Trump's Second Term

[EHocking]

After the 2025 Iran War, I found a nuclear watchdog site that seemed to have a reasonable assessment of the progress of the Iranian nuclear weapon program and the subsequent success of the U.S. attack on their facilities.

An excerpt from their February assessment of the Iranian nuclear program was,

“The risk of war is heightened by Iran’s ballistic missile program. It is so threatening that it cannot be decoupled from the nuclear weapons program. Any outcome that only eliminates either threat will not provide lasting stability in the region. ​

​

The chance of war breaking out soon is tied to Iran’s nuclear program, but it involves more, including Iranian progress on making ballistic missiles, its unwillingness to accept major concessions on its missile program and on aiding proxy forces, judgments about U.S. and Israeli threshold for striking, and US and Israeli readiness to strike targets given possible Iranian responses.​

​

Overall, absent a decision by the United States to strike the remnants of Iran’s nuclear program now or mitigating meaningful actions on Iran’s end, these factors create a situation that is increasingly unstable. The risk of renewed military conflict will persist, and the chance of Israeli or US military actions will grow rather than diminish. “​

I would suggest reading the entire document, as it has probabilities of the stat of an Iranian nuclear weapon being produced by 2026 (3-6 months from Feb)
Note, that this excludes the ability to produce a missile-delivered nuke.
So, reading the article is useful I think for you conversation.
Also, you can browse back to pre2025 attack and post assessments of their nuclear capabilities.

Whether the Trump or Netanyahu administrations read and take notice of this assessment, I can’t say.
Nor am I commenting on what they may or may not have said. Just attempting to inject some info to the discussion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
@SecWar
We have only just begun to fight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029324325854298609

 

[Resume]

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
@SecWar
We have only just begun to fight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029324325854298609

Does he think that's a flex?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

And neither of those statements were hard to find.

Weren't hard for you to find.

But you and the Washington Examiner both understand English verb tenses well enough to parse "they would've had a nuclear weapon."

Trump says Iran was two weeks away from nuclear weapon, forcing US strike​

ETA: In defense of those who want to parse Trump's statement differently, it would be hard to make the case that Trump himself understands verb tenses well enough to know what he was saying.

 

[bruto]

No. You are parsing his sentence wrong. The two week deadline was for us to attack.

"If we didn’t hit within two weeks, they would’ve had a nuclear weapon."

This is the quote, and the correct parsing with correct comma placement. You are trying to parse it like this:

"If we didn’t hit, within two weeks they would’ve had a nuclear weapon."

This is the wrong parsing with the wrong comma placement.

I don't think there's a substantive difference, and I don't think the administration is as committed to accuracy as you would like to believe. So, if we waited three weeks, would they or would they not have had a nuclear weapon, according to this? If they had not had one by then, the only possible other interpretation is that they would have been past the point of no return for having one. But if they don't have one already, what makes their progress toward it more unstoppable? Suddenly the bombs bounce off?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think there's a substantive difference

It very much is.

,and I don't think the administration is as committed to accuracy as you would like to believe.

Oh, I didn't claim it was an accurate timeline, that's a separate debate. I'm just pointing out what the timeline is in reference to.

So, if we waited three weeks, would they or would they not have had a nuclear weapon, according to this?

The argument I think is that we can't maintain an active posture indefinitely, we would need to stand down in two weeks or so, and we would not have another good opportunity to prepare for a strike for some time after that. And by the time we would be ready again, Iran's convention weapons would provide enough of a deterrent that such an operation would not be feasible anymore. Iran would then be able to take its time developing nukes behind their shield of conventional ballistic missiles and drones.

One can of course dispute various points of this argument (I'm sure many people do), but none of it depends on Iran getting nukes within two weeks or anything of the sort.

 

[junkshop]

This is a lie...

I am as shocked by this as I will be when friday follows thursday.

 

[Aridas]

It very much is.

It's a distinction without a meaningful difference here, no matter how you squirm, gaslighting apologist.

 

[bruto]

It very much is.

Oh, I didn't claim it was an accurate timeline, that's a separate debate. I'm just pointing out what the timeline is in reference to.

The argument I think is that we can't maintain an active posture indefinitely, we would need to stand down in two weeks or so, and we would not have another good opportunity to prepare for a strike for some time after that. And by the time we would be ready again, Iran's convention weapons would provide enough of a deterrent that such an operation would not be feasible anymore. Iran would then be able to take its time developing nukes behind their shield of conventional ballistic missiles and drones.

One can of course dispute various points of this argument (I'm sure many people do), but none of it depends on Iran getting nukes within two weeks or anything of the sort.

I can sort of see your rationale for saying the attack must be made within a certain time frame, two weeks in this case, but I suspect you're imputing more coherence to the argument that was actually made than it deserves. Among other things, it presumes that there was a pressing reason for beginning the two week cycle when it was begun in the first place, rather than just an ill-advised decision to begin a process without a plan, or a bad faith decision to start a process knowing that once begun it cannot be stopped.

In any case, I think even assuming your take on the meaning is right, making the explanation of a bad plan more articulate does little to help the plan.

 

[grunion]

It’s more of the “two weeks away from a nuke” bullcrap that he and Bibi have been peddling to a complicit media for over ten years. He’s told the lie so often that the words bleat out of his piehole effortlessly, like the squirts he gets after consuming three Big Macs.

 

[Trebuchet]

Of course it's a lie, it's the thing this corrupt administration does best. You can tell they're good at it just by the way the cultists lap it up.

"Does best?"
Not really. In fact they are just not very good at it!

 

[arthwollipot]

I can't remember whether it was Seth Myers or Stephen Colbert who showed a montage of American leaders going back decades, all saying that Iran was within two weeks of having a nuclear weapon.

 

[Planigale]

After the 2025 Iran War, I found a nuclear watchdog site that seemed to have a reasonable assessment of the progress of the Iranian nuclear weapon program and the subsequent success of the U.S. attack on their facilities.

An excerpt from their February assessment of the Iranian nuclear program was,


I would suggest reading the entire document, as it has probabilities of the stat of an Iranian nuclear weapon being produced by 2026 (3-6 months from Feb)
Note, that this excludes the ability to produce a missile-delivered nuke.
So, reading the article is useful I think for you conversation.
Also, you can browse back to pre2025 attack and post assessments of their nuclear capabilities.

Whether the Trump or Netanyahu administrations read and take notice of this assessment, I can’t say.
Nor am I commenting on what they may or may not have said. Just attempting to inject some info to the discussion.

Although it claims to be non-Partisan, it is interesting to look at the countries it reviews, e.g. why no assessment of the US? Minimal assessment of Israel. It's assessments appear quite partisan.

Is there any country or agreement to limit non-nuclear armed ballistic missile development?

 

[TofuFighter]

I can't remember whether it was Seth Myers or Stephen Colbert who showed a montage of American leaders going back decades, all saying that Iran was within two weeks of having a nuclear weapon.

Steven Witkoff - 26 Feb 2026 - “They’re probably a week away from having industrial-grade bombmaking material,” on Fox to Lara Trump

 

[Darat]

Reporter: You listed a long list of grievances against the Iranian government going back to 1979. Why is it that you can't say what the imminent threat against the US was that required us to launch this?

Leavitt: I reject the premise of your question.

...snip....

In other words: I reject reality.

 

[Darat]

I can sort of see your rationale for saying the attack must be made within a certain time frame, two weeks in this case, but I suspect you're imputing more coherence to the argument that was actually made than it deserves. Among other things, it presumes that there was a pressing reason for beginning the two week cycle when it was begun in the first place, rather than just an ill-advised decision to begin a process without a plan, or a bad faith decision to start a process knowing that once begun it cannot be stopped.

In any case, I think even assuming your take on the meaning is right, making the explanation of a bad plan more articulate does little to help the plan.

And for Trump the good or bad is always "in two weeks".

 

[Cain]

The US had no choice but to defend itself from Iran's incessant meddling. Despite residing on another continent, they couldn't leave us alone.

 

[Planigale]

The US had no choice but to defend itself from Iran's incessant meddling.
Despite residing on another continent, they couldn't leave us alone

Iran or the US? The US has been meddling in Iran since at least 1953. Iran is the only country that has been subject to attack by WMD since 1945, by a US puppet.

Pretty sure the words mote and beam or pot and kettle fit here.

 

[lionking]

Dangerous escalation.
It doesn't take much to bring a drone with explosives to somewhere the US Navy doesn't expect.
Trump has made all US assets a legitimate target everywhere

Wishful thinking again. Predictable

 

[arthwollipot]

I can't remember whether it was Seth Myers or Stephen Colbert who showed a montage of American leaders going back decades, all saying that Iran was within two weeks of having a nuclear weapon.

I found what I think is the clip. It's not Seth or Stephen, it was on the Daily Show, and it wasn't American leaders, it was Netanyahu.

Apologies for posting from Xitter, but that's where it is.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935048445984665786