this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
181 points (99.5% liked)

Geopolitics

517 readers
228 users here now

Welcome

Visit us on Matrix at #geopol:matrix.org

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago

The the Iraqi WMDs, all over again.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Iran has oil, there is the reason for the war for you. Anything else is just excuses that may or may not be based on also real things, but which wouldnt get reacted at if iran didnt have oil.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world -3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Enriching large amounts of uranium above 20% isn't a good idea.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

No, the whole point of bombing Iran was to make the point that it is and trying diplomacy with the US as an alternative is suicidal.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I tend to trust the IAEA, not the Iranian government, how about you?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Ok, trust them then fool

Speaking in remarks reported on Tuesday evening, Grossi said Iran possesses a large stockpile of enriched uranium that has reached levels close to weapons-grade. However, he stressed that the agency has not found proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260304-iaea-says-no-evidence-iran-is-building-a-nuclear-bomb/

In response to the attacks, Iran excluded UN inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from those and other sensitive sites, with the result that the watchdog lost track of what became of the 440kg HEU stockpile, and of what was being done in the deep tunnels in Isfahan and Natanz.

In its latest report, the IAEA conceded it could not verify whether Iran had suspended all enrichment-related activities, or the size of its uranium stockpile at the affected nuclear facilities.

Despite that uncertainty, the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, said on Monday that “we don’t see a structured programme to manufacture nuclear weapons”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/us-israel-strikes-iran-nuclear-program-could-backfire

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Thanks for proving my point. From the article you linked:

Most worryingly for the international community, Iran had by last summer produced a stockpile of just over 440kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), of 60% purity. In terms of technical difficulty, once at 60%, it is a relatively easy step to reach 90% – weapons-grade uranium that can be used to make a compact warhead.

You don't need HEU for civilian nuclear power operations.

You ignored the main part though

Despite that uncertainty, the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, said on Monday that “we don’t see a structured programme to manufacture nuclear weapons”.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Did you ignore the part of there being no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear bomb?

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 16 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Of course not. Iran was playing by the rules because they were trying to avoid exactly what happened in the last few days.

EDIT: To add to this, the conflict is mostly due to Iran not wanting to share its oil resources. Just like Venezuela. Just like Lybia. Just like any other country who doesn't want to have its energy resources exploited by U.S. interests.

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago

When has that ever stopped the US?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Refining nuclear materials is really not that complicated. I mean it's just, well, refining, while being safe about radiation. The only reason iran doesn't have nuclear weapons is because they don't want to. Which means they decided to abide by the nonproliferation treaties they signed. And since the US didn't, we now get to see how everyone else who signed one behaves. Yaaaaay.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (5 children)

If they don't want, or treat with wanting, why are they refining all that fissile material then?

They do want the bomb

Edit: you just have no answer except downvotes because you know I'm right, and it makes you angry.

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Does it fuck you in the ass?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

What is this 6 yo rhetoric lol, go back to kindergarten.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

2 weeks away from nuclear weapons since the 70's

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago

I didn't say that though.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

For fuel for electricity generation, as explicitly allowed in the treaties.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago

Then why go over a couple of percent of refinement? There is no other reason than to make weapon grade uranium. At 60 percent they are not "2 weeks from a bomb" but they are fucking far from 3-4% that is used for civil energy generation.

[–] davepleasebehave@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Thanks Benjamin.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

do they have any reactors?

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Why build when you can buy?

[–] halfapage@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 6stringringer@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

New world troubles.

[–] GameOverFlow@lemmy.zip -5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

At what point the reason for this war where nuclear weapons? Did trump even say this? 

[–] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 2 hours ago

Yes, they gave 8 excuses in the first 24h, one of them was "they are 2 weeks away from a nuke", which has been the talking point since the 70s.