Part VI: The Nuclear Lie — Four Decades of “Weeks Away”
This is perhaps the most critical section of this refresher, because the nuclear lie is the engine driving current aggression. While every Israeli prime minister and government official, along with every US President since Carter and their associates and think-tanks, have made these “weeks away” statements for over 45 years, Netanyahu is the prime mover along with his US sycophants, at the moment.
One thing is certain no country as yet has ever been attacked that possesses a nuclear weapon. If Iran had had this weapon, they would be safe now if you are an Iranian with half a brain, how would you ensure that your countries never subjected to a sneak attack not once but twice?
Why put it on Iranians to do what they don't want to do? Why not change the script written by the US UK and EU and force the stoppage of nuclear proliferation which will never end well? More to the point... Russia and China have nuclear weapons, and that stops exactly nothing.
You forget that the Soviets developed the bomb precisely to stop the Americans. Ditto the Chinese. Then everyone compares the fate of Libya to North Korea. But, yes, nuclear weapons have always been delusional. We now know what tremendous environmental damage they can cause—just an exchange of one hundred or so ends civilization for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, which is a pretty poor way to solve the environmental problem.
1. Exactly, to stop the US; 2., The Soviets no longer exist and neither do the "Red" Chinese; 3. Why is it incumbent on oyhrr countries to stop the over
reach and war mo ger atttitude of the west, whicj is a task the Citizens are durectly responsible
for? 4. Exactly, the Russians and Chinese have nuclear weapons and it slows, not stops the West. Citizens in a Demecracy are responsible for their rulers.
The fact that Iran has accomplished so much while being sanctioned since 1979, leaves no doubt in my mind, it would be a colossal mistake to underestimate their present day capabilities.
I listened closely to the Johnson interview and at a certain point, he clearly stated his belief that IF his source (who he considers credible) is correct that Iran has a nuclear weapon, then they most likely created it themselves. Most of the supposed debunking relied upon statements concerning the unlikeliness of support from China or Russia or other nations. Much though I support the dissident in a lot of its work and coverage. And much though I pay attention to John Mearsheimer, this article certainly does not debunk Larry Johnson. It presents another, related perspective.
The source isn't credible, if it's not invented in fact, and no, Iran didn't cross the final enrichment hurdle to a gun-type U-235 bomb. Note also that Johnson continues to hedge between present and future tense. Note also that Mearsheimer DID refute him on the idea that Iran would do a demonstration explosion.
Mearsheimer did so on the assumption that Iran has a single nuclear bomb, and on the assumption that they got a single bomb from an outside source. Both weren't claims made by either Escobar or Johnson. I'm not defending them, but these just weren't their claims. And the presumptions made by Mearsheimer changes the analysis. If Iran wants to detonate a nuke in its desert to create deterrence, it likely has multiple bombs and second strike capability.
It's colloquial. Saying someone has "a nuke" doesn't necessarily imply that they don't have multiple nukes. Saying Iran will drop a nuke in the desert to build deterrence implies they have multiple nukes. People aren't always precise in their language. Them saying that Iran will test a nuke implies multiple nukes, otherwise, as Mearsheimer says, what's the point of the test if you only have one ... or two.
We'll see whether Iran refutes the claim. I'm curious as to why Larry Johnson and Pepe Escobar would put themselves in a position like this if they weren't a little confident with their source. It's an odd thing to do if it's a lie. It may well be, but what's your read on it if they turn out to be lying?
You're analyzing politics, I thought you might have some insight. You might be more gadfly than socratic. I wasn't having an argument with you, but a conversation. Looks like you were having an argument. I addressed Postol elsewhere and agreed with you, this conversation here wasn't about what Postol said, it's about what Johnson and Escobar said. And I'm not sure what you mean by passing on colloquial but saying "they got a nuke" or "they're getting a nuke" doesn't mean they're getting a single bomb. Whether you "pass" on it or not is irrelevant. It's lovely you can hide behind an avatar to act like a bum online.
This is what I heard from him also. I don't think either one claimed they got a nuke from another country.
Until Iran comes out and refutes the claim, I'll consider it a valid claim. They've refuted several claims made by the US in the near past about possessing or building a nuke. They have no issue doing so. They haven't said anything about this one yet. (Maybe because it's low profile and insignificant, or maybe because it's true)
There have also been speculations from knowledgeable individuals like Ted Postol of MIT University claiming that it's likely Iran has 10 to 20 nuclear bombs by now. I won't say anything to their veracity, I don't really know better, but I'll wait for the official denial to come through.
>>On Glenn Diesen, it was actually him claiming that Iran possesses enough enriched uranium to build 10 to 20 nuclear weapons. However, he notes that these are not fully constructed bombs; rather, Iran is a "threshold state" that could assemble the weapons in a matter of weeks if they choose to do so.<<
I still say it would take months, not weeks, to enrich to HEU level and build one or two. And, that said, Postol isn't saying anything highly out of line with estimates by folks like the IAEA. And, it's not a claim that Iran actually has nuclear weapons now.
Thanks everybody for an interesting conversation on whether or not Larry Johnson was/ is onto something. The fact of the matter though is nothing has yet been either proven nor absolutely refuted (i.e. debunked). Everything remains speculative so it’s a case of wait and see! It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
You're right, he said nuclear threshold. But you're implying it's months out. That's all conjecture. We don't know. Iran has a comprehensive missiles program, they may well already have everything they need but the enriched uranium to operationalize the bombs. The IAEA is a nuclear watchdog, so to the extent that they are knowledgeable about it is unlikely unless Iran let them walk around freely in their missile cities and manufacturing plants. My point being that Iran may have already built the bombs covertly for the potential eventuality that they may need them, and the remaining piece is the enriched uranium. I admit I'm not informed on the mechanics of this, so it's conjecture on my part, but I just get a sense that in a broad sense it's conjecture when people say "Iran needs X days, weeks, months...". No one knows. Ted Postol said Iran is a nuclear threshold state the first time right around the time the war was launched on Iran on February 28, that's 3 months–so even by your estimates being "months away" it's possible Iran possesses a nuke today.
yes ted pistol said Iran could, has the capability. but also that he thinks it's highly likely that Iran already did. just by simple reasoning of the threat put on it and the attacks launched on it. not by some concrete evidence.
so far the evidence argument against Iran having made the bombs is that they put the nuclear material and inspection of it up for bargaining a deal with the US.
I read through, when first posting, and re-read just now, the entire transcript of his interview with Glenn Diesen. Nowhere there does he say it's highly likely Iran already has built nukes. If you have a link to some other interview where he expressly states that, drop it here.
Yes still working for the CIA as a misinformation asset. Hence his frequent references to his “sources” in the CIA. And like all of the ex military US hack blowhards on YouTube, a fraud.
These people spent their entire careers amounting to decades in the US military directly or indirectly killing people all over the world, without the slightest qualms and now they have suddenly done a U turn and condemn it.
Sure.
Hypocrisy, lies or both are the only possibilities. They have zero credibility.
they have the capability. and they probably built em at. acertain point, but didn't put em all together with the enriched uranium... until a certain point. and if they haven't done so yet, they must have some confidence that neither Israel or the US could bomb that capability out of them no matter how many nukes. AND... that reasonable analysts in both countries should be able to establish the fact as well.
John Mearsheimer has been discredited. He’s not an expert. Just listen to him talking about the US needing to fight China.
Doesn’t anyone remember hire surprises was when the DPRK detonated not one nuke, but TWO? They did this right under the nose of the Empire of Lies 🇺🇸.
If anyone doesn’t believe that Iran hasn’t taken the lesson of Libya, which cooperated with USA & UK only to be destroyed versus DPRK, which RIGHTFULLY went nuclear, I’ll sell you a bridge.
By now, Iran HAS NUKES. Whether they obtained them by a third nation or from their OWN. Hasn’t anyone noticed the change in rhetoric from Trump?
I have not known either Pepe Escobar or Larry Johnson to be excitable carriers of controversial messages. Perhaps the intention is to insinuate the rumor that the Iranians already possess a nuclear weapon so as to invalidate Trump's motivation for war. Netanyahoo doesn't care about nukes anymore as he told Trump to stop the missiles—clearly a more dangerous threat.
i don't know Larry Johnson that way. but Escobar was the only one sharing the story, given to him by a source, that Iran shot down a nuke carrying .. Israeli plane, I think. very sure about the general image. not sure during which Israeli strikes on Iran that was supposed to be.
and don't remember the thinking anymore of "if planted fake info, with Escobar knowingly or not knowingly sharing it... what it would ut mean, the likely intention?"
that and something else made me be a bit more careful and maybe even skeptical when listening to him
but I do think the "debunking" of the Iran nuke story is not so well done and uses strawman arguments.
We have to remember that Larry and Pepe rely on sources, and sources can be wrong, stories may be skewed, information may be unreliable. Pepe especially has been in the journalism business for a long time and is not given to accepting deception. Still, people can be fooled, no matter how careful.
I had not heard the story that an Israeli nuke was shot down, and the story of an Iranian nuke is all over the place. Whether true or not does not matter because the possibility of an Iranian nuke is almost as good as the real thing.
I HAVE known Larry Johnson to spout bullshit before. His record goes back to at least 2008 and a Michelle Obama hoax, per his Wiki piece, which is linked in my piece associating him, as co-founder of VIPS, with the Forensicator bullshit, which gave license to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory bullshit. https://socraticgadfly.substack.com/p/iran-nukes-trump-bibi
This is a really useful debunk of that specific “Iran already got a nuke from a third country” story. Checking it against basic strategy and engineering instead of just vibes is exactly what more of alternative media should be doing.
What jumped out at me, though, is that your own experts basically confirm the part that actually matters: Iran already has everything it needs to build a weapon on its own if it makes the internal decision to do it. In other words, the problem isn’t whether somebody smuggled them a finished Pakistani or North Korean warhead in a suitcase; it’s that they’re at, or very near, the “we can go nuclear if we choose” threshold.
That’s the world the rest of us actually have to think about: a regime that openly talks the way Tehran talks, with an indigenous capability to cross the line when it decides the timing is right. In that context, killing off a bad hand‑off rumor is important, but it also underlines how serious the underlying situation already is even without mystery warheads changing hands.
Do you consider Russia a rational actor? Or China? Or NK? Or Pakistan? Or India? Or Israel, for that matter? These countries all have nukes currently and no one seems all that concerned. Iran "may" have a nuke, so we need to stop them ... what a ridiculous statement. I'm more concerned about some of these countries having nukes, including the United States, than I am of Iran possessing a nuke.
I hadn't even bothered with the likes of Mearsheimer because I already knew all he said on China and Russia and nonproliferation, on Pakistan not being a friend of Iran, and how you wouldn't throw away your single deterrent and lose your bluff. I wanted to focus instead on Johnson's larger past history of stupidity and clownishness. https://socraticgadfly.substack.com/p/iran-nukes-trump-bibi
Yes I support this view as well. Iran has developed their nuclear technology by themselves and yes they do have everything there to make a nuclear weapon if needed. However they have had a peaceful nuclear program for energy production and had inspections on this until Trump stopped them.
Yeah, Johnson is a little cia-operative like in his interviews. He called Prof Jiang all types of names. He talks shit on others but he is a little strange in his analysis, sometimes.
First, Netanyahu and the others KNOW the Iranian government considers owning a nuclear weapon a worse fate than death, otherwise at least the others would have helped Iran turn the ME into a WMD free zoneevem if they had to force Netanyahu's regime to sign onto it.
(The thing that gets countries paranoid about each other's intentions in regards to chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons is they get to design the inspections and restrictions the country they're paranoid about will have to abide by. The thing that gets the other countries to agree to all those restrictions and inspections and enforcement measures is the countries that drafted them also has to abide by them until it decides they're too much, and if everyone agrees, eases them off for everyone)
If America's military and intelligence agencies believed Iran getting any of these weapons would make Iran a threat to America, then the software and hardware of Netanyahu's weapons would stop working overnight and he'd have been told quietly that it would remain a 'technical problem' until he signed.
Iran is considered a threshold nuclear state. It already has large stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, so producing weapons-grade material could take weeks to a few months if it chose to sprint. However, building a deliverable nuclear weapon—miniaturisation, detonation design, and missile integration—would likely take many additional months to years. The main barrier is political decision, not raw technical capacity today.
How do you know they haven't already built the bomb and just need the nuclear material? There's no prerequisite here. You can build everything in parallel. Iran can likely go nuclear in a matter of weeks, if it chooses to do so.
Part VI: The Nuclear Lie — Four Decades of “Weeks Away”
This is perhaps the most critical section of this refresher, because the nuclear lie is the engine driving current aggression. While every Israeli prime minister and government official, along with every US President since Carter and their associates and think-tanks, have made these “weeks away” statements for over 45 years, Netanyahu is the prime mover along with his US sycophants, at the moment.
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/a-century-of-lies-the-western-war
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/trust-nothing-they-say-the-exposed
One thing is certain no country as yet has ever been attacked that possesses a nuclear weapon. If Iran had had this weapon, they would be safe now if you are an Iranian with half a brain, how would you ensure that your countries never subjected to a sneak attack not once but twice?
Not by a long shot
yeah Russia gets attacked plenty. but only by a proxy willing to die in the millions
Maybe that is the point. If all this warfare is about stopping a potential bomb, wouldn't then the reality of an actual bomb stop all the killing?
Why put it on Iranians to do what they don't want to do? Why not change the script written by the US UK and EU and force the stoppage of nuclear proliferation which will never end well? More to the point... Russia and China have nuclear weapons, and that stops exactly nothing.
You forget that the Soviets developed the bomb precisely to stop the Americans. Ditto the Chinese. Then everyone compares the fate of Libya to North Korea. But, yes, nuclear weapons have always been delusional. We now know what tremendous environmental damage they can cause—just an exchange of one hundred or so ends civilization for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, which is a pretty poor way to solve the environmental problem.
1. Exactly, to stop the US; 2., The Soviets no longer exist and neither do the "Red" Chinese; 3. Why is it incumbent on oyhrr countries to stop the over
reach and war mo ger atttitude of the west, whicj is a task the Citizens are durectly responsible
for? 4. Exactly, the Russians and Chinese have nuclear weapons and it slows, not stops the West. Citizens in a Demecracy are responsible for their rulers.
The fact that Iran has accomplished so much while being sanctioned since 1979, leaves no doubt in my mind, it would be a colossal mistake to underestimate their present day capabilities.
I listened closely to the Johnson interview and at a certain point, he clearly stated his belief that IF his source (who he considers credible) is correct that Iran has a nuclear weapon, then they most likely created it themselves. Most of the supposed debunking relied upon statements concerning the unlikeliness of support from China or Russia or other nations. Much though I support the dissident in a lot of its work and coverage. And much though I pay attention to John Mearsheimer, this article certainly does not debunk Larry Johnson. It presents another, related perspective.
The source isn't credible, if it's not invented in fact, and no, Iran didn't cross the final enrichment hurdle to a gun-type U-235 bomb. Note also that Johnson continues to hedge between present and future tense. Note also that Mearsheimer DID refute him on the idea that Iran would do a demonstration explosion.
Mearsheimer did so on the assumption that Iran has a single nuclear bomb, and on the assumption that they got a single bomb from an outside source. Both weren't claims made by either Escobar or Johnson. I'm not defending them, but these just weren't their claims. And the presumptions made by Mearsheimer changes the analysis. If Iran wants to detonate a nuke in its desert to create deterrence, it likely has multiple bombs and second strike capability.
Uhh, no. Let's look at his first graf:
>>I am not reproducing the entire report, but want to highlight the issue of whether or not Iran now has, or soon will have a nuke.<<
A nuke. Singular. That's the general language written out.
The idea that Iran has multiple bombs, either made on its own or gifted?
Ockham's Razor.
Per your other comment?
Yeah, Iran's going to come out and refute the claim.
And, that's not exactly what Postol said.
It's colloquial. Saying someone has "a nuke" doesn't necessarily imply that they don't have multiple nukes. Saying Iran will drop a nuke in the desert to build deterrence implies they have multiple nukes. People aren't always precise in their language. Them saying that Iran will test a nuke implies multiple nukes, otherwise, as Mearsheimer says, what's the point of the test if you only have one ... or two.
We'll see whether Iran refutes the claim. I'm curious as to why Larry Johnson and Pepe Escobar would put themselves in a position like this if they weren't a little confident with their source. It's an odd thing to do if it's a lie. It may well be, but what's your read on it if they turn out to be lying?
I'll take a pass on that version of colloquial, and again, that's not what Postol said.
Larry Johnson has made up shit before, per your second paragraph. Why don't you ask him why he's made up shit in the past and work forward from there?
You're analyzing politics, I thought you might have some insight. You might be more gadfly than socratic. I wasn't having an argument with you, but a conversation. Looks like you were having an argument. I addressed Postol elsewhere and agreed with you, this conversation here wasn't about what Postol said, it's about what Johnson and Escobar said. And I'm not sure what you mean by passing on colloquial but saying "they got a nuke" or "they're getting a nuke" doesn't mean they're getting a single bomb. Whether you "pass" on it or not is irrelevant. It's lovely you can hide behind an avatar to act like a bum online.
This is what I heard from him also. I don't think either one claimed they got a nuke from another country.
Until Iran comes out and refutes the claim, I'll consider it a valid claim. They've refuted several claims made by the US in the near past about possessing or building a nuke. They have no issue doing so. They haven't said anything about this one yet. (Maybe because it's low profile and insignificant, or maybe because it's true)
There have also been speculations from knowledgeable individuals like Ted Postol of MIT University claiming that it's likely Iran has 10 to 20 nuclear bombs by now. I won't say anything to their veracity, I don't really know better, but I'll wait for the official denial to come through.
That's not what Postol actually said.
>>On Glenn Diesen, it was actually him claiming that Iran possesses enough enriched uranium to build 10 to 20 nuclear weapons. However, he notes that these are not fully constructed bombs; rather, Iran is a "threshold state" that could assemble the weapons in a matter of weeks if they choose to do so.<<
Here's an actual transcript https://singjupost.com/theodore-postol-iran-can-now-build-10-20-nuclear-weapons-u-s-must-negotiate-transcript/
I still say it would take months, not weeks, to enrich to HEU level and build one or two. And, that said, Postol isn't saying anything highly out of line with estimates by folks like the IAEA. And, it's not a claim that Iran actually has nuclear weapons now.
Thanks everybody for an interesting conversation on whether or not Larry Johnson was/ is onto something. The fact of the matter though is nothing has yet been either proven nor absolutely refuted (i.e. debunked). Everything remains speculative so it’s a case of wait and see! It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
You're right, he said nuclear threshold. But you're implying it's months out. That's all conjecture. We don't know. Iran has a comprehensive missiles program, they may well already have everything they need but the enriched uranium to operationalize the bombs. The IAEA is a nuclear watchdog, so to the extent that they are knowledgeable about it is unlikely unless Iran let them walk around freely in their missile cities and manufacturing plants. My point being that Iran may have already built the bombs covertly for the potential eventuality that they may need them, and the remaining piece is the enriched uranium. I admit I'm not informed on the mechanics of this, so it's conjecture on my part, but I just get a sense that in a broad sense it's conjecture when people say "Iran needs X days, weeks, months...". No one knows. Ted Postol said Iran is a nuclear threshold state the first time right around the time the war was launched on Iran on February 28, that's 3 months–so even by your estimates being "months away" it's possible Iran possesses a nuke today.
yes ted pistol said Iran could, has the capability. but also that he thinks it's highly likely that Iran already did. just by simple reasoning of the threat put on it and the attacks launched on it. not by some concrete evidence.
so far the evidence argument against Iran having made the bombs is that they put the nuclear material and inspection of it up for bargaining a deal with the US.
I read through, when first posting, and re-read just now, the entire transcript of his interview with Glenn Diesen. Nowhere there does he say it's highly likely Iran already has built nukes. If you have a link to some other interview where he expressly states that, drop it here.
i listened to him months ago. so it's from memory. pretty sure it was along the line of "has to be assumed to have"
Mr Johnson’s role back in CIA was ‘media relations’ : he planted stories for the US deep state
that’s his working retirement too
Yes still working for the CIA as a misinformation asset. Hence his frequent references to his “sources” in the CIA. And like all of the ex military US hack blowhards on YouTube, a fraud.
These people spent their entire careers amounting to decades in the US military directly or indirectly killing people all over the world, without the slightest qualms and now they have suddenly done a U turn and condemn it.
Sure.
Hypocrisy, lies or both are the only possibilities. They have zero credibility.
If Iran really has the capability, they should just go ahead and build a few devices. Anywhere from 5-10.
they have the capability. and they probably built em at. acertain point, but didn't put em all together with the enriched uranium... until a certain point. and if they haven't done so yet, they must have some confidence that neither Israel or the US could bomb that capability out of them no matter how many nukes. AND... that reasonable analysts in both countries should be able to establish the fact as well.
Were I Iran, I would have gone full steam ahead on building a nuclear arsenal...
John Mearsheimer has been discredited. He’s not an expert. Just listen to him talking about the US needing to fight China.
Doesn’t anyone remember hire surprises was when the DPRK detonated not one nuke, but TWO? They did this right under the nose of the Empire of Lies 🇺🇸.
If anyone doesn’t believe that Iran hasn’t taken the lesson of Libya, which cooperated with USA & UK only to be destroyed versus DPRK, which RIGHTFULLY went nuclear, I’ll sell you a bridge.
By now, Iran HAS NUKES. Whether they obtained them by a third nation or from their OWN. Hasn’t anyone noticed the change in rhetoric from Trump?
I have not known either Pepe Escobar or Larry Johnson to be excitable carriers of controversial messages. Perhaps the intention is to insinuate the rumor that the Iranians already possess a nuclear weapon so as to invalidate Trump's motivation for war. Netanyahoo doesn't care about nukes anymore as he told Trump to stop the missiles—clearly a more dangerous threat.
i don't know Larry Johnson that way. but Escobar was the only one sharing the story, given to him by a source, that Iran shot down a nuke carrying .. Israeli plane, I think. very sure about the general image. not sure during which Israeli strikes on Iran that was supposed to be.
and don't remember the thinking anymore of "if planted fake info, with Escobar knowingly or not knowingly sharing it... what it would ut mean, the likely intention?"
that and something else made me be a bit more careful and maybe even skeptical when listening to him
but I do think the "debunking" of the Iran nuke story is not so well done and uses strawman arguments.
We have to remember that Larry and Pepe rely on sources, and sources can be wrong, stories may be skewed, information may be unreliable. Pepe especially has been in the journalism business for a long time and is not given to accepting deception. Still, people can be fooled, no matter how careful.
I had not heard the story that an Israeli nuke was shot down, and the story of an Iranian nuke is all over the place. Whether true or not does not matter because the possibility of an Iranian nuke is almost as good as the real thing.
I HAVE known Larry Johnson to spout bullshit before. His record goes back to at least 2008 and a Michelle Obama hoax, per his Wiki piece, which is linked in my piece associating him, as co-founder of VIPS, with the Forensicator bullshit, which gave license to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory bullshit. https://socraticgadfly.substack.com/p/iran-nukes-trump-bibi
Your references go way beyond my knowledge or my interest. And I wonder about someone whose handle is "Socratic Gadfly" and thinks he knows things.
A. Got it. You don't want to learn more. (Edit from "me")
B. I'm crushed.
It takes me some time and evidence to trust the screeds of random strangers. Sorry.
Got it. It's a screed now, too. I'm once again crushed.
I cannot recall the discussion, but you should be crushed by revealing yourself as a sarcastic churl
This is a really useful debunk of that specific “Iran already got a nuke from a third country” story. Checking it against basic strategy and engineering instead of just vibes is exactly what more of alternative media should be doing.
What jumped out at me, though, is that your own experts basically confirm the part that actually matters: Iran already has everything it needs to build a weapon on its own if it makes the internal decision to do it. In other words, the problem isn’t whether somebody smuggled them a finished Pakistani or North Korean warhead in a suitcase; it’s that they’re at, or very near, the “we can go nuclear if we choose” threshold.
That’s the world the rest of us actually have to think about: a regime that openly talks the way Tehran talks, with an indigenous capability to cross the line when it decides the timing is right. In that context, killing off a bad hand‑off rumor is important, but it also underlines how serious the underlying situation already is even without mystery warheads changing hands.
Do you consider Russia a rational actor? Or China? Or NK? Or Pakistan? Or India? Or Israel, for that matter? These countries all have nukes currently and no one seems all that concerned. Iran "may" have a nuke, so we need to stop them ... what a ridiculous statement. I'm more concerned about some of these countries having nukes, including the United States, than I am of Iran possessing a nuke.
I hadn't even bothered with the likes of Mearsheimer because I already knew all he said on China and Russia and nonproliferation, on Pakistan not being a friend of Iran, and how you wouldn't throw away your single deterrent and lose your bluff. I wanted to focus instead on Johnson's larger past history of stupidity and clownishness. https://socraticgadfly.substack.com/p/iran-nukes-trump-bibi
Yes I support this view as well. Iran has developed their nuclear technology by themselves and yes they do have everything there to make a nuclear weapon if needed. However they have had a peaceful nuclear program for energy production and had inspections on this until Trump stopped them.
Yeah, Johnson is a little cia-operative like in his interviews. He called Prof Jiang all types of names. He talks shit on others but he is a little strange in his analysis, sometimes.
First, Netanyahu and the others KNOW the Iranian government considers owning a nuclear weapon a worse fate than death, otherwise at least the others would have helped Iran turn the ME into a WMD free zoneevem if they had to force Netanyahu's regime to sign onto it.
(The thing that gets countries paranoid about each other's intentions in regards to chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons is they get to design the inspections and restrictions the country they're paranoid about will have to abide by. The thing that gets the other countries to agree to all those restrictions and inspections and enforcement measures is the countries that drafted them also has to abide by them until it decides they're too much, and if everyone agrees, eases them off for everyone)
If America's military and intelligence agencies believed Iran getting any of these weapons would make Iran a threat to America, then the software and hardware of Netanyahu's weapons would stop working overnight and he'd have been told quietly that it would remain a 'technical problem' until he signed.
Iran is considered a threshold nuclear state. It already has large stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, so producing weapons-grade material could take weeks to a few months if it chose to sprint. However, building a deliverable nuclear weapon—miniaturisation, detonation design, and missile integration—would likely take many additional months to years. The main barrier is political decision, not raw technical capacity today.
Maybe they already have build it they always has the capability it was a just a political hurdle
How do you know they haven't already built the bomb and just need the nuclear material? There's no prerequisite here. You can build everything in parallel. Iran can likely go nuclear in a matter of weeks, if it chooses to do so.
of course!