BLOCKED_PUNT
Footballguy
What the **** is youtube?!?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Iran Launches "Large Scale Attack" on Israel (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsy Ejotuz
- Start date
- Status
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Some crazy new tech thing the kids use these days
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Early US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months
A new U.S. intelligence report finds that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after U.S. strikes, not totally destroyed as President Donald Trump has said.
apnews.com
Sand
Footballguy
So the question becomes what/who can you trust? Right now I'm looking at the bond and oil markets. Bonds are pretty cool and oil is at 2021 levels as of today. Those are saying this is going to sputter out.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
The problem is most people assume this is just about silly podcasts and youtube channels, but the reality is it's about the sources they are consuming too.
I don't want that point to get lost. I mentioned podcast as an example, but it's really all of it. Twitter feeds, "less traditional" (shall we call them) media sources, etc.
Because the reality is you take something like the NYT for instance, and yes it has its many warts, but they can't really go off the deep end because everyone is watching them. There are literal companies that exist whose job it is solely to fact check the NYT and call them out on any errors.
Then people see those come up sometimes, get angry, and go back to their sources that don't have any of that kind of oversight, probably report incorrect stuff at 50x the rate, and just are never called out on it and never retract it (making it even worse, because now it's never even pointed out to them that the info they got was fake).
So who can you trust? I have no idea. But I just know that most of the time someone says you can't trust the media, they're getting their news from a way less trustworthy source instead. And then when everyone makes fun of those, they assume they're making fun of the sources every one else is turning to. But theirs is solid.
No, it probably really sucks.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
the walk back on the level of destruction/success is always interesting.every time absolutes are used, i always wait for the dust to settle. in this case, literally. iran isn't going to just capitulate. it's just not in their DNA
BLOCKED_PUNT
Footballguy
I dunno, it seems like Hamas and Hezbollah are some bad people so I have zero sympathy for them. Yeah, I feel for everyday Palestinians or Iranians that are caught in the crossfire but if they support the goverment and/or the ethnic cleansing (which I guess is the same thing) of Israel then they are part of the problem. 10/7 was a horrible day and Hamas should be wiped from the face of the earth.
Is the bold about the same thing that was in the doc that @KarmaPolice told me about? Honestly, that seems crazy. "It's YOUR fault a terrorist organization slaughtered your civies." I also feel like it it might be a counter to the criticism of the hostage deal that unfroze $6 billion for Iran.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
AM radio was all you needed.
Dickies
Footballguy
"It really helps with the algorithm"
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Sadly, very very few people
BLOCKED_PUNT
Footballguy
I generally like your post which is why I liked it but don't you think big media can still be bias in their reporting? And can't podcasts/smaller media be trustworthy?
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Strike Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by Only a Few Months, U.S. Report Says
Preliminary classified findings indicate that the attack sealed off the entrances to two facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings.
By Julian E. BarnesHelene CooperEric SchmittRonen BergmanMaggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan
Reporting from Washington
June 24, 2025Updated 5:54 p.m. ET
A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings.
The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, the officials said the early findings concluded.
Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program had been delayed, but by less than six months.
The report also said that much of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Iran may have moved some of that to secret locations.
Some Israeli officials said they also believed that the Iranian government had maintained small covert enrichment facilities so it could continue its nuclear program in the event of an attack on the larger facilities.
Other officials noted that the report found that the three nuclear sites — Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had suffered moderate to severe damage, with the facility at Natanz damaged the most. It is not clear whether the Iranians will try to rebuild the programs.
Former officials said that if Iran tried to quickly develop a bomb, it would be a relatively small and crude device. A miniaturized warhead would be far more difficult to produce, and the extent of damage to that more advanced research is not clear.
Current and former military officials had cautioned before the strike that any effort to destroy the Fordo facility, which is buried more than 250 feet under a mountain, would probably require waves of airstrikes, with days or even weeks of pounding the same spots.
American warplanes did hit the same spots at least twice on Saturday. B-2s dropped 12 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs — often referred to as “bunker busters” — on Fordo, and six aboveground entry craters are now visible, according to Brian Carter, the Middle East portfolio manager at the American Enterprise Institute.
But many military bomb experts believed that more than one day of strikes would be needed to complete the job.
The initial damage assessment suggests that President Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear facilities were “obliterated” was overstated. Congress had been set to be briefed on the strike on Tuesday, and lawmakers were expected to ask about the findings, but the session was postponed. Senators are now set be briefed on Thursday, and a group of House Democrats issued a statement demanding that their chamber be briefed as well.
Since the strikes, Mr. Trump has complained to advisers repeatedly about news reports that have questioned how much damage was done, said people with knowledge of the comments. He has also closely watched the public statements of other officials when they are asked about the damage to the nuclear facilities, they said.
In a statement on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated Mr. Trump’s early assessment.
“Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons,” he said. “Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly.”
Officials cautioned that the five-page classified report was only an initial assessment, and that others would follow as more information was collected and as Iran examined the three sites. One official said that the reports people in the administration had been shown were “mixed” but that more assessments were yet to be done.
But the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly.
Officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings of the report remain classified.
The White House took issue with the assessment. Karoline Leavitt, a White House spokeswoman, said it was “flat-out wrong.”
“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,” she said in a statement. “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
Elements of the intelligence report were reported earlier by CNN.
The strikes badly damaged the electrical system at Fordo, officials said. It is not clear how long it will take Iran to gain access to the underground buildings, repair the electrical systems and reinstall equipment that was moved.
There is no question that the bombing campaign “badly, badly damaged” the three sites, Mr. Carter said.
But initial Israeli damage assessments have also raised questions about the effectiveness of the strikes. Israeli defense officials said they had also collected evidence that the underground facilities at Fordo were not destroyed.
Before the strike, the U.S. military gave officials a range of possibilities for how much the attack could set back the Iranian program. Those ranged from a few months on the low end to years on the higher end.
Some officials cautioned that such estimates are imprecise, and that it is impossible to know how long Iran would exactly take to rebuild, if it chose to do
Despite claims of the sites’ obliteration by Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been more careful in describing the attack’s effects.
“This operation was designed to severely degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure,” General Caine said that at the Sunday news conference.
The final battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, General Caine said on Sunday, standing next to Mr. Hegseth, was still to come. He said the initial assessment showed that all three sites “sustained severe damage and destruction.”
General Caine added that it was “way too early” to assess how much of Iran’s nuclear program remained.
Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the former commander of Central Command, said in an interview, that he had “a lot of confidence in the weapons systems used.” But he added: “I’m not surprised that elements survived. That’s why you do battle damage assessments, because everything can go as planned but there are still other factors.”
At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Democrats also struck a more cautionary note.
“We still await final battle damage assessments,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Military officials had said that to do more significant damage to the underground sites, they would have to be hit with multiple strikes. But Mr. Trump announced he would stop the strikes after approving the first wave.
U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded before the strikes that Iran had not made the decision to make a nuclear weapon, but possessed enough enriched uranium that if it decided to make a bomb, it could do so relatively quickly.
While intelligence officials had predicted that a strike on Fordo or other nuclear facilities by the United States could prompt Iran to make a bomb, U.S. officials said they do not know yet if Iran would do so.
Representatives of the Defense Intelligence Agency did not respond to requests for comment.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
That's been directly rebuked by those who would seem to know
Early US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months
A new U.S. intelligence report finds that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after U.S. strikes, not totally destroyed as President Donald Trump has said.
Karoline Leavitt, Pete Hegseth Deny CNN Iran Report
Trump administration officials are denying the report that 3 Iranian nuclear sites weren't destroyed by U.S. military strikes — per an intelligence assessment.
www.mediaite.com
Dezbelief
Footballguy
They admitted it was a leaked US intelligence report. Our Intel is saying two different things.That's been directly rebuked by those who would seem to knowEarly US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months
A new U.S. intelligence report finds that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after U.S. strikes, not totally destroyed as President Donald Trump has said.
Karoline Leavitt, Pete Hegseth Deny CNN Iran Report
Trump administration officials are denying the report that 3 Iranian nuclear sites weren't destroyed by U.S. military strikes — per an intelligence assessment.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
They already planted their flag. They’re going to do whatever they can to make their initial statements true, or look like fools. This is why absolutes are not the best policy.That's been directly rebuked by those who would seem to knowEarly US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months
A new U.S. intelligence report finds that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after U.S. strikes, not totally destroyed as President Donald Trump has said.
Karoline Leavitt, Pete Hegseth Deny CNN Iran Report
Trump administration officials are denying the report that 3 Iranian nuclear sites weren't destroyed by U.S. military strikes — per an intelligence assessment.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Come on MOP. You know better than this.That's been directly rebuked by those who would seem to knowEarly US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months
A new U.S. intelligence report finds that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after U.S. strikes, not totally destroyed as President Donald Trump has said.
Karoline Leavitt, Pete Hegseth Deny CNN Iran Report
Trump administration officials are denying the report that 3 Iranian nuclear sites weren't destroyed by U.S. military strikes — per an intelligence assessment.
Orange&Blue
Footballguy
think i clicked on the wrong thread
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
The reader will note this article is from a left leaning publication
Netanyahu decided on Iran war last year, then sought to recruit Trump
The Israeli prime minister had set in motion plans to attack Iran long before President Trump began efforts to resolve nuclear concerns through negotiations, officials say.
By Gerry Shih, Warren P. Strobel and Souad Mekhennet
JERUSALEM — In the fall, long before President Donald Trump embarked on an effort to resolve concerns over Iran’s nuclear program through negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already set Israel on the road to war, according to current and former Israeli officials.
After Israel decimated Iran’s air defenses in a missile skirmish and crippled its main ally, Hezbollah, in October, Netanyahu issued a general order to prepare for a strike, the current and former officials said. Israeli intelligence officials began huddling to compile lists of dozens of Iranian nuclear scientists and military leaders who could be targeted for assassination. Israel’s air force began to systematically take out air defenses in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to clear the skies for future bombing runs against Iran.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials were pursuing another track in their preparations — to sway Washington. Israeli officials have long believed that military action with U.S. participation to target the Iranian nuclear program would be more effective than Israel going alone. On Saturday, Trump indeed joined the conflict, ordering U.S. forces, including B-2 strategic bombers, to strike three Iranian nuclear sites.
Throughout the fall, the Israelis had met with their Biden administration counterparts to discuss intelligence collected by both countries in the summer that showed Iranian nuclear scientists were gathering to resume theoretical research on weaponization, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. But U.S. intelligence analysts did not conclude that the Iranian leadership had made such a decision — an assessment U.S. spy agencies revisited and maintained throughout the spring under the new Trump administration and up until the time Israel launched strikes, said five people familiar with the conclusions.
In private conversations, however, senior Israeli government officials said they had already decided by March, weeks before Netanyahu met Trump in the Oval Office on April 7, to strike Iran with or without U.S. participation by June at the latest, said two people with knowledge of the matter. The reasoning was that Iran would have rebuilt its air defenses by the latter half of the year, one of the people said.
Ultimately, when Netanyahu finally launched his surprise attack on Iran in the early hours of June 13 while Trump’s negotiations were still underway, the decision was not so much driven by new intelligence indicating an Iranian sprint for a nuclear weapon or any imminent threat to Israel. Rather, Israel seized on what it saw as a unique opportunity to execute plans, carefully laid months and years in advance, to heavily damage a weakened Iran that had long waged a bloody proxy conflict with Israel and to set back Iranian nuclear and missile programs, Israeli and U.S. officials and advisers to both governments say.
Whether or not Netanyahu had enough evidence of Iranian progress toward a nuclear weapon to justify an attack has been the subject of intense debate globally and raises questions about the strikes’ permissibility under international law. In recent days, the issue has appeared to generate friction inside the U.S. administration, with Trump repeatedly dismissing the assessment delivered in March by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran’s leadership has not ordered the development of a nuclear weapon and telling reporters that he personally believed that Iran was “very close” to a bomb.
Netanyahu, who has argued for decades that Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and should be halted by military strikes, has acknowledged in recent interviews that Iran was still months or a year away from a weapon. What was undisputed, he has said, was that Iran had enriched large amounts of uranium to a level well beyond what is required for civilian use and built up a dangerous arsenal of ballistic missiles.
Israel’s calculus for attacking Iran was driven by a sense of both opportunity and necessity, said an Israeli official who, like many others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
“It is true there was no better time: Israelis have never been more well-practiced, and Iran and their proxies have never been weaker,” said the Israeli official. “But that’s not enough for us to operate. The reason we operated is necessity and understanding there is no alternative. What if they break out [toward a nuclear weapon] and there is no way for us to notice? There is no safety zone left.”
U.S. intelligence agencies beginning late last year picked up on Israeli preparations for an attack and warned Washington policymakers that Israel was likely to strike in the first six months of 2025.
But Netanyahu’s plan was unexpectedly delayed when he was summoned to Washington to meet Trump and told that the United States would enter direct negotiations with Iran to solve the problem diplomatically. The prime minister’s strong inclination to strike, however, remained unchanged, said a person with knowledge of the thinking of top Israeli officials.
Going into the spring, there was also concern among Israeli officials that any potential deal between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran would still allow Iran to eventually possess a bomb, an Israeli official added. And, a former senior Israeli official said, the Israelis had been anticipating the scheduled retirement of Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the U.S. Central Command chief who had helped make war plans with Israel throughout the spring.
In an interview Tuesday with pro-government Channel 14 television, Netanyahu said that he had decided on the exact timing of the strike only two weeks earlier, but that he had made the “difficult” decision to carry out the operation “several months ago” and began fleshing out the plan and its element of surprise in April.
The key was to eliminate the nuclear experts, Netanyahu said: “Those were my instructions: We’re going after the scientists, take them out.”
In Israel, the majority of the security establishment and political parties have supported Netanyahu’s decision to execute what they consider a preventative strike. For decades, a bedrock of Israeli strategic thinking has been the “Begin Doctrine,” named after former prime minister Menachem Begin, who defended Israel’s 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq as “anticipatory self-defense” against a potential enemy making a weapon of mass destruction.
But a minority of those have questioned the wisdom of carrying out a surprise attack while Trump was still pursuing the diplomatic route — and, they say, without proof that the Iranians had decided to construct a nuclear weapon.
“We should have given the political route a chance,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran desk in the research department of Israeli military intelligence. “Now, we got operational achievements but the risks are enormous. We’ve never fought with a country like Iran. We find ourselves not knowing where the [highly enriched uranium] or centrifuges are. If we had an agreement, we would at least have less unknowns.”
Since Trump pulled out of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, Iran has sharply increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But intelligence agencies have debated whether Iran has resumed its effort to build a weapon — known as Project Amad — that was halted by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, in 2003.
Last year, U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director William J. Burns, reviewed new intelligence and concluded that Iranian scientists were revisiting previously suspended nuclear weapons research, exploring paths that could allow them to more quickly make the leap to a crude nuclear bomb — if Khamenei so chose, three people familiar with the matter said. Israeli officials then came to the same realization.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
But U.S. intelligence officials did not conclude that Khamenei had changed his stance and sanctioned a bomb, said former U.S. and Israeli officials with knowledge of the matter. “We knew they could speed up their timeline if they decided to change course,” a former senior U.S. official said.
The Israelis were more alarmed. The “main difference” between U.S. and Israeli views “was tactical and not substantial,” said a senior Israeli official. “We did see that Iran was advancing with a project,” the Israeli official added. “It wasn’t like [Iran] had a timeline, but the route that they had chosen was very concerning and dangerous. And some of the experts here had huge concerns.”
Jacob Nagel, a longtime adviser to Netanyahu on Iranian nuclear issues and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Iranian scientists were working in academic settings, and there was never a “smoking gun” showing they had broken new ground on aspects of weaponization that were prohibited under the 2015 nuclear agreement, such as a multi-point detonation device used to trigger a nuclear explosion. But they were conducting research seemingly surreptitiously on topics that were difficult to justify as having only civilian applications, Nagel said. He added that Khamenei “probably knew what they were doing.”
At one point, the Biden administration asked Iran about the scientists’ activities, but the scientists carried on, which further fueled Israeli suspicions going into the spring, Nagel and another Israeli official said.
As Israeli officials geared up in recent months to strike while hoping the U.S. would join, Israel made another push with the Trump administration as part of regular intelligence sharing. U.S. intelligence officials did not see anything startlingly new, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
But Israeli officials believed intelligence showed the scientists were revisiting studies in several alarming areas, including the multi-point detonation device, the production of plastic explosives and experiments on neutron radiation, according to one person who was briefed by Israeli officials in recent weeks.
Israeli officials acknowledged that they still assessed Khamenei had not ordered the production of a nuclear weapon, the person said, adding: “I don’t believe the Israeli [intelligence community] shaded their intel for political purposes, but I do believe in Netanyahu taking the inch and running a mile with it.”
In Washington, Trump came to believe that Iran was striving for a bomb, going beyond what analysts in his own intelligence agencies concluded. His CIA chief, John Ratcliffe, argued that the assessment dating back to 2007 that Khamenei had not ordered construction of a nuclear weapon was of limited value, said two people familiar with Ratcliffe’s views. Iran, he said, was like a football team that had gone 99 yards down the field, and there was no way it would not try for a nuclear touchdown.
Ariel Levite, a former senior Israeli national security official overseeing arms control, said it was reasonable to reach different analytical conclusions while working from the same set of collected intelligence.
“This is really hairsplitting,” said Levite, who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “You haven’t seen them packaging the warhead, but you’ve seen them working on shortening the period it would take to put it together and drive their threshold status to the extreme proximity to nuclear weapons. Does that reflect that a decision was already made by the supreme leader of, ‘Let’s go there’? Or was it merely [raising] preparedness to do so? It leaves things in the realm of interpretation.”
Richard Nephew, a lead U.S. negotiator with Iran under the Obama administration, said the real division appears not to have been between U.S. and Israeli intelligence analysts but between the spies and the politicians, who interpreted the intelligence in a more alarming fashion.
“It may be that the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services were on the same page, but they weren’t on the same page as their political leadership,” said Nephew, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Nephew said it was not surprising that Iran would edge back toward the option of a bomb after suffering a series of strategic setbacks. By last fall, Israel had dealt staggering blows to allied Iranian groups such as Hamas and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, and had destroyed much of Iran’s air defenses in airstrikes in October, leaving it largely exposed.
In recent months, Israeli intelligence officers were tracking the locations of various members of the scientist group, and Israeli air force pilots were training to simultaneously strike the Iranian scientists and military officers in their homes, an Israeli official said. By this month, Israeli pilots had honed their capability to use new software and munitions to carry out dozens of strikes simultaneously — a capability they did not possess even a few years ago, said Matan Kahana, an Israeli lawmaker who was an air squadron commander.
An Israeli official said that Israel’s external intelligence service, the Mossad, had spent years collecting intelligence about each of the scientists who would be targeted for assassination and their roles in Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the agency’s knowledge about the Iranian program came from agents who were recruited and handled by the Mossad and worked inside the Natanz and Fordow facilities.
The Mossad also unfurled an elaborate, covert mission that included smuggling and installing kamikaze drones and missile launchers inside Iran itself, an Israeli official said. There was a risk that the covert operation could have been discovered, and that consideration partly influenced the timing of the June 13 attack but not Netanyahu’s strategic decision, made months earlier, to set it in motion, Israeli government officials and advisers said.
Today, the question of what intelligence Israel possessed about the activities of the Iranian scientists is “not relevant anymore” after Netanyahu decided to carry out their assassination and to cripple Iran’s missile program and military leadership, Nagel argued.
Since June 13, Israel has killed 10 key scientists and the U.S. and Israeli strikes have set back Iran’s quest for a bomb, Israeli officials say.
“All the scientists who were sneaking around,” Nagel said, “most of them are now sneaking around in hell.”
Strobel and Mekhennet reported from Washington.
The Israelis were more alarmed. The “main difference” between U.S. and Israeli views “was tactical and not substantial,” said a senior Israeli official. “We did see that Iran was advancing with a project,” the Israeli official added. “It wasn’t like [Iran] had a timeline, but the route that they had chosen was very concerning and dangerous. And some of the experts here had huge concerns.”
Jacob Nagel, a longtime adviser to Netanyahu on Iranian nuclear issues and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Iranian scientists were working in academic settings, and there was never a “smoking gun” showing they had broken new ground on aspects of weaponization that were prohibited under the 2015 nuclear agreement, such as a multi-point detonation device used to trigger a nuclear explosion. But they were conducting research seemingly surreptitiously on topics that were difficult to justify as having only civilian applications, Nagel said. He added that Khamenei “probably knew what they were doing.”
At one point, the Biden administration asked Iran about the scientists’ activities, but the scientists carried on, which further fueled Israeli suspicions going into the spring, Nagel and another Israeli official said.
As Israeli officials geared up in recent months to strike while hoping the U.S. would join, Israel made another push with the Trump administration as part of regular intelligence sharing. U.S. intelligence officials did not see anything startlingly new, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
But Israeli officials believed intelligence showed the scientists were revisiting studies in several alarming areas, including the multi-point detonation device, the production of plastic explosives and experiments on neutron radiation, according to one person who was briefed by Israeli officials in recent weeks.
Israeli officials acknowledged that they still assessed Khamenei had not ordered the production of a nuclear weapon, the person said, adding: “I don’t believe the Israeli [intelligence community] shaded their intel for political purposes, but I do believe in Netanyahu taking the inch and running a mile with it.”
In Washington, Trump came to believe that Iran was striving for a bomb, going beyond what analysts in his own intelligence agencies concluded. His CIA chief, John Ratcliffe, argued that the assessment dating back to 2007 that Khamenei had not ordered construction of a nuclear weapon was of limited value, said two people familiar with Ratcliffe’s views. Iran, he said, was like a football team that had gone 99 yards down the field, and there was no way it would not try for a nuclear touchdown.
Ariel Levite, a former senior Israeli national security official overseeing arms control, said it was reasonable to reach different analytical conclusions while working from the same set of collected intelligence.
“This is really hairsplitting,” said Levite, who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “You haven’t seen them packaging the warhead, but you’ve seen them working on shortening the period it would take to put it together and drive their threshold status to the extreme proximity to nuclear weapons. Does that reflect that a decision was already made by the supreme leader of, ‘Let’s go there’? Or was it merely [raising] preparedness to do so? It leaves things in the realm of interpretation.”
Richard Nephew, a lead U.S. negotiator with Iran under the Obama administration, said the real division appears not to have been between U.S. and Israeli intelligence analysts but between the spies and the politicians, who interpreted the intelligence in a more alarming fashion.
“It may be that the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services were on the same page, but they weren’t on the same page as their political leadership,” said Nephew, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Nephew said it was not surprising that Iran would edge back toward the option of a bomb after suffering a series of strategic setbacks. By last fall, Israel had dealt staggering blows to allied Iranian groups such as Hamas and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, and had destroyed much of Iran’s air defenses in airstrikes in October, leaving it largely exposed.
In recent months, Israeli intelligence officers were tracking the locations of various members of the scientist group, and Israeli air force pilots were training to simultaneously strike the Iranian scientists and military officers in their homes, an Israeli official said. By this month, Israeli pilots had honed their capability to use new software and munitions to carry out dozens of strikes simultaneously — a capability they did not possess even a few years ago, said Matan Kahana, an Israeli lawmaker who was an air squadron commander.
An Israeli official said that Israel’s external intelligence service, the Mossad, had spent years collecting intelligence about each of the scientists who would be targeted for assassination and their roles in Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the agency’s knowledge about the Iranian program came from agents who were recruited and handled by the Mossad and worked inside the Natanz and Fordow facilities.
The Mossad also unfurled an elaborate, covert mission that included smuggling and installing kamikaze drones and missile launchers inside Iran itself, an Israeli official said. There was a risk that the covert operation could have been discovered, and that consideration partly influenced the timing of the June 13 attack but not Netanyahu’s strategic decision, made months earlier, to set it in motion, Israeli government officials and advisers said.
Today, the question of what intelligence Israel possessed about the activities of the Iranian scientists is “not relevant anymore” after Netanyahu decided to carry out their assassination and to cripple Iran’s missile program and military leadership, Nagel argued.
Since June 13, Israel has killed 10 key scientists and the U.S. and Israeli strikes have set back Iran’s quest for a bomb, Israeli officials say.
“All the scientists who were sneaking around,” Nagel said, “most of them are now sneaking around in hell.”
Strobel and Mekhennet reported from Washington.
Don't Toews Me
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
US to give $30m to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation despite violent and chaotic rollout of food distribution
Grant makes US a direct backer of aid organization that reportedly has collaboration with Israeli government
UN condemns Gaza aid 'death trap' as dozens reported killed by Israeli fire
At least 46 people waiting for aid have been killed by Israeli fire in two incidents, rescuers and hospitals say.
www.bbc.com
One last ask - please keep the thread to news links and actual stories. This can be a useful thread.
But another day like yesterday and you will have this thread killed.
But another day like yesterday and you will have this thread killed.
djmich
Footballguy
US to give $30m to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation despite violent and chaotic rollout of food distribution
Grant makes US a direct backer of aid organization that reportedly has collaboration with Israeli governmentwww.theguardian.com
UN condemns Gaza aid 'death trap' as dozens reported killed by Israeli fire
At least 46 people waiting for aid have been killed by Israeli fire in two incidents, rescuers and hospitals say.
Maybe we could even keep it to Iran?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Other topics have been brought up in the bigger picture of Isreal in the thread. I didn't think 2 linked articles was a big deal.US to give $30m to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation despite violent and chaotic rollout of food distribution
Grant makes US a direct backer of aid organization that reportedly has collaboration with Israeli government
UN condemns Gaza aid 'death trap' as dozens reported killed by Israeli fire
At least 46 people waiting for aid have been killed by Israeli fire in two incidents, rescuers and hospitals say.
Maybe we could even keep it to Iran?
djmich
Footballguy
For sure, I think that was Joe's point was that the thread was getting off track. Having a general discussion about Israeli atrocities feels like a good way we'll get the Israel-Iran conflict news thread closed.Other topics have been brought up in the bigger picture of Isreal in the thread. I didn't think 2 linked articles was a big deal.US to give $30m to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation despite violent and chaotic rollout of food distribution
Grant makes US a direct backer of aid organization that reportedly has collaboration with Israeli government
UN condemns Gaza aid 'death trap' as dozens reported killed by Israeli fire
At least 46 people waiting for aid have been killed by Israeli fire in two incidents, rescuers and hospitals say.
Maybe we could even keep it to Iran?
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
All this should really be the Israeli war thread....it's all related.
That said, to @John Maddens Lunchbox we are getting close to a year for the Gaza part and internationally, the needle doesn't seem to have moved much (outside of just reporting what is happening) and those raising your concerns in the US are labeled "antisemitic". I tend to agree with you and have been vocal saying we should ONLY be providing defense weapons (and as time goes on and they keep intentionally doing what they are doing my support for even those is waning). Its a mess for sure.
That said, to @John Maddens Lunchbox we are getting close to a year for the Gaza part and internationally, the needle doesn't seem to have moved much (outside of just reporting what is happening) and those raising your concerns in the US are labeled "antisemitic". I tend to agree with you and have been vocal saying we should ONLY be providing defense weapons (and as time goes on and they keep intentionally doing what they are doing my support for even those is waning). Its a mess for sure.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
When it is all said and done- US media is crap. I don't trust any of it. I mostly do not watch any of it. I do partake in news articles that are sometimes from US media but with heaping amounts of distrust. Most information I take in these days is from interviews of first person accounts (Shawn Ryan show) which I will take over the crap US media doles out all day long. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone that follows my lead and turns the tv off and stops watching big corporate media will be doing themselves a huge favor.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
For damage assessment and the enriched uranium.... my thinking is this...
Still way to early for conclusive damage assessment. You have satellite images that can show much of their facilities that have been destroyed which the Israeli's mostly did. For Fordow, it doesn't do much to help though the actual topography seems to have changed. To my untrained eye, that would be suggestive of some massive damage. The US intelligence DIA (which someone should have their career ended and some jail time for) report used the satellite imagery (they would have access to better pics), SIGINT (my guess is US intelligence is heavily leaning on this), thermal and seismic data (unsure how helpful these would be for Fordow), and HUMINT. This was an initial assessment and from one area of US intelligence.
Moving the enriched uranium seems to me to be somewhat unlikely. First, it would have exposed it to Israeli strikes where as stored in Fordow, it would be safe. Second, it is not 'easy' to move weapons grade or near weapons grade enriched Uranium. You don't just throw a few crates up on a truck and go. There is a technical challenge to this and would be exposed to radiation detection. Perhaps they had previously moved some (which would make sense to disburse some to other locations there were secret) but I do not think that they would have done so once Israel had attacked. It would have been too risky versus the security of being in their bunker.
The information we get on this stuff is insignificant compared to what is being collected by US and Israeli intelligence. As I have said before, I would lean more on Israeli HUMINT than anything else as my guess is it would be the best and most accurate information. The comfort level of the Israeli's is what I would bet my money on in seeing how successful or not the attacks were.
Overall, we- average people in the population, don't have real good information on this. Even leaked initial reports are not something I would hang my hat on as I don't think even those who have all the information available to them know a ton. Heck, I don't think the Iranians have a clear picture yet.
Still way to early for conclusive damage assessment. You have satellite images that can show much of their facilities that have been destroyed which the Israeli's mostly did. For Fordow, it doesn't do much to help though the actual topography seems to have changed. To my untrained eye, that would be suggestive of some massive damage. The US intelligence DIA (which someone should have their career ended and some jail time for) report used the satellite imagery (they would have access to better pics), SIGINT (my guess is US intelligence is heavily leaning on this), thermal and seismic data (unsure how helpful these would be for Fordow), and HUMINT. This was an initial assessment and from one area of US intelligence.
Moving the enriched uranium seems to me to be somewhat unlikely. First, it would have exposed it to Israeli strikes where as stored in Fordow, it would be safe. Second, it is not 'easy' to move weapons grade or near weapons grade enriched Uranium. You don't just throw a few crates up on a truck and go. There is a technical challenge to this and would be exposed to radiation detection. Perhaps they had previously moved some (which would make sense to disburse some to other locations there were secret) but I do not think that they would have done so once Israel had attacked. It would have been too risky versus the security of being in their bunker.
The information we get on this stuff is insignificant compared to what is being collected by US and Israeli intelligence. As I have said before, I would lean more on Israeli HUMINT than anything else as my guess is it would be the best and most accurate information. The comfort level of the Israeli's is what I would bet my money on in seeing how successful or not the attacks were.
Overall, we- average people in the population, don't have real good information on this. Even leaked initial reports are not something I would hang my hat on as I don't think even those who have all the information available to them know a ton. Heck, I don't think the Iranians have a clear picture yet.
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
How uranium is transported is all about how careful you want to be. In the ME, do what you do to move them. People/areas be damned. If still in gas form, and it should be, it can be transported by train, vehicle, plane or boat as long as in a radiation inhibiting container. I'd bet on train/boat for the longest portions of it's relocation. Iran had a clear 60 day timeline to get things moved if they so chose. As I stated above, who do we trust in this? Well, IMO, no one involved. I don't trust Iran's assessment. I don't trust Israel's assessment and I don't trust the US assessment. We will likely learn more based on what they aren't saying than what they are saying. History is a good teacher. We should learn from it.
beer 30
Footballguy
And yet, here we are
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Maddening isn't it?And yet, here we are
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Yea, me personally.... I trust the Israeli's sense of self preservation. If they feel confident then I am confident.
Last edited:
djmich
Footballguy
This is where I'm somewhat surprised they are saying capabilities were set back so much (I think at least a year). Have to feel really confident or be ready to walk back the statement (which of course is possible)
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Now, you just have to get them to tell you what they REALLY feel, right?
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Mossad is arguably the best HUMINT intelligence agency in the world and easily the best for the ME. Israel's literal survival is on the line. For finding out the success level of all this, my eyes are on how the Israeli's act. They aren't as interested in playing politics of making everyone believe they did more than they did than they are of.... well.... existing. Competence + Motivation = has my attention.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
No. Just watch how they act.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Like those articles I posted this morning?
We have to admit that part of their "self preservation" calculation probably includes wiping those countries or regions off the map or at least changing leadership in order to feel safe in the region, correct? I just think it's a bit odd when/if we trust Isreal's intelligence over our own (publicly) or are listening to them more than people we have in our administration.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Let's keep it focused and away from things dragging back into politics with those articles you refer to.
Watch how Israel acts towards the Iran. The fact that they agreed to and the truce seems to be holding is one great peek into their thinking. I don't think you have a good grasp of the capabilities of intelligence agencies- particularly what and who does what well if you think it is odd for me to favor Israeli intelligence in the ME over Iran. Mossad has their fingers all over Iran and even Iran knows this and is paranoid about it.
I would further reinforce that it would be a mistake to put too much weight into a preliminary report from one intelligence agency that was obviously leaked for political purposes.
Once more, I don't think even the Iranians have a full picture yet let alone any intelligence agencies. But, if there is anyone to freak out that the job wasn't done well it is the Israeli's and they would not be happy to stop if they thought it only backed the Iranians up from a nuke by a few months. That just does not make any sense at all. If the Israeli's are comfortable with the level of success, that speaks volumes to me than anything else. But hey, I am just some guy with no background in this stuff in the burbs of Chicago that doesn't watch US tv news.... so what do I know?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Gotcha, so you get to express your opinions all day without links, but me linking 2 news articles is getting political and dragging the thread down?
Last edited:
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
Right. So far, I see them continuing to attack (prior to "ceasefire"). If everything was destroyed and they are comfortable with where everything's at, what justifies that action? The claimed success after the strike wouldn't require continued attacks. It'd have been done, nothing left to do.
fatness
Footballguy
"please keep the thread to news links and actual stories"
djmich
Footballguy
You linked articles that were about Israel's conflict in Gaza, the question is how it is germane to the war with Iran. If anything it reinforces chadstromas point that Israel isn't about press headlines, if they were they'd have stopped the Hamas pursuit. If they're not continuing to attack Iran, theirs probably a good reason for that.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I
I am directly discussing the subject matter. Nothing I have stated in my opinion is political.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
How were my links and discussion political then?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Their war with an iran proxy and how they conduct their business there doesn't have anything to do with this part of the conflict?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Also, i didn't say you were getting political, i said you were expressing a lot of opinions with few links.
djmich
Footballguy
It certainly has no impact on the success or failure of the direct Iran conflict. More broadly, what you linked wasn't an item that would in any way inform our understanding of the conflict in Iran, but to me at least, was clearly a continuation of the "Israel is killing innocents" discussion, which while it may be a valid discussion morally, its not one in this thread unless we want to get it shut down (otherwise I would have replied).
- Status
Similar threads
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
