all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 1 year ago

Even if they don't, they're trying to make them and that's a good enough excuse for uncle Sam.

If only there was some sort of deal of a nuclear variety involving Iran...

Oh whoopsies.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    *sigh*

    President Trump on Tuesday said Iran was "very close" to having a nuclear weapon, despite March testimony from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Tehran was not building one.

    [...]

    Driving the news: When pressed on Gabbard's assessment by reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump replied, "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having" a nuclear weapon.

    [...]

    Gabbard, during her opening remarks at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in late March, said that "[t]he IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003."

    https://www.axios.com/2025/06/17/trump-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-testimony

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    c/TechnicallyTheTruth

  • source
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    It does, but that's not the one you're going to war with.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    The Terrorist State of Zionism in East Palestine has nukes.

    Nazi America has nukes.

    Russia has nukes.

    India has nukes.

    The ones who don't are victims.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Even if they dont they should develop them immediately. Every nation should at this point.

    I'm not a fan of more nuclear weapons per se, but now it seems that nuclear nations will invade any nation it wants.

    Imagine if Ukraine kept their nukes

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Since when do gas weapons not count as WMDs?

  • source