Close Menu
    Neoliberalism

    Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say


    Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say

    Posted by Currymvp2

    View 12 Comments

    12 Comments

    1. logikal_panda on

      “White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement: “This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as ‘top secret’ but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

      Holy shit lmfao we are stupid to elect this

    3. pyrojoe121 on

      Did we seriously just waste half of our GBU-57 arsenal to set Iran back by only a few months?

    4. Currymvp2 on

      Well atleast we know where the enriched uranium is so that makes this somewhat less bad…oh wait

    5. Butwhy113511 on

      Be honest guys, should I trust Trump or Tulsi Gabbard more? Do I just need to be patient and wait for more info to come out? What does damaging but not destroying the sites mean for their nuclear program?

    6. FriscoJones on

      I think back to Charles Lister ominously quoting a “VERY prominent US military official” in *February* regarding the best case scenario for trying to destroy the Iranian nuclear program from the air:

      https://preview.redd.it/40tefvdvcx8f1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0fc1584a110c0ef883ff46af8630ae5003e5144

      Air power and diplomacy are not something that can be wielded in tandem, these are mutually exclusive options – and once you employ air power you’ve probably closed the door to diplomacy forever.

      Now we have a wounded Iran that’s lost its conventional deterrent entirely with likely no future oversight. Betting that you can just bomb Iran every year or two to keep them from a nuke forever was an enormous gamble, but now is the path we’re probably trapped in thanks to the JCPOA opponents and Iran hawks. They’ve lied through their teeth for ten years that war with Iran wasn’t necessarily inevitable – this was always their goal.

    9. Nihas0 on

      Trump managed to make the wrong choice every time and basically guaranteed Iranian nuclear weapons.

    10. Iapzkauz on

      So you’ve essentially confirmed to the Iranian regime why they should get nukes as quickly as absolutely possible while not depriving them of the physical means to do so, having in the same stroke of genius given them ample reason to consider the door to a diplomatic solution firmly shut. Masterful gambit, sir!

    11. stupidstupidreddit2 on

      Any aspiring nuclear power now has a playbook for how to avoid military destruction of their programs. Both in terms of knowing how to defeat U.S. capabilities and in knows both the U.S. and Europe don’t have the resolve to fully intervene in arms development.

      Can never be overstated how disastrous lying about Iraq’s nuclear program was for eviscerating trust in government and desire to prevent proliferation.

      As climate change stresses governments and global alliances shift, we could see a new arms race as authoritarian leaning countries look to secure a nuclear deterrence against neighbors or foreign interventions. I’m thinking of places like Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia where they’re already feuding over water rights.

    Leave A Reply