we haven't let our guard down in decades. even the Obama debacle was an attempt (a bad one) to convince them not to enrich beyond power plant levels. the moment the thought of backing down even becomes a possibility Netanyahu literally comes to congress to get us all re-focused on his aims.

this entire narrative to me is based in fantasy land. they're going to get to 60% as a deterrent, but stay there, until the once in a generation opportunity happens that we're so distracted we don't notice them making a weapon.

and the funny part is we just called our own bluff. in an attempt to topple the regime we spent just about everything we had, we can't continue bombing for much longer at all. we're basically depelted and they've only spent something like 20-30% of the missiles they had, and are rapidly producing more. far faster than we are funny enough, and FAR faster than we can make interceptors. so previously they thought they needed a nuke to prevent being toppled, now they realize all they need is missiles. they may still want a nuke, but they no longer think they have to have one necessarily.

and to top it all off, china is supplying and monitoring all of their tech. so we're giving china a front row seat to how their tech matches up to our so they can adjust for any future conflict. we pulled a reverse russia/ukraine.

do i think iran should be allowed to go towards a bomb indefinitely? no. i never said or even suggested that. you've told me that's what i think, or inferred that's what i think, several times. and i keep correcting you, but you loop back. because in your head anything short of a full invasion is equal to that. ive said all along, negotiate, isolate, sanction, embargo. all the while monitoring for anything that smells like a weapon is imminent. then and only then bomb. but this "bomb them because they're going to get close enough that if we stop paying attention they'll make one" narrative is absurd to me.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 12 2026 01:45pm

Lol haven't let our guard down in decades? Allowing them get to 60% was letting our guard down. Letting them get enough for one bomb was stupid, 10 is insane.

The crisis that distracts us doesn't have to be a world war, it can be a minor distraction that we put too much stock in like covid or our own political differences. It could be just getting a guy in the oval office who isn't willing to go to war to prevent it.

You're misrepresenting the question I asked and then answering your own warped version. This is the question: should we have allowed them to continue to stockpile 60% enriched uranium(which, as you now know, is very close to weapons grade) indefinitely?

we didnt allow them, we sanctioned them and have villainized them on the world stage while allying with their sworn regional enemies (both Islamic and Israeli). we even brokered the Abraham accords in an attempt to harm them economically even further. you can call it warped, but you're being pedantic. I accept there are alternative ways to hamper their progress, you clearly don't.

what's funny is this means you think after we failed in iraq and afghanistan (then syria to boot) we should have also fought a regime change war in Iran? you may be the most neocon person ive ever met in my life. you think tens of thousands of US soldier's lives and a generation of national debt is worth a nuke that Iran would likely never even fire. i dont want them to have one either, i just dont think its worth a river of blood.

first lie "Iran did it for a false flag" did not go over well... So now he tries "Don't know about it" lmao... He has no answer, and cannot just say bad stuff happens in the fog of war.. ... he has to lie all the way.. Every word he says is a lie.. this war backs him into that corner where all should see the lies pretty easy... not like saying he is religious where there is no proof of lies..

This is poor history.

We achieved regime change in Iraq, that's not really deniable. Unless your position is that it's not regime change unless it results in a totally western democracy? The regime changed. This one isn't great either but it's certainly a different one.

Syria was a success based on the actual aim, which was weakening Russia.

I didn't support either of those though. Maybe I'd support taking out Saddam if it were happening today, it's hard to say. I mean, it's easy if you want to use your 20/20 hindsight and put yourself in that position with knowledge that Tony Blair and Colin Powell were wrong/lying.

I've never said I want boots on the ground in Iran. You're twisting my words to the point they are unrecognizable.


In your last post you said, "negotiate, isolate, sanction, embargo. all the while monitoring for anything that smells like a weapon is imminent. then and only then bomb."

I'd like to take us back again to the imperfect nature of international intelligence operations, which you brought up originally. We are not getting every bit of information that exists, and we are not getting any information immediately.

With this in mind, how do you define "imminent" in this specific case? What if they had decided to bring their stockpile to 65%, would that have triggered your "imminent" alarms? If not, what about 70% or 75 or 80?

you continue to be pedantic while ignoring my answers. i stated it clearly, i dont want iran to have a nuke, but i wouldn't support an invasion even if they were racing towards one. i wouldnt even support an invasion if they had one already. i dont support an invasion in iran, and i dont support a war with iran. while i dont want them to have a nuke, its not worth american blood or money. iran is a joke, the real war is china 50-100 years from now. and this weakens us for that significantly.

you're too caught up on words like imminent, thats what pedantic means. you demand i answer specifically, then i do, and you want me to define a percentage of imminent? lol. get real.

on topic, so no invasion for you. so we just bomb them into what? a regime change? wat? and LOL at "regime change", saddaam out and ISIS in, mission accomplished.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 12 2026 02:29pm

Again, these are your words from a few posts ago.

"ive said all along, negotiate, isolate, sanction, embargo. all the while monitoring for anything that smells like a weapon is imminent. then and only then bomb."

How does that jibe with what you just said in your latest post about not supporting a conflict with Iran in any situation whatsoever?


I'm not being pedantic, I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be contradicting yourself, if that isn't the case then you're going to have to be more clear.

read it again. i said "invasion", several times in a row in fact. i wouldn't support an invasion under almost any circumstances. maybe we could dream up a scenario, but i doubt it. bombing isn't an invasion, unless you want to be pedantic about that, i dont.

im still confused about what you want to. you want regime change, but didnt u say u dont want to invade with boots on ground? hows that gonna work?

You said "it's not worth American blood or money" bombs cost money. If you support the bombing and not a ground invasion, at this point I agree with you and you could clarify that quite easily right now.

Yes, as I've said regime change would be ideal but at bare minimum a confiscation of their HEU, a confirmed destruction of all of their centrifuges past any point of reasonable repair, and a commitment to allow outside agencies to ensure these things are not repeated.

Regime change has been accomplished before without boots on the ground. The danger is that in such a case you have little to no control over the replacement, which I would actually be fine with as it seems entirely unlikely that any replacement would be worse. As I said though I am not married to the idea of regime change, the operation could be a resounding success even without it.