And in the meantime, Russia is telling the US not to get involved or else…


and Trump true to form has given it Two Weeks, just as he has been giving Russia over Ukraine for the last few months, its rather like Russias we will nuke you threat's, after repeating it so many times it just becomes background noise and the credibility is gone.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ys-2025-06-19/

Yes, I concur.

This got me from the Reuters news thread.

• White House says Trump's top priority is preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapon
• Iran could produce nuclear weapon in just weeks, White House claims
• Critics question Trump's two-week deadline

So, if it’s just weeks away, why give them two more to perfect / complete it.?

Another fly in the ointment, Russia says they have 200 staff building the reactors in Iran.
Strange for Putin to be worried about 200 Russians having sent 1,000,000 to their deaths of late.

Russia is already looking after the Iranian nuclear program. They supply the fuel for the Bushehr reactor and take it away when it's finished with which is not surprising considering it's a Russian design.

Iranian foreign minister:

”There is no room for negotiation with the USA until Israeli aggression ends”.

He has also stated that the Iranian missile programme is non-negotiable.

I can in a way understand Irans response, after all they are not exactly surrounded by friendly countries.

Neither are Israel....

Put a framework to the arguments.

https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15942.doc.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...uclear_Weapons

One might also look back to the six or seven UN Resolutions re Iran's Nuclear and Missile programs and the history of how it all played out in the many debates at the UN.

More for the framework
 

On 18 September 2009, the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities", which passed by a narrow margin of 49–45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."[93] However, similar resolutions were defeated in 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2015.[94][95] As with Pakistan, the NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to Israel.

For the record, I’d prefer it if Iran didn’t have nukes. I’d prefer it if many of the current holders didn’t have them and ultimately if nobody had them (but I’m a realist).

The problem is that it’s very hard to preach about it when the other belligerent (our friend) won’t be honest about theirs.

A lot of this enmity could go away if Israel just said “fair enough, we have them, come take a look”.

BV

Or arrange a small demo at Fordo. Convincing.

No, langleybaston, that's a terrible idea. (Were you joking?)
As I've said before, I am confident that Iran will join the nuclear club eventually. What the Israelis are doing currently will doubtless be a setback.
If the Ayatollah's fall, who takes over? Most likely the IRGC. I expect them to continue to pursue that aim.
If Pakistan has them, and they do, Iran having them isn't that much of a change to security in that region.

12 x F-22A have left RAF Lakenheath, UK for the CENTCOM AOR - they will be based in Jordan.

I am unsure of the significance of this, but my estimate is that IRGC will have some freedom of action.
I expect some fifth column action in Jordan in and around those air bases that RAFEngO74to09's post refers to.

I think every country in the world should have one nuclear weapon

They can be expensive to store and maintain, so some nations won't want the bother. Others won't mind.

The worrying thing, Lonewolf, is that Iran have made it abundantly clear for quite some time that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. For a long time the general consensus was that if there would ever be a nuclear conflict it would be between Pakistan and India. My opinion is that would change if Iran become a nuclear power. They could well be the first to use it.....against Israel.

BRUpax, a problem with them doing that is that launching a nuke (or a number of them, Israel has ballistic missile defenses) at the Holy Land is in direct opposition to their Axis of Resistance posture.
Such a strike would render Israel (or as they see it, the rightful homeland of the Palestinian Muslims) - uninhabitable, at least for the near term.
The land would be poisoned, rather than restored to the Palestinians.
Having the weapon would be (1) a status symbol and (2) a possible deterrent to attacks on or invasion of Iran.
On the other hand, maybe they'd get to a point where they embrace the Götterdämmerung...but I never saw the Mullahs as suicidal.

A logical conclusion LW. Let us hope it is correct.

Did Iran's leadership fail to understand the situation leading up to and immediately after the October 7th attack on Israel and make some very bad decisions as a result?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/middl.../how-iran-lost

How deep is it? First guesses were about 100 meters. Then figures like '500 meters' were floated around. And now this 800m "for the most sensitive things". Ok, nobody knows. And nobody knows how deep can one or several MOPs reach, either.

I'm curious, how hot is it down there? The average geothermal gradient is 3 K/100 m below the surface in Europe (Wikipedia). Therefore about ISA+24 at 800 meters. Could be different under this mountain, a geologist would know. And you have a big plant with hundreds centrifuges, each requiring tens of kW of electricity. Where goes all this heat? And where does all the electricity come from? Maybe it's easier to target the nearest powerplant and/or the numerous huge exhaust stacks?

IMO it can't be this deep and this big at the same time...