been degraded. But it still holds an estimated 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% U-235. More critically, the infrastructure being destroyed is the easy part. You can't destroy knowledge. Iran's nuclear physicists carry the program in their heads and if they've been 'removed' the knowledge still exists within Iran. It's logged, archived, stored on drives in places no strike can reach. Pandora's box is open. The facilities can be rebuilt.

That leaves two real options as I see it. The regime changes, genuinely, into something that accepts Israel's existence, withdraws from proxy warfare, and surrenders its nuclear program entirely. Or the enriched uranium is physically removed by force. There is no third door - other than continued pressure and further detente and instability in the region.

The North Korea comparison is a false narrative: North Korea is a closed, an isolated garrison state with no meaningful regional proxy network, no active sworn enemies it has publicly committed to destroying (other than the South), and a nuclear program used purely for regime survival and leverage in negotiations. It threatens, but its calculus is self-preservation.

Iran is the opposite. It funds active proxy militias across five countries. It has explicitly and repeatedly called for Israel's elimination, not as rhetoric, but as state doctrine. It operates in a region saturated with rival powers who would themselves go nuclear in response. And unlike North Korea, which wants to be left alone, Iran wants regional dominance. A nuclear Iran isn't a deterrent story. It's an expansionist one. Treating them as equivalent misreads both regimes entirely - using North Korea as an example is a failure of basic understanding.

Iran is a sovereign country.

Whilst I sympathize with some of the views here, Israel and its dog (USA) had no right to take any armed action against them without doing it legally with a UN resolution.

I don’t believe Iran would ever preemptively use Nukes on Israel or anyone else, it would be suicide.

The war against Iran is illegal under international law.

Both the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US attack on Iran (no moral equivalence suggested here) confirm that no country is really safe without nuclear protection.

It is obvious that the US/Israeli attack can only have reinforced Iran's motivation to develop nuclear weapons.

This sounds reasonable to me, and it's the position of not only Israel, but the US and the EU: No Nukes in Iran, ever.

The law is there to protect everyone, we can’t pick and choose who it protects.

The aggression is against international law PERIOD

11 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

What is even better is for the Middle-East to be nuke free. The Middle-East Nuclear weapon Free Zone (MENWFZ) was created to be a legally binding treaty and was pursued by Eqypt and Iran in the 1960s. Unfortunately it was never concluded and Israel remain the only Middle-East country to possesss nuclear weapons. Netanyahu want Israel to be the only country in the Middle-East to have nuclear weapons to threaten ME countries into submission to his Greater Israel vision. Will not be suprised if Turkey develope their own nuclear vision.

Hmmm yes but from what I understand, Turkey and Greece both have their own Nukes, do you think they will 'just give them up?'

7 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Iran is a sovereign country.

Whilst I sympathize with some of the views here, Israel and its dog (USA) had no right to take any armed action against them without doing it legally with a UN resolution.

I don’t believe Iran would ever preemptively use Nukes on Israel or anyone else, it would be suicide.

The war against Iran is illegal under international law.

"Iran is a sovereign country"

Yes. So was Afghanistan when it harbored groups that killed thousands. Sovereignty isn't a shield from consequences when a state actively funds armed proxy networks across five countries, supplies missiles to groups attacking international shipping, and runs an undeclared war through intermediaries. Sovereignty comes with obligations under international law too. Iran has violated them repeatedly and systematically.

"Israel and its dog the USA had no right to act without a UN resolution"

The UN Security Council is structurally incapable of authorising action against Iran. Russia and China hold vetoes and will use them. Waiting for a UN resolution against an Iranian nuclear threat isn't a legal mechanism, it's paralysis dressed up as process. Israel has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right to self-defense, and has a credible case. A state that funds groups openly committed to your destruction, and is actively pursuing nuclear capability, constitutes an armed threat. You don't need a permission slip to defend your existence.

"Iran would never preemptively use nukes. It would be suicide"

This is the most reasonable point you made, and the rational-actor argument holds, until it doesn't. The problem isn't whether Iran's leadership is rational by Western standards. It's that a theocratic regime that frames martyrdom as divine reward operates on a different risk calculus. More critically, the real danger isn't a deliberate first strike. It's miscalculation, a proxy escalation that spirals, a hardliner faction acting without full command authorisation, or a regime in its final hours with nothing left to lose. Nuclear policy is not built around around best-case behavior.

"The war is illegal under international law"

This is contested, not settled. International law on anticipatory self-defense has been debated since the 1967 Six Day War. The Caroline Doctrine establishes that preemptive force is lawful when a threat is imminent, necessary, and proportionate. Whether Iran's nuclear program and proxy aggression meet that threshold is genuinely arguable. But calling it flatly illegal requires ignoring decades of legal precedent on self-defense, and it also requires holding Israel to a standard no other nation facing an existential threat has ever been held to.

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

"Iran is a sovereign country"

Yes. So was Afghanistan when it harbored groups that killed thousands. Sovereignty isn't a shield from consequences when a state actively funds armed proxy networks across five countries, supplies missiles to groups attacking international shipping, and runs an undeclared war through intermediaries. Sovereignty comes with obligations under international law too. Iran has violated them repeatedly and systematically.

"Israel and its dog the USA had no right to act without a UN resolution"

The UN Security Council is structurally incapable of authorising action against Iran. Russia and China hold vetoes and will use them. Waiting for a UN resolution against an Iranian nuclear threat isn't a legal mechanism, it's paralysis dressed up as process. Israel has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right to self-defense, and has a credible case. A state that funds groups openly committed to your destruction, and is actively pursuing nuclear capability, constitutes an armed threat. You don't need a permission slip to defend your existence.

"Iran would never preemptively use nukes. It would be suicide"

This is the most reasonable point you made, and the rational-actor argument holds, until it doesn't. The problem isn't whether Iran's leadership is rational by Western standards. It's that a theocratic regime that frames martyrdom as divine reward operates on a different risk calculus. More critically, the real danger isn't a deliberate first strike. It's miscalculation, a proxy escalation that spirals, a hardliner faction acting without full command authorisation, or a regime in its final hours with nothing left to lose. Nuclear policy is not built around around best-case behavior.

"The war is illegal under international law"

This is contested, not settled. International law on anticipatory self-defense has been debated since the 1967 Six Day War. The Caroline Doctrine establishes that preemptive force is lawful when a threat is imminent, necessary, and proportionate. Whether Iran's nuclear program and proxy aggression meet that threshold is genuinely arguable. But calling it flatly illegal requires ignoring decades of legal precedent on self-defense, and it also requires holding Israel to a standard no other nation facing an existential threat has ever been held to.

I appreciate your position, but all of my points stand, and your argument about Afghanistan is nothing more than whataboutism. Iran has indeed done the thing you claim, but it doesn't change the fact it's a sovereign nation and there are other ways to solve the problems, the old adage you catch more flies with honey than vinegar comes to mind.

I agree with your point about Russia and China holding votes that would prevent a UN Resolution, but this ties into the fact the aggression being illegal under international law. If the aggression is vetoed, then by definition it's illegal if it continues. Regarding the Caroline Doctrine, I don't think anyone believes there was any kind of imminent threat, that was pure Trump nonsense.

The whole point about the law is that it applies to everyone. The Iran war is illegal, if you want to do it legally then you either comply with the law or you change the law PERIOD.

I get your point on use if nukes being suicide. I think all nation states with Nukes will use them in the event they are about to lose a war, we may see this with Russia at some point. If Iran had nukes this illegal aggression would never have happened.

I am no great friend of Iran (or Israel), but I do believe in the law.

All Israeli nukes should be forcefully removed at the same time.

4 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I appreciate your position, but all of my points stand, and your argument about Afghanistan is nothing more than whataboutism. Iran has indeed done the thing you claim, but it doesn't change the fact it's a sovereign nation and there are other ways to solve the problems, the old adage you catch more flies with honey than vinegar comes to mind.

I agree with your point about Russia and China holding votes that would prevent a UN Resolution, but this ties into the fact the aggression being illegal under international law. If the aggression is vetoed, then by definition it's illegal if it continues. Regarding the Caroline Doctrine, I don't think anyone believes there was any kind of imminent threat, that was pure Trump nonsense.

The whole point about the law is that it applies to everyone. The Iran war is illegal, if you want to do it legally then you either comply with the law or you change the law PERIOD.

I get your point on use if nukes being suicide. I think all nation states with Nukes will use them in the event they are about to lose a war, we may see this with Russia at some point. If Iran had nukes this illegal aggression would never have happened.

I am no great friend of Iran (or Israel), but I do believe in the law.

"If the law supposes that... the law is a ass - a idiot," Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist...

Dickens wasn't celebrating lawlessness. He was pointing out that law, rigidly applied without moral judgment, produces absurd and unjust outcomes. That's exactly what's happening here.

You're making a procedurally correct argument. The war lacks explicit UN authorisation. By strict reading, that makes it illegal. Fine. But follow that logic to its conclusion.

The UN Security Council is not a neutral legal arbiter. It's a geopolitical instrument where Russia and China hold permanent vetoes. Under your framework, any aggression sponsored or protected by a veto power is permanently untouchable under international law. That's not justice. That's a structural loophole that protects bad actors indefinitely. The law, applied that way, is an ass.

On the Caroline Doctrine and imminence. You say nobody genuinely believed the threat was imminent. But consider what "not imminent" actually looked like in practice. Iran was sitting on hundreds of kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, a short technical step from weapons-grade, while running active proxy forces on multiple borders surrounding Israel. At what point does imminence begin? After the first warhead is assembled?

And this wasn't a threat that appeared overnight. Iranian naval forces were running exercises explicitly designed to threaten Strait of Hormuz shipping back in 2017 and 2018. US Navy destroyers were firing warning shots at Iranian fast-attack vessels closing in at high speed.

The Gulf shipping and Oils industry has been running contingency and evacuation planning around Iranian threat scenarios for the better part of two decades. This is a long, documented pattern of deliberate intimidation, not Trump's invention, and not a new problem. The Caroline Doctrine was never designed to require a country to absorb the first strike before it's permitted to defend itself. Imminence, in a nuclear context, can't wait for the smoking gun. By then it's a mushroom cloud.

On honey versus vinegar. It's a reasonable instinct - but you're not dealing with a child or a girl in a bar - You are dealing with 45 years of failed diplomacy. The JCPOA was honey. Iran kept enriching. Sanctions relief was honey. Iran kept funding Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi. The flies didn't cooperate.

IMO - Your strongest point is this one: if Iran had nukes, this wouldn't have happened. You're almost certainly right. Which is precisely the argument for why Iran cannot be allowed to get them. It's not a justification for Iran's program. It's the clearest possible case for stopping it before the calculus changes permanently.

You believe in the law. That's admirable. But international law without enforcement is a strongly worded letter. And sometimes, the courthouse is on fire. Iran didn't just threaten. It acted. Repeatedly. Over decades.

• 1992: Iran and Al-Qaeda reached an informal agreement to cooperate against Israel and the US, with senior Al-Qaeda operatives traveling to Iran for explosives training.

• 1996-2001: Between 8 and 10 of the 9/11 hijackers transited Iran without passport stamps, a deliberate policy by Iranian border officials.

• 2000, USS Cole: Iran assisted Al-Qaeda in establishing the Yemen network used to bomb the USS Cole, killing 17 US sailors.

• June 13, 2019: The UK government stated it was almost certain a branch of the Iranian military attacked two commercial tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

• July 19, 2019, Stena Impero: Iranian Revolutionary Guard commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz, seizing it and detaining its 23-person crew for two months.

• September 14, 2019, Aramco: Iran-manufactured drones and cruise missiles struck Saudi Aramco at Abqaiq and Khurais; the US, UK, France, and Germany all attributed responsibility to Iran. Five percent of global oil supply gone in one morning.

• January 8, 2020, Al-Asad and Erbil: Iran directly fired ballistic missiles at Al-Asad Airbase and Erbil in Iraq in two waves, destroying at least five structures, with missiles precise enough to target individual buildings.

• August 2020, MT Wila: Iranian forces boarded the Bahamas-flagged MT Wila in international waters, allegedly searching for previously US-seized Iranian oil.

• April 2023, Advantage Sweet: Iranian commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the Marshall Islands-flagged Advantage Sweet in the Gulf of Oman, seizing a tanker chartered to carry oil to American giant Chevron.

• May 2023, Niovi: A dozen IRGC fast-attack boats swarmed the Panama-flagged Niovi in the Strait of Hormuz, forcing it into Iranian waters days after the Advantage Sweet seizure.

• September 2023: Two foreign-flagged tankers, Panama and Tanzania-registered, seized in the Persian Gulf by IRGC for alleged fuel smuggling, 37 crew handed to Iranian judicial authorities.

• October-November 2023 onward, Iraq and Syria: Iran-backed groups conducted over 16 strikes on US bases, 12 in Iraq and four in Syria.

• January 16, 2024, Erbil: Iran fired ballistic missiles at Erbil targeting an alleged Mossad headquarters, killing four civilians and wounding six.

• January 11, 2024, St. Nikolas: Iran seized the Marshall Islands-flagged St. Nikolas in the Gulf of Oman in direct retaliation for the US seizing Iranian crude oil, boarding it with masked armed men who covered the ship's surveillance cameras.

• January 28, 2024, Tower 22, Jordan: Iran-backed drone strike on a US outpost in Jordan killed three American soldiers and wounded 47.

• April 2024, MSC Aries: Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces boarded the MSC Aries container ship by helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz, seizing it in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike on Iran's Damascus consulate.

• November 2025, MV Talara: Iranian forces seized the Marshall Islands-flagged MV Talara in the Strait of Hormuz, diverting it to Iranian waters.

• February 5, 2026: IRGC seized two foreign oil tankers near Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf, detaining 15 foreign crew members, hours before scheduled US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman.

• June 16, 2025, Erbil drone strike: Iran launched a drone attack directly on the US consulate in Erbil, Iraq.

• June 23, 2025, Al-Udeid, Qatar: The IRGC fired 14 ballistic missiles at Al-Udeid Air Base, US Central Command's forward headquarters, striking and damaging the $15 million secure communications dome.

• March 2026, Erbil again: Iran fired ground-to-ground ballistic missiles at the US base at Erbil airport, killing six Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and wounding 30.

This isn't a country that was pushed into a corner in 2025. This is a 30-year pattern of direct strikes, tanker seizures, proxy warfare, and tactical cooperation with groups committed to killing Americans and destroying Israel. The courthouse wasn't just on fire. Iran was holding the match.

16 hours ago, Explorator en Action said:

Hmmm yes but from what I understand, Turkey and Greece both have their own Nukes, do you think they will 'just give them up?'

No. Neither has nuclear weapons.

Turkey hosts around 50 US nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base, but doesn't own or control them.

Greece has nothing.

4 hours ago, connda said:

All Israeli nukes should be forcefully removed at the same time.

OK - lets play along - then how do you get rid of 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% U-235 from Iran which is sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Perhaps send in special forces to set up a forward operating base near where it is believed the Iranians are storing the enriched uranium.

Doing so under cover of a pilot rescue mission should put the press on off the scent and no need to worry about the Iranians they are no match for the might of Uncle Sam.

It’ll be a walk in the park.

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

OK - lets play along - then how do you get rid of 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% U-235 from Iran which is sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Here is the deal. Israel too has a Greater Israel plan which call for the elimination of Iran to establish a regional hegemony. They have the nukes. Iran's fatwa is to wipe Israel of the map but has no nuke. Seem Israel is more a threat than Iran.

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps send in special forces to set up a forward operating base near where it is believed the Iranians are storing the enriched uranium.

Doing so under cover of a pilot rescue mission should put the press on off the scent and no need to worry about the Iranians they are no match for the might of Uncle Sam.

It’ll be a walk in the park.

Do you have any idea how this is stored

To do this in a war zone is madness the 60% uranium is stored as a gas uranium hexafluoride in ŠKODA VPVR/M transport and storage cask each weighs 10,700 kilograms empty full more that 12,300 kilograms so to remove these, a crane and flat bed truck would be required how many containers there are is not know, and if any are leaking there is a containment problem, total load for 18 of these packages would be 190 to 220 metric tons,

There are several hypotheses of Decoy with fake containers,

this is to be carried out under war conditions Madness heading for disaster and a lot of people killed

A walk in the park i dought it

https://thebulletin.org/2026/03/analysis-iran-likely-transferred-highly-enriched-uranium-to-isfahan-before-the-june-strikes/

47 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

OK - lets play along - then how do you get rid of 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% U-235 from Iran which is sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Here is the deal. Israel too has a Greater Israel plan which call for the elimination of Iran to establish a regional hegemony. They have the nukes. Iran's fatwa is to wipe Israel of the map but has no nuke. Seem Israel is more a threat than Iran.

No. That argument has two factual problems before it even gets to the logic.

"Greater Israel eliminates Iran"..... wrong. Greater Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, refers to territorial expansion within the Levant, historically debated borders covering parts of modern Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestinian territories. It has nothing to do with Iran. No credible version of Greater Israel doctrine calls for the elimination of Iran. Conflating territorial ambition in the Levant with a plan to destroy a country 1,500 kilometres away is so far out of touch with the facts its pure fantasy.

"Iran's fatwa is just words, Israel has nukes"..... here's the core problem with that framing. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s. In 55+ years it has not used them, not threatened to use them, and not made the destruction of any state official government policy. Iran has made Israel's elimination explicit, repeated, and doctrinal. Words backed by proxy armies on three borders, ballistic missile programs, and active uranium enrichment are not just words. They are Irans roadmap to carry out their promises.

The threat comparison flips on one question. Which country has actually fired weapons at the other? Iran has. Repeatedly. Through proxies and directly. Israel responded. Iran has never been struck unprovoked (fact check that if you like, while also considering its proxy operations).

A country with nukes and restraint is not more dangerous than a country without nukes but with stated genocidal intent, an active missile program, and a 30-year record of regional aggression.

Your logic only works if you ignore everything Iran has actually done so far.

32 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Do you have any idea how this is stored

To do this in a war zone is madness the 60% uranium is stored as a gas uranium hexafluoride in ŠKODA VPVR/M transport and storage cask each weighs 10,700 kilograms empty full more that 12,300 kilograms so to remove these, a crane and flat bed truck would be required how many containers there are is not know, and if any are leaking there is a containment problem, total load for 18 of these packages would be 190 to 220 metric tons,

There are several hypotheses of Decoy with fake containers,

this is to be carried out under war conditions Madness heading for disaster and a lot of people killed

A walk in the park i dought it

https://thebulletin.org/2026/03/analysis-iran-likely-transferred-highly-enriched-uranium-to-isfahan-before-the-june-strikes/

Assuming the MC-130J aircraft don’t get stuck in the mud.

51 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Here is the deal. Israel too has a Greater Israel plan which call for the elimination of Iran to establish a regional hegemony.

On this specifically: Israel has NEVER doctrinally, as state policy called for the elimination of Iran.

What Israel has called for: The neutralisation Iran's nuclear program and ending the regime's regional aggression. That's not the same as calling for Iran's elimination. Israel also consistently distinguishes between the regime and the Iranian people. Iran makes no such distinction about Israelis - it wants them all 'gone'.

The asymmetry is clear. One side has a doctrine of elimination. The other has a doctrine of survival.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Assuming the MC-130J aircraft don’t get stuck in the mud.

it would definitely get stuck trying to put 200 metric tons into it since its capacity is only 19 metric tons

this job is NO WALK in the park transporting over 200metic tons under fire as the Iranian will resist just utter madness

An inflammatory anti Jew post has been removed,

On 5/12/2026 at 1:00 PM, richard_smith237 said:

No. Neither has nuclear weapons.

Turkey hosts around 50 US nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base, but doesn't own or control them.

Greece has nothing.

You sir are correct, but I thought back in the late 70’s Turkey and Greece went at it again, and threatened to take control of the Nukes in their countries and launch at each other. US had to beef of the security in both countries to stop that from happening. I was assigned to a Nuke site in Germany at that time.