Tinidril

they're not working on the other parts as far as we know

I agree, but we wouldn't know. Iran is a modern world power that's perfectly capable of doing things in secret that don't fit in a garage.

We know with certainty that Iran has enriched a stockpile of 60% uranium. That's not sufficient to say that nuclear capabilities are imminent, but it's enough to say that they have long term goals in that direction. (Which makes perfect sense, and should not itself be provocative).

You also need someone who understands the engineering well enough to actually do it, particularly without testing

The US did it 75 years ago with no instruction book. Iran's population is about the same as the US's was at the time, and they have the benefit of all those years of manufacturing advancements. It's borderline racist to assume this would be a problem for them.

They don't have icbms

They have IRBMs, and Israel has been far from 100% successful at shooting them down. That's with heavier payloads that have to reach the ground before detonating. Their IRBMs also include a small number of more modern systems that are nearly impossible for Israel to shoot down.

they could just lie and say they have it

Like in high school? "I swear, she used her tongue and everything!". I'm not so sure that's going to buy them much leverage. (Which would be the real point of having them.)

Do Russia and China have working nukes? What about India and Pakistan? Do the US nukes even still work? No one is sure.

I don't think there is any plausible doubt about any of those but Russia. Even Russia is still certain to have some functional nukes. The only doubts are about how many. Also, Fission bombs have a really long shelf life. It's fusion bombs that require tons of ongoing and expensive maintenance.

I don't think that "centrifuges, rotors and bellows" qualify for "aren't nuclear enough". Combined with the raw uranium ore, there is no way to know how much refinement is being done.

Saying that inspections continued uninterrupted is a little bit disingenuous when it leaves out that the inspection capabilities have been rolled back so far as to make them nearly useless.

I still seriously doubt the "intelligence" used to justify these attacks. I also think that it's extremely unlikely that the bulk of Iran's enriched stockpiles were destroyed by the US attacks. I also think the US knew that would be the case, laying bare the truth that destroying them was never the real objective.

I don't actually think they were weeks away, but don't you think they would be working on the other parts in parallel? It's not like they are going to end up with an arsenal worth of weapons grade uranium then suddenly remember that there are other steps.

I don't think anybody is saying Iran didn't have inspectors and monitoring at some point, but four years is a lot of time.

I also think it's pretty common knowledge that Trump tore up Obama's agreement. I still think it should be mentioned more, as well as Biden's 180 on his campaign promise to reinstate it.

and had been doing so under the supervision of IAEA inspectors who verified that it was for domestic use,

This part is just wrong. The IAEA has continued to report on Iran as best they can, but their monitoring equipment has been removed and there have been no inspections for over four years. I don't want to repeat myself, but elsewhere in this discussion I included excerpts from the most recent IAEA quarterly report that back this up.

The IAEA has continued to report on Iran's nuclear program. That does not mean there have been inspections. The following excerpts are from their last quarterly report in May.

• The Agency has lost continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and current inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and UOC, which it will not be able to restore as a result of not having been able to perform JCPOA-related verification and monitoring activities for more than four years.

• Iran’s decision to remove all of the Agency’s equipment previously installed in Iran for JCPOA-related surveillance and monitoring activities has also had detrimental implications for the Agency’s ability to provide assurance of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

There wouldn't be. The infrastructure required for weapons grade uranium is exactly the same infrastructure used for less enriched uranium. Inspectors could check radiation levels inside the facilities, but Trump brought that to an end.

None of this is meant to support the justification that Iran was weeks away from getting a weapon. That was pure bullshit.

I find it a little hard to swallow that since inspections ended (thanks to Trump) that Iran hasn't started enriching some weapons grade uranium. It's not like it takes different equipment.

The "intelligence" that Iran is weeks away from getting a weapon is obviously complete bullshit. I'm just saying that I'm sure they have been working that direction, maybe just preparing for a time when it made more strategic sense to start building them. If they ever want nukes, they will need to make a whole lot at once, just to avoid getting invaded after the first test.

Here's the thing about refined uranium. It's a whole lot more portable than unrefined uranium. That's even more true of uranium that's been refined to the point where it could be used to make a nuclear weapon within weeks. There's no reason to think it would be stored on site, especially after a week of Israeli bombardment.

I'll bet fewer people will fall for Trump's lies than fell for GWB's, but not because we learned from Iraq. This war is really unpopular with MAGA. It's for the wrong reasons, but I don't think most will flip to Trump on this one.

Democrats might be interesting to watch. They are mostly cucked to Israel, but they won't want to pass on the opportunity to snipe at Trump.

Yeah I know, every leftist wants to see the Democrats collapse because they can’t wish the same on the republiQans.

You got it backwards. Leftists want the Democrats to abandon neoliberalism so that they won't collapse. There is a fringe (not me) that wants the Democrats to collapse in favor of a third party, but they also want to destroy the Republicans.

IF there’s anything to this, it means the Democrats won, though and leftists would get a lot of what they want.

We never have before, and the Democrats don't campaign on it, so I highly doubt it. Most Democratic administrations result in less of what Leftists want, not more. Not as bad as Republican administrations, but the last President to really move the country left was FDR. Biden did too, but he barely even tried to undo the previous Trump administration.

To be clear, Democrats are far better than Republicans for the left, but it's not because we expect to get any of what we want from either.

Of course that’s a big, if interesting, if.

Kinda like "if monkeys come flying out of my ass". Even so, it's hardly all that interesting. We still won't understand how Trump won in 2016. We still won't understand the rising tide of fascism in the US and the rest of the neoliberal world. We'll be no closer to taking back Congress in 2026, or doing anything with our proof of election fraud without it.

At the absolute best this would prove that Trump is a criminal running a criminal administration who should be removed from office. We can already prove that a dozen different ways, yet there he still is. I'm not "interested" in expending time, resources, or political capital on a witch-hunt that even Kamala and Walz don't find valuable.

Then we're back to my original objection to the first charts. In a time of strong anti-establishment sentiment, an establishment candidate is more likely to underperform down ballot races, and an anti-establishment candidate is more likely to outperform down ballot races - especially in a purple/swing state.

Which also brings me back to my original point that this is not a theory of interest to leftist voters - both because we already know why it happened, and because it provides cover for neoliberals trying to hide from the utter collapse of their ideology.

The press doesn't know how to differentiate between extremist neoliberals and the far left, so the far left gets saddled with extremist neoliberal nonsense.