Basically anyone can be nominated, but not necessarily voted upon. If nothing else nominating Trump is a legit move in this case AND a solid troll.
Israel and Iran
- Thread starter TLDR20
- Start date
Basically anyone can be nominated, but not necessarily voted upon. If nothing else nominating Trump is a legit move in this case AND a solid troll.
YMMV with this story.
DIA report says strike failed to destroy Fordow
Now, I imagine BDA is still ongoing to determine just how much damage was done. It's very possible Fordow is deeper/more fortified that previously though, so there may or may not be truth to that.
What does seem pretty likely is this part:
IMO, the nuclear material is really what matters at this point.
Nukes are increasingly proving themselves to be a requirement if you want national sovereignty in the 21st century. You either have them, or have buddies who've got them and agree to protect you.
If our attack creates national unity in Iran (as sanctions/other attacks have) we may see the Ayatollah officially reverse the Fatwa against the nuke program. I could see Iran speed-running a low yield nuke/dirty bomb as a way to "protect" themselves, if they don't Get some from the Russians/China.
DIA report says strike failed to destroy Fordow
Now, I imagine BDA is still ongoing to determine just how much damage was done. It's very possible Fordow is deeper/more fortified that previously though, so there may or may not be truth to that.
What does seem pretty likely is this part:
IMO, the nuclear material is really what matters at this point.
Nukes are increasingly proving themselves to be a requirement if you want national sovereignty in the 21st century. You either have them, or have buddies who've got them and agree to protect you.
If our attack creates national unity in Iran (as sanctions/other attacks have) we may see the Ayatollah officially reverse the Fatwa against the nuke program. I could see Iran speed-running a low yield nuke/dirty bomb as a way to "protect" themselves, if they don't Get some from the Russians/China.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I'm interested to know where this report is, are they writing an article based on congressional testimony? If they have the report they should cite it and publish it so we can read it ourselves. Otherwise eff off.
Last edited:
This is a news outlet that’s extremely anti-Trump. They are basing their report on leaked information from a classified DIA assessment. The information was initially leaked to CBS, which leads me to believe that the person or persons leaking it are probably Trump-detractors and could’ve embellished or omitted content to suit their agenda.
However, Trump’s mouth has been his worst enemy and to spout off prematurely that the facility was “completely and totally obliterated” and Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been wiped out of existence, could come back to haunt him.
Wasn't aware CBS broke it. This was the first thing I could find that wasn't pay-walled.
I think the damage (or lack thereof) may still not yet be fully known, so totally possible to adjust what information is given on that.
The bigger part is what exactly does "much" of Iran’s nuclear material really mean? 51%, 75%, all of it plus some infastructure stuff? We know they were scrambling all over the site before we attacked, so obviously they moved some of it.
400kg is the total I have seen.
Trump waited too long.
The story about DIA talks about ground sources providing intel.
Are these American sources or Israeli sources? I might trust the former. Might. The latter has something to gain by keeping the boogieman alive and well. Who knows, maybe the source(s) regardless of agency or nation involved are correct in their assessments?
An initial report from a source we may or may not trust, reported by anti-Trump news outlets based upon a single leaked report...Whether I should be or not, I'm skeptical about the BDA and will let this one play out.
Are these American sources or Israeli sources? I might trust the former. Might. The latter has something to gain by keeping the boogieman alive and well. Who knows, maybe the source(s) regardless of agency or nation involved are correct in their assessments?
An initial report from a source we may or may not trust, reported by anti-Trump news outlets based upon a single leaked report...Whether I should be or not, I'm skeptical about the BDA and will let this one play out.
They had plenty of time to move material and would’ve been fools not to, but I’d be surprised if the centrifuges didn’t suffer severe damage. That combined with the confirmed destruction of centrifuge production facilities could set the program back years.
Love how this story has evolved.
The same outlets were staunchly against strikes or involvement because the sites didn’t exist and Iran wasn’t a threat… ok they exist but there isn’t weapons grade uranium there… ok but here are the trucks taking 400-900kg of weapons grade material before the strikes so they weren’t effective… also our IC assessment is low confidence in destruction of the sites that didn’t exist… and anyway the nuclear material they weren’t enriching at the sites that didn’t exist because it hasn’t been their intent to get a bomb was moved beforehand TRUMP IS SO DUMB.
FWIW, Trump and Hegseth both saying the sites were destroyed. Now, I know we have never seen anyone in the admin (1 or 2) put out a report to damage or undermine the president, so we can fully trust the IC and their assessment (without on the ground BDA or any way to confirm it, which is the opposite of the info Trump is claiming with inspectors).
I’m just waiting on 51 former intelligence bosses to pen a lil note saying how their assessment is somehow magically in line with all mainstream media outlet talking points.
The same outlets were staunchly against strikes or involvement because the sites didn’t exist and Iran wasn’t a threat… ok they exist but there isn’t weapons grade uranium there… ok but here are the trucks taking 400-900kg of weapons grade material before the strikes so they weren’t effective… also our IC assessment is low confidence in destruction of the sites that didn’t exist… and anyway the nuclear material they weren’t enriching at the sites that didn’t exist because it hasn’t been their intent to get a bomb was moved beforehand TRUMP IS SO DUMB.
FWIW, Trump and Hegseth both saying the sites were destroyed. Now, I know we have never seen anyone in the admin (1 or 2) put out a report to damage or undermine the president, so we can fully trust the IC and their assessment (without on the ground BDA or any way to confirm it, which is the opposite of the info Trump is claiming with inspectors).
I’m just waiting on 51 former intelligence bosses to pen a lil note saying how their assessment is somehow magically in line with all mainstream media outlet talking points.
Different stream here- so the report CNN put out was top secret. If I remember correctly- that’s a big deal. When are we ready to talk about this?
Hegseth said the FBI is actively looking for the leakers. Thats a good thing.
I see the CNN article does mention the Israelis (allegedly) believe we didn't destroy it, but we set them back further than what the DIA report claims.
As @AWP said, the Israelis benefit from keeping the boogeyman alive. If they're saying it's pushed back further than the DIA report, that's increasing my opinion that the leakers are more misleading than not.
Total agreement here. +5.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Whoever leaked the document to the press goes to Prison, yesterday. Sedition. Cull bloodline.
Sedition? I'm 100% for prison on this, but sedition? How?
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Kitchen sink I guess. But this would fall under:
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
So just get me the ten years and no funded sex changes?
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
So just get me the ten years and no funded sex changes?
This I agree with. Leaking a TS document doesn't make it sedition, "overtly inciting rebellion." They absolutely deserve jail time, but a leak by itself isn't sedition.
From the code-
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
I would say, if you leak a TS document that includes ways, means, processes, or procedures of the USGOV to CNN after a strike, you (the unauthorized person) furnished all our adversaries with how we conduct warfare. I'd classify that as "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States, or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States."
Might need some finessing, glad we have a stand-up never-fail DOJ on the case. I am old enough to remember that the signal chat leaked war plans and put AMERICAN LIVES AT RISK.
This is not the definition of sedition, which is what started this exchange.
