7 ms·
I think that’s easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems to me that if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb du
by kcplate 5mo ago
I think that’s easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems to me that if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb during the prewar negotiations, it’s likely that the blockade first would not have been the right leading move.
Plus I believe that if you took the “11 days away” claim off the table I don’t think you accurately say that a blockade without the military campaign first would have been successful. Seems like we are in a “what came first the chicken or the egg” moment.
There is no doubt in my mind that a blockade with an intact Iranian navy would not necessarily look like this one.
- pazimzadeh 5mo ago> if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb during the prewar negotiations Do you want to cite a good source for this? I think you're confusing having enough 60% enriched uranium for "11 bombs" with "11 days." If Iran was 11 days away then what was the point of the 12-day war last year? The first step would be not blatantly lying to the public There's way more evidence that iran wasn't building a nuke than that they were: Gabbard Says Iran Did Not Rebuild Nuclear Program After 2025 Strikes, Contradicting Trump (March 19, 2026) From the then U.S. Director of National Intelligence https://time.com/article/2026/03/18/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-trump/ https://time.com/article/2026/03/18/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nucle... Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say (March 11 2026) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-close-to-a-nuclear-bomb-experts-say/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-...
- kcplate 5mo agoLike i said, that is what the administration (Witkoff) communicated. You can believe it or not, dispute it all you want, but the only opinion of any importance here is if they (either Iran, the administration, and frankly also Israel) believed it. In that case, it would be a dangerous thing for the US and Israel to ignore. Some would suggest impossible to ignore. In my opinion if it’s not true and Iran communicated it…that would be a huge miscalculation by Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqWRsde4Ys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqWRsde4Ys https://thehill.com/policy/international/5751330-witkoff-iran-nuclear-threat/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/5751330-witkoff-ira...
- vel0city 5mo agoThe administration stated many times their nuclear stockpiles were already obliterated.
- kcplate 5mo agoOk…but that is irrelevant to my point.
- vel0city 5mo agoHow could they be 11 days away when we for sure obliterated it many months ago? It seems pretty central to the overall point.
- kcplate 5mo agoAre you suggesting there can be no difference between public rhetoric, the truth, and what might be said behind the closed doors of a diplomatic negotiation between adversaries? Especially with Trump?
- vel0city 5mo agoI'm pointing out you can't trust anything these people say. They were either lying before, they're lying now, or both.
- kcplate 5mo agoWhich, again, has zero to do with my initial post. Again, the point was that we cant assume a blockade without the initial military operation would have been successful. And it’s a moot point anyway because only one of those three parties needed to believe that Iran was that close to having a nuclear device for a military operation to have taken place. Your opinion (or anyone else’s) of the trustworthiness of the Trump administration has zero bearing on whether or not they could or would launch a military operation. They obviously did.