www.ft.com
The purpose of our airstrikes wasn't to destroy those supplies. The purpose was to disable enrichment capabilities.
WRONG. Our strikes were done to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. Destroying their existing supply of HEI is clearly part of that.
Lebanon is now a failed stated, repeatedly attacked. Iraq is hardly better. Now Syria. Finally, Iran, in case they try to stop Israel as it eventually approaches the Euphrates. Gaza in rubble, genocide in full swing, the West Bank being ethnically cleaned as we speak. The nation-states and territories comprising Greater Israel have all been under attack by Israel or at its behest.
Destroying an existing supply is one method to advance that goal. It is not the only method to do so. That supply is useful for making a nuclear weapon, but it is not sufficient on its own. It still needs enrichment facilities. Absent enrichment facilities, that uranium cannot be turned into a nuclear weapon. Conversely, if Iran has enrichment facilities, they don't actually need that supply of partially enriched uranium. It's useful because it speeds up the process, but they can make more from raw uranium ore, provided they have the enrichment facilities. Enrichment facilities are an absolute requirement for Iran to make nuclear weapons. A stockpile of partially enriched uranium is useful but neither sufficient nor necessary. The priority target was always the enrichment facilities, not the stockpiles. Anyone with a clue about how nuclear weapons work understands that.
Israel isn't approaching the Euphrates. This is just delusional.
Who knows. You may have a different president by then. Or Trump may still be your king.
Which part? Attacks on nuclear facilities can indeed result in radioactive releases. I agree with that. They can produce "grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked". I agree with that too. These are opinions in the sense that they are not proven, but they pertain to factual matters. An attack either produces a radioactive release, or it doesn't. That's a factual matter. The IAEA's expertise is relevant to the evaluation of these factual matters.
What an idiotic conclusion. Nuclear weapons are perhaps the gravest threat to Israel, but they are hardly the only threat. Iran has demonstrated both a capacity and willingness to kill Israelis with non-nuclear weapons. Depending on the circumstances, Israel could easily have a reason to strike at Iran for reasons other than their nuclear program.
As opinions which differ from the stated conclusion of the administration are weeded out for being unfit, the US intelligence pool will adapt to provide opinions that do not differ. Thus, evolution.
No.
Whatever suits the Rapist-in-Chief and Nehanyahu.
You have lost the plot. Trump had nothing to do with my post. That was about Khomeini, and why no one has seen him recently.
The progress since 2001 is certainly there, the willingness to destabilize surrounding governments is there, the taking of land is constant (now in Syria once again), the existence of many fanatics who dream of Greater Israel is there, the constant claim to more and more land is there. Question of time, should Israel be left to its own devices.
In 2005, Israel removed every Israeli settlement from Gaza. Obviously this was part of a dastardly plot to steal land from Gaza. At that rate, they will have occupied all of the Sinai Peninsula in… -3,200 years.
There he is:
www.theguardian.com