Early US assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, CNN reports

[rooster]

He files them under "dog whistles"....

.

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

This is your standard carbon plate post.


Even the UN nuclear watchdog inspectors don't agree. Do they have TDS ?

The UN "watchdogs" who didn't know what was actually going on because they never got access to the nuclear sites? They have no idea. Sad to see the leftists here all now supporting a terrorist regime just because you hate the fact that Trump did what your guys couldn't or wouldn't.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

The UN "watchdogs" who didn't know what was actually going on because they never got access to the nuclear sites? They have no idea. Sad to see the leftists here all now supporting a terrorist regime just because you hate the fact that Trump did what your guys couldn't or wouldn't.

This is not true. No one here is supporting Iran. You say these kinds of things all the time. They do not help your credibility.

.

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

The UN "watchdogs" who didn't know what was actually going on because they never got access to the nuclear sites? They have no idea. Sad to see the leftists here all now supporting a terrorist regime just because you hate the fact that Trump did what your guys couldn't or wouldn't.

Trump has no idea.

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Trump has no idea.

To the contrary, President Trump knows exactly what he is doing.

[VitaMan]

You are exhibiting some kind of syndrome.

The statement means Trump has no idea regarding the bombed nuclear sites.

Then you advise Trump knows what he is doing. which would be what...generating fake news ?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

The UN "watchdogs" who didn't know what was actually going on because they never got access to the nuclear sites? They have no idea. Sad to see the leftists here all now supporting a terrorist regime just because you hate the fact that Trump did what your guys couldn't or wouldn't.

That's not only insulting, but dumb.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

The UN "watchdogs" who didn't know what was actually going on because they never got access to the nuclear sites? They have no idea. Sad to see the leftists here all now supporting a terrorist regime just because you hate the fact that Trump did what your guys couldn't or wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's not only insulting, but dumb.

he's right. Obama's UN agreement had issues with compliance and access from the start. Iran could and did manipulate the scheduled few inspections they did allow. Obama by either complicity or incompetence never punished Iran with sanctions to force them to comply

perfect time for some recent history .. 2015


Iran Nuclear Deal— Regional Instability, Unknown Compliance, and the Way Forward

https://townhall.com/columnists/raym...rward-n2185984


On Apr. 3, 2016, United Arab Emirates Ambassador Yousef al Otaiba stated in the Wall Street Journal that, “One Year after the Iran Nuclear Deal—don’t be fooled. The Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well.” On June 29, he was on a panel I attended in Washington and elaborated on the argument in the WSJ. In October, November and in early March, Tehran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.


Regarding March fighting in Yemen, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons en route from Iran to the Houthis in rebellion against the UN-backed legitimate government. In late February, Australia intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of rocket-propelled grenades. In December, Tehran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, a few weeks before detaining a group of American sailors.


Unknown Compliance
What about an International Atomic Energy Agency May 27, 2016 report on Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal? Seeing the best in the nuclear agreement requires ignoring the obvious weaknesses in the IAEA report, which does not even specify how much low-enriched uranium the Islamic Republic has stockpiled, how many centrifuges are running at the Natanz enrichment site or whether enrichment activities have actually stopped at Fordow. That’s because under the terms of the nuclear deal, Iran only needs to demonstrate minimum openness. The head of the UN watchdog nuclear agency says that although Iran seems to be adhering to the letter of the deal, “his inspectors are stretched thin by the task of monitoring compliance across a country the size of Alaska.”


give this guy the 2025 Nostradamus award



Peter Morici

Biography

Professor Peter Morici is a recognized expert on economic policy and international economics. He has lectured and offered executive programs at more than 100 institutions including Columbia University, the Harvard Business School and Oxford University.


Economics Makes Iranian Nuclear Deal Unenforceable
Apr 07, 2015

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.


https://townhall.com/columnists/pete...eable-n1981334


A decade from now, when UN inspectors discover Iran is building a nuclear weapon, western leaders will ask how they could have let this happen.


Barack Obama will still be around and perhaps will offer some answers.


The nuclear deal with Iran will prove unenforceable. Ultimately, Tehran will become the dominant economic and military power in the Middle East and if it chooses, build nuclear weapons.


The Obama Administration sought to dismantle Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure—including its underground centrifuge machines, which enrich uranium into fissionable material. However, Tehran balked and other events in the region made Obama desperate for a deal—the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, its spinoff in Libya, and deteriorating relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia on issues transcending the Iranian nuclear challenge.


The agreement significantly reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges and other nuclear infrastructure, but only limitsTehran’s ability to quickly “break out” from these restrictions and accumulate enough fissionable material to create a nuclear weapon in less than one year. Theoretically, we are told that is enough time for the West to detect Iranian violations and respond—but it is not.


The lifting of economic sanctions has the potential to create an economic superpower with malevolent, anti-western aspirations.


Ultimately, Iranian nuclear aspirations will prove awfully difficult to contain within 12 months with U.S. threats to assemble an international coalition to take military action or impose sanctions.


A decade from now, when UN inspectors discover Iran is building a nuclear weapon, western leaders will ask how they could have let this happen.


Barack Obama will still be around and perhaps will offer some answers.

[VitaMan]

Still pounding away on Obama ?

[rooster]

I'm pretty much done with this.

Trump said his usual dog-whistle propaganda. MAGA said "thank you, sir, may we have some more"

We ain't budging from there.

.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by rooster

I'm pretty much done with this.

Trump said his usual dog-whistle propaganda. MAGA said "thank you, sir, may we have some more"

We ain't budging from there.

.

depends on who you ask


A Former Intel Official Used Seven Words to Describe the Leaked Report on Trump's Iran Strikes

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...rikes-n2659535


Iran wasn’t the only one taking bunker busters to the teeth recently. The legacy media has suffered another massive blow, and it was spearheaded by the same people who have done wonders, truly elite things, regarding degrading the credibility of the American newsroom.



CNN’s Natasha Bertrand peddled a low-confidence and top-secret intelligence report showing that President Trump’s B-2 bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities had little to no effect. Leaking that report is a crime. To make matters more embarrassing, it was a report that was worthless and laughably unreliable, yet it was peddled as gospel for days. Now, former intelligence officials spoke with the Washington Free Beacon to offer their take on the leaked report, and it was a doozy. One had the best line to describe the report: it’s so unreliable, “you can wipe your a** with it” [emphasis mine]:

The classified DIA report ignited a media firestorm in the days after President Donald Trump authorized precision strikes on Iran’s top three nuclear sites. The findings were leaked to CNN and the New York Times, which presented them as bombshell evidence that the U.S. bombing run only set back Tehran’s nuclear ambitions by several months.



The U.S. intelligence community deemed that initial assessment "low-confidence," a fact CNN omitted from its original piece, and based it solely on satellite imagery and intercepted communications—known as signals intelligence, or SIGINT—from Iranian officials. Shortly after the assessment leaked, Axios reported that communications intercepted by Israel "suggest Iranian military officials have been giving false situation reports to the country's political leadership—downplaying the extent of the damage." Such communications likely made their way into the DIA report, according to three former U.S. intelligence operatives, a current U.S. official, and other veteran national security insiders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon both on and off the record. Some of them referred to the DIA as the "discount intelligence agency."



"It's basically messaging by the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], messaging by Tehran," said Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer with U.S. Central Command who operated in the Middle East for nearly 30 years. "DIA is taking a SIGINT report from the National Security Agency ... and putting together an assessment to leak. I know it’s messaging, the Iranians know it’s messaging, and for some reason, NSA believes it’s actual f—ing intelligence."
[…]



"It's clear that those people had no idea what they were talking about, and I agree with the fact that undoubtedly all these [Iranians] knew their phones were being monitored by multiple countries and acted accordingly," the former operative told the Free Beacon. "So, nothing that they said should have been used as any sort of gospel."



The former intelligence officer said that the DIA’s categorization of its own assessment renders it effectively useless.



"The fact that the DIA’s assessment was deemed ‘low-confidence’ means that you can wipe your ass with it," the source added. "You probably get more information from a Free Beacon article."



A third former U.S. official who worked primarily on the Iran portfolio agreed that the initial DIA report included "Iranians repeating propaganda to each other, as they have done throughout the war and preceding preparations."

Our own Guy Benson said that journalists often don’t take common sense into account when they’re doing these stories, as many are lusting to damage the Trump presidency in some fashion:


https://x.com/townhallcom/status/193...rikes-n2659535




"If you're a journalist...do a common sense check in your mind...The Israelis have had air superiority for 2 weeks over Iran...The US comes in with this extraordinary unique technology with bulls eye hits...the Israelis took out the brains behind the nuclear program, all those scientists. Yet, that only set the program back by a few months? Doesn’t make any sense."

[VitaMan]

Townhall..?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Townhall..?

if it's accurate what difference does it make? and the source is actually ....


CNN’s Natasha Bertrand peddled a low-confidence and top-secret intelligence report showing that President Trump’s B-2 bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities had little to no effect. Leaking that report is a crime. To make matters more embarrassing, it was a report that was worthless and laughably unreliable, yet it was peddled as gospel for days. Now, former intelligence officials spoke with the Washington Free Beacon


the link to their original article is provided



do you consider the Free Beacon credible?

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Still pounding away on Obama ?

... Everyone is -- even Michelle! ... ..

... Why is it that the lot o' you liberal lads don't seem
to understand that Iran "leaks" their bullshit storys
to some American news outlets - Wash Post, CNN, MSNBC
and others - because they KNOW the liberal media people
(who HATE Trump) will hurry-on to print it.

... So, Iran and their minions here play the media for
fools because they'll surely print or chant ANY negative
report concerning President Trump whether true or not.

#### Salty

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

he's right. Obama's UN agreement had issues with compliance and access from the start. Iran could and did manipulate the scheduled few inspections they did allow. Obama by either complicity or incompetence never punished Iran with sanctions to force them to comply

perfect time for some recent history .. 2015


Iran Nuclear Deal— Regional Instability, Unknown Compliance, and the Way Forward

https://townhall.com/columnists/raym...rward-n2185984


On Apr. 3, 2016, United Arab Emirates Ambassador Yousef al Otaiba stated in the Wall Street Journal that, “One Year after the Iran Nuclear Deal—don’t be fooled. The Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well.” On June 29, he was on a panel I attended in Washington and elaborated on the argument in the WSJ. In October, November and in early March, Tehran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.


Regarding March fighting in Yemen, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons en route from Iran to the Houthis in rebellion against the UN-backed legitimate government. In late February, Australia intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of rocket-propelled grenades. In December, Tehran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, a few weeks before detaining a group of American sailors.


Unknown Compliance
What about an International Atomic Energy Agency May 27, 2016 report on Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal? Seeing the best in the nuclear agreement requires ignoring the obvious weaknesses in the IAEA report, which does not even specify how much low-enriched uranium the Islamic Republic has stockpiled, how many centrifuges are running at the Natanz enrichment site or whether enrichment activities have actually stopped at Fordow. That’s because under the terms of the nuclear deal, Iran only needs to demonstrate minimum openness. The head of the UN watchdog nuclear agency says that although Iran seems to be adhering to the letter of the deal, “his inspectors are stretched thin by the task of monitoring compliance across a country the size of Alaska.”


give this guy the 2025 Nostradamus award



Peter Morici

Biography

Professor Peter Morici is a recognized expert on economic policy and international economics. He has lectured and offered executive programs at more than 100 institutions including Columbia University, the Harvard Business School and Oxford University.


Economics Makes Iranian Nuclear Deal Unenforceable
Apr 07, 2015

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.


https://townhall.com/columnists/pete...eable-n1981334


A decade from now, when UN inspectors discover Iran is building a nuclear weapon, western leaders will ask how they could have let this happen.


Barack Obama will still be around and perhaps will offer some answers.


The nuclear deal with Iran will prove unenforceable. Ultimately, Tehran will become the dominant economic and military power in the Middle East and if it chooses, build nuclear weapons.


The Obama Administration sought to dismantle Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure—including its underground centrifuge machines, which enrich uranium into fissionable material. However, Tehran balked and other events in the region made Obama desperate for a deal—the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, its spinoff in Libya, and deteriorating relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia on issues transcending the Iranian nuclear challenge.


The agreement significantly reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges and other nuclear infrastructure, but only limitsTehran’s ability to quickly “break out” from these restrictions and accumulate enough fissionable material to create a nuclear weapon in less than one year. Theoretically, we are told that is enough time for the West to detect Iranian violations and respond—but it is not.


The lifting of economic sanctions has the potential to create an economic superpower with malevolent, anti-western aspirations.


Ultimately, Iranian nuclear aspirations will prove awfully difficult to contain within 12 months with U.S. threats to assemble an international coalition to take military action or impose sanctions.


A decade from now, when UN inspectors discover Iran is building a nuclear weapon, western leaders will ask how they could have let this happen.


Barack Obama will still be around and perhaps will offer some answers.

As the weapons inspector Albright said the Obama nuke deal may not have been perfect, however, Iran was not enriching Uranium to 60% while Obama was in office. Only after Trump walked away from the deal in 2017 was Iran allowed to enrich up to 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_n...deal_framework

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/n...ates-123020009