Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The list of reasons to impeach Trump is longer than your average CVS receipt. Still, the miliatry action against Iran's nuclear facilities is not one of them, despite AOC's political theater on X that some on the right are in a tizzy over. It still seems a bit premature to me to claim that the operation was a complete and total success; the best seen, folks. Even though Trump undoubtedly had someone walk up to him and say, "Sir, you did it faster, smarter, and better than anyone thought possible! Even the fake news can't deny it!" It seems to me that we will have to wait a few weeks for the smoke to clear (no pun intended) and for the fog of war reporting to yield to more accurate and reliable assessments.

For sure.   Also we do not know yet what Iran’s retaliation capacity might be.   I am very supportive of Israel, so for this and other reasons I think the strike was the right strategy, executed perfectly.   This could change a lot of opinions about Trump’s competency….   Unless things go badly….   Time will tell.   

On the political front, Trump’s braggadocio last night was off putting, but not nearly so much as AOC’s bluster, for example.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Aside from green-lighting the operation and possibly limiting its scope, the interesting thing is that Trump almost certainly had nothing to do with the planning and execution. I, too, support whatever it takes to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran, but I do think Trump is partly responsible for us even being where we are at this moment. His boastfulness, arrogance, and peculiar need to undo his predecessors' legacies so he can reimplement them and take credit for them are bizarre. I know that all new presidencies undo some of the previous administration's policies, but Trump takes it to a level that is downright disconnected from reality.

The bolded stuff is exactly what you would expect of a competent executive.  It sounds like Trump had the authority to call off the bombing up until the B2s went radio silent.  It sounds like he controlled or at least participated in a lot of the pre-operation high level planning, as you would expect from an executive in this situation.  Same as Obama with the OBL raid, or further back in history Truman and the bombs.

I want to change the topic a bit.  I have read on social media some otherwise rational people who simply can not approach this event without concluding Trump had entirely nefarious motivation.  One example is this:

"Make no mistake, Trump wants to start a war with Iran to increase his already near-total control over the federal government..."  For this person and others, everything Trump does is evil.  To fully support this absolute belief, these people must convince themselves that a precision military action, which most believe has prevented or significantly delayed Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, is just a pretext for Trump's actual and far more sinister motive.  I  am worried when otherwise sane people publish stuff showing they sincerely believe this operation was just a pretext to enhance what they "know" is Trump's end game of a monarchy/dictatorship. 

I suppose one could argue Trump's personality justifies and causes this sort of reaction.  I don't buy that angle.  Sometimes even Trump does the right thing and does it well.  I say this knowing that Trump is the greatest narcissist of our time and often speaks or acts with entirely self-serving motivation.   But not always, and not this time.  Why have some people lost the ability to recognize the rich complexity of politics, of Trump, of our diverse points of view?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The latest from the IAEA, as of this morning, is that 900lbs of enriched uranium remains unaccounted for and was likely moved well before the strikes began.

Now, the fear is the Iranian leadership will move to produce a nuke as quickly as they can and, given their religious fanaticism, use it...

First, I bet the Israelis know where this uranium is located, or they soon will.  Think of what Israeli intelligence has done so far.  

Also, it is critical to define "enriched."   I have not read that Iran had any uranium enriched to 90%.  If they did, then this strike came many years too late.  Uranium enriched to 60% will not create a fission bomb.  Maybe a dirty bomb.  It is not going to be easy to clandestinely finish the enrichment process in hastily assembled labs.  It is also not going to be easy to assemble any completely enriched uranium into warheads and mount the warheads to missiles without the Israelis and/or the US knowing about it and mopping up as needed.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It wasn't an atrocious decision by any means. We know publicly that Iran had increased its stockpile of enriched uranium far beyond the JCPOA limits, and that they were likely already enriching more uranium at Fordow, which is why it probably got six bunker busters dropped on it. We will never know what other intelligence prompted the action, but it's silly to think that Trump wants to start a war to distract from domestic issues. Unfortunately, we are simply in a dangerous and complicated timeline right now, and Trump bears some responsibility for our arrival here IMHO.

This is rational, unlike some of the stuff I have seen on social media.  I can buy "some responsibility" "some" being "a little bit."  I also think Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton, Bush, and maybe even Jimmy Carter bear "some responsibility" for the current situation with Iran.  That said, I think the Iranian government bears the lion's share of responsibility.  Similarly, Putin, the Iranian leadership, and Hamas/Hezbollah bear far far far more responsibility than any US president for the dangerous and complicated timeline we live in right now. 

I bet we disagree on the following, but I am glad Trump and his team (rather than Biden/Harris) crafted our response to the knowledge that Iran had increased its stockpile of enriched uranium far beyond the JCPOA limits etc. etc.  

Pure speculation of course, but in my view this response, which I approve of obviously, took individual decisiveness, and I am not sure Harris would have made the right call.  Biden sadly lacked capacity to act decisively.  I absolutely would have trusted Bill Clinton or Obama with these decisions, lest you think I'm being overtly partisan...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

If it wasn't for Trump, the JCPOA would still be in place, and Iran would most likely be at or less than the amount of enriched uranium allowed by that agreement. Anyone who cares about the Iranian nuke issue owes it to themselves to read up at least a little bit on the JCPOA and understand how intrusive and comprehensive the inspection process was. The IAEA had oversight over Iran's entire nuclear apparatus, from its supply chain to its procurement, and conducted continuous monitoring of Fordow and other sites via cameras and other advanced surveillance equipment. Cheating under the JCPOA would have been almost impossible, and it had the backing of China, Russia, Germany, the EU, the UK, and the US until Trump. However, he somehow knew better than anyone else that it was a "bad deal" and withdrew the US from it unilaterally. So, sorry, in my estimation, Trump has more than just a little bit of responsibility for our current timeline, but, of course, the Iranians are ultimately mostly to blame given their state sponsorship of terrorism and many other things that make them a bad actor that can never become part of the nuclear club as long as we can prevent it.

Until Iran unilaterally stopped the inspections.  Even though the IAEA plus China, Russia, Germany, the EU, and the UK were still on board.

I think it is naive to believe Iran's subsequent behavior would have been meaningfully different if Trump had stayed in the JCPOA.  I believe Iran always intended to run roughshod over its JCPOA commitments by continuously and actively pursuing a weapon.  This is exactly what they have done.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

If it wasn't for Trump, the JCPOA would still be in place, and Iran would most likely be at or less than the amount of enriched uranium allowed by that agreement. Anyone who cares about the Iranian nuke issue owes it to themselves to read up at least a little bit on the JCPOA and understand how intrusive and comprehensive the inspection process was. The IAEA had oversight over Iran's entire nuclear apparatus, from its supply chain to its procurement, and conducted continuous monitoring of Fordow and other sites via cameras and other advanced surveillance equipment. Cheating under the JCPOA would have been almost impossible, and it had the backing of China, Russia, Germany, the EU, the UK, and the US until Trump. However, he somehow knew better than anyone else that it was a "bad deal" and withdrew the US from it unilaterally. So, sorry, in my estimation, Trump has more than just a little bit of responsibility for our current timeline, but, of course, the Iranians are ultimately mostly to blame given their state sponsorship of terrorism and many other things that make them a bad actor that can never become part of the nuclear club as long as we can prevent it.

James, I want to clarify.  I agree with most of what you have posted over the last few days.  The question where we disagree is, "would Iran's weapons development goals, actions, and timeline have been meaningfully different if Trump had stayed in the JCPOA?"  With respect to goals and actions, I say, "no way."  Iran has long wanted a nuclear weapon, and their agreement to abandon those goals under the JCPOA were a lie.  I think it is not defensible to argue Iran would indeed have forever abandoned their weapons research if only Trump had stayed in the JCPOA.   On the other hand, Trump taking the US out of the JCPOA might have affected Iran's timeline, but I doubt by much.  J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

However, one of the reasons they abandoned the JCPOA, despite other countries (including France) still being on board, was due to Trump's "maximum pressure" sanctions that he implemented after unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement. Let me be crystal clear. I'm not defending Iran, but I think the JCPOA was our best option at the time, and even after the US abandoned it, other countries, like France, Germany, and the UK, continued to try to make it work. So, they thought it was the best option at the time as well. Also, Iran had around 150kg of 30% enriched uranium in 2018. Now they have more than 900 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and we currently have no idea where it's at.

Like you, I don't trust Iran's leadership one bit, but I still believe abandoning the JCPOA was a bad decision that helped lead us to our current timeline. Of course, these kinds of what-ifs are never completely knowable, so we will merely have to agree to disagree at this point.

What!  Are you telling me we cannot devolve into name calling, red herrings, and infantile rants!  

But seriously, there is a lot to think about on this issue.  As usual, the conversation has been informative and a pleasure.  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites"

"Strikes likely only delayed Iran's nuclear program by months"

"Iran's enriched uranium stockpile remains intact"

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/early-us-intel-assessment-suggests-strikes-iran-did-not-destroy-nuclear-sites-2025-06-24/

Various GOP lawmakers downplay reports: "There's no need to know"!!!:'

The Israelis think their attacks, and our bombing, set the Iranian nuclear weapons program back "years."  I suppose we won't know if it is weeks or years for quite a while.   An accurate assessment would probably take on-the ground inspections.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israeli-intel-assesses-that-irans-nuclear-program-set-back-several-years-but-not-destroyed-official/

Speaking of things we won't know for a while, do you all think the cease fire brokered and bullied into existence by Trump will stick?  So far it looks good, but again, we won't know for a long time.  I will say if this cease fire sticks, this will have to be considered Trump's best week in office so far.  I'm not naive enough to think his opponents will give him any credit, but still this is about as good a "next couple days" after the bombing as anyone could have hoped for. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-lashes-israel-iran-bid-121434693.html

The markets think so too!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"do you all think the cease fire brokered and bullied into existence by Trump will stick?"

While the ceasefire may stick, I liked the analysis I heard last night on MSNBC from a former intel official:

Here's how the Iranians may be seeing the big picture:  Nobody invades Pakistan because they have a nuke. Nobody invades North Korea because they have a nuke. Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program and look how it ended for him. Ukraine gave up its nukes and look at what's happening to them.

Similarly, Iran reportedly removed a stockpile of its enriched uranium well before the strikes began so they still have the material and the knowhow and, given the above, the willingness to develop it. 

 So, while Iran's nuclear program has been upended, it may not be the end of it...

No one can argue with the bolded part. 

Another unknown is whether Iran indeed has the "know how" to quickly and clandestinely assemble an operable nuclear warhead and missile.  The Israelis have been ruthlessly effective assassinating Iran's top nuclear scientists.  One of the better deterrences of Iran's further efforts toward a nuke may be that Israeli intelligence appears to be able to operate at will in Iran.  The Supreme Leader is in hiding for a very good reason, but I bet the Israelis could get him if they wanted him.  After last year's cell phone and pager attacks on Hezbollah, nothing seems to be beyond the technical and tactical capabilities of Mossad and the Israeli military.

Also, the left wing press and politicians are acting like the B2 bombing was of limited success while the right wing press and politicians act like it was a complete obliteration.  Why is this even the issue?  If the first attack was not 100% successful at wiping out the key nuclear sites, we still have B2s and big-ass bombs.   I'm guessing that a few follow up raids would eventually be 100% successful no matter how hard the subterrain is.  I truly hope it does not come to that, but Iran knows this is a possibility.  

Last, even though Iran may have moved a stockpile of partially enriched uranium (A)  I bet Israel or the US either knows where it is, or can find it, and (B) Iran is going to have a tough time finalizing the enrichment process, building a warhead, and fitting it to a missile in secret.  It is not like they can do all of that in someone's garage.