86
U.S. resumes strikes against Iran, retaliating against surprise missile attack (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 3 months ago* (39 children)

What a horse shit title. "Retaliating"....

You started a war with someone, you aren't retaliating for shit. You are/have/and will always be the aggressor. The excuses for this war he gave was "they are making something all our resources say they arent making". "Oh but also we already blew all of that up so they could never make it again, I called it complete annihilation"

The entire world saw Donald Trump terminate a deal with Iran that they wouldn't make nuclear weapons. Then all our Intel showed they weren't making weapons, then when Trump claimed they were, Iran went to the UN and told them they had no problem starting up the program where they monitor that they are not making nuclear weapons.

Trump bombs them directly after they brought that proposal to the UN... When he himself got rid of the agreement.

NBC should be shut down for calling this a "response".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (38 children)

    IAEA reports clearly show they were mass producing highly enriched uranium

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (23 children)

    "just 2 more weeks bro and they'll have a nuke" - same bullshit excuse to fuck with em for 50 years now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    Yeah I'm sure they were enriching uranium for... artistic reasons...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (21 children)

    As a bargaining tool to push the usa back to the jcpoa

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Exactly. Pointing a gun at the crowd to get sanctions cancelled.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    The usa has 19 guns pointed at iran called bases and again american inteligence said iran is not seeking nukes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    American 'intelligence' said they were not building an actual bomb yet

    But then, once you have enough HE uranium, building the bombs is the easy part

    So how smart would it be to let them get to the easy part before you try to stop them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    Why are you putting intelligence in quote? Are you trying to claim they are lying for iran? Iran was at 60% of 4 years after the jcpoa was torn up that mean if they really wanted a nuke they would have it long time ago. Assuming Iran even got the nukes they would have like 10 the USA has 5000 nukes . The regime is not dumb enough to use a nuke on the usa which would lead to the destruction of iran as a functional state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    It takes certain steps to get a nuke. If you search for 'breakout time' you can find out more about why the enrichment rampup at the end of 2024 was the important trigger for the following events

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Again the American intelligence said there is no plan to seek nuke. Iran stayed at 60% for 4 years meaning they did not proceed to the next steps . Stop insulting our intelligence and get lost

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago* (13 children)

    They didn't 'stay at 60% for 4 years'

    They put their centrifuges in a cascade at the end of 2024 and started enriching as much as they could

    You can read the IAEA reports that prove your statement to be false for yourself, as I'm sure someone else must have misled you on this

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (12 children)

    There is lie 50 links in that link. The usa intelligence said iran is not working on creating a nuke . No matter how much bullshit yo usay fact is fact you are repeating israelis and trump lies. Just fuck off with your propaganda and your justification of this illegal war

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    If you want to limit yourself you can read the reports from mid 2024 to start of 2025. There's easy tables showing how much enriched uranium they had in different enrichment categories. Takes like 15 minutes to get the gist of it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    There is zero proof that Iran goes beyond 60% in the report you mentioned. Are you one of those zionazis who got paid by the terrorist state of israel?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago* (9 children)

    Which report are you referring to?

    I had hoped you'd come to see that they paint a timeline

    For example: the last report from 2020 states that they had a grand total of 0 (zero) kgs of uranium enriched beyond civil use at that time. This greatly contrasts with your statement that they "stayed at 60% for four years".

    These subtle hints suggest you're basically unfamiliar with these reports and make me wonder how much you really care about this conflict

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

    Which report are you referring to? The ones you refered to

    This greatly contrasts with your statement that they “stayed at 60% for four years”.

    Iran reached 60% at April 16, 2021 and the 10 days war started at June 13, 2025 that's 4 years at 60%. Iran before the usa decided to start the illegal war agreed to zero stockpiling and diluting the stockpile back to 3.67% which proof the enrichment to 60% was simply to bring back the usa to the table of negotiations

    These subtle hints suggest you’re basically unfamiliar with these reports and make me wonder how much you really care about this conflict

    I care about the conflict and want it to end that's why are i mad when i see scums like you repeating the exact lies that caused the conflict to start. You are literally proving the point in 2020 they had a minimum enrichment of 3.67% respecting the jcpoa. When trump torn up the deal they went over it . why are you expecting iran to continue respecting the term that no longer apply?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    You're still trying to shift the window by using the date of the attack, but I'm glad you started reading the reports :-)

    which proof

    It's like cocking a gun next to a hostage's head as 'proof' that you want to negotiate. How about putting the gun away and letting the hostage go instead?

    When trump torn up the deal they went over it

    No one is forcing them to make nukes. No one is forcing them to make weapons grade uranium. You're treating them like someone who just has to rape and we need to appease them so they agree to rape a little bit less

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (6 children)

    I did not shift anything. You said my claim was false so i gave ytou the proof i was right.

    Agsin there is zero proof that iran was trying to create a nuke

    Your posts is full of the worst most dumb analogies I ever heard

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    If not with the threat of making a nuke, why did they enrich so much to 60%?

    Artistic reasons? Or is the analogy of cocking a gun pretty apt?

    They could have kept enriching to 4% forever and all those people would be alive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    I already answered the question to bring american back to the jcpoa so they get sanctions relief.

    For a million time there is no proof iran was seeking nukes by american intrligence agencies admission

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    So you don't think the threat wasn't that they'd make nukes if the US didn't lift sanctions?

    What motivation did Obama have to negotiate the JCPOA, if not to prevent Iran from making nukes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    American president has a long hisory of ignoring american inteligence. Obama did it to make us forget about his warmongering like destroying syria and lybia and bombing multiple other africans countries. If iran wanted a nuke the inteligence would have found they they will go beyond 60% and that they are stsrting to test the delivery system

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    The IAEA reported they never have created and didn't instead to create something more than 150% the concentration than their machines could do... You know the machines monitored by the U.N. we watched

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    Please enlighten us on how the Iranian centrifuges supposedly 'have a limit' because the IAEA clearly doesn't know what they're doing with all their alarmism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Okay sure. How much uranium did the IAEA report Iran make that was weapons grade. The answer is 0. All uranium collected could be made weapons grade by any country. So the largest collector Kazakhstan, would be the biggest threat right? No because it was never about uranium. 8 days ago the U.S. signed a deal with Saudi Arabia asking them to collect/enrich Uranium with no enrichment limitations.

    You know the country that 15 out of 19 of the suicide bombers from 9/11 came from.

    Uranium enrichment was never the worry.

    We attacked Iran because it benefited Israel and Trump thought it would benefit the Republican party in the upcoming elections. He was right about helping Israel, hopefully he's wrong about the second

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Can you enlighten us on how much enrichment capacity Kazachstan has and what they're doing with it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    They don't enrich it, they sell it to other countries who can/do enrich it, one actively expanding its borders with an invasion into a country we are supposedly trying to defend.

    So if Trump said we were attacking Iran because they were selling Russia drones used in their invasion it would have made more sense.

    But once more, we aren't attacking Iran for any reason other than to help Israel and to help Republicans hold offices in the election, just like Trump has been posting publicly online for 15 years now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    You've gone from claiming that "Iran can't even enrich uranium to weapons grade!" to pointing in every possible direction you can think of...

    You should reflect on what brought you to posting that original claim

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    American inteligence said iran never seeked a nuke. Even if they wanted a nuke, the usa do not have the tight to start the war and the legsl way was to adress the issue in the security council

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Do you believe Russia would approve an attack on Iran at this time?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    What an idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    A surprise missile attack? Is it customary to give some sort of notice?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    🍿🕊️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •