The US has bombed Fordow and other sites.

Fair — but I did outline a way forward: diplomacy. That path is rapidly narrowing, but hopefully not closed. Iran has previously offered to cap enrichment, export or dilute stockpiles, and accept rigorous inspections in return for sanctions relief and credible guarantees. That’s still a better option than airstrikes, which only drive the program underground and make monitoring harder. Zero enrichment was never realistic — but verifiable limits and oversight can work. If the goal is to reduce the 60% stockpile and avoid another war, we need to reengage, not escalate. @EasternStandard — I’m curious how you see a viable path forward, both now and before the strikes. What would your approach be/have been?

@loopinloook that’s what you wouldn’t have done, which is now in the past.

Someone has to address what to do now. With the 400kg 60% enriched uranium and breach by Iran

Please grow up. If you have something sensible to add, do so but I'm pretty sure personal attacks are banned on here.

Please stop trying to put me into one a little box because of your own personal prejudices. Guess what? Not everyone agrees precisely with you. Deal with it! Mearshiemer and Sachs are extremely well respected. Sachs has been speaking in the UN at length recently so please don't tar these people because of your own issues.
This thread is not about Russia so I won't be discussing this further with you and derailing the thread. The comment was purely in relation to US (and European) energy which is being discussed as it is very relevant to the Iran situation.

The 'invitation' to engage in showing sources that wasn't really an 'invitation' since it's blatantly clear that you won't actually do anything but push a certain line - clear, since when people did show you other sources you refuse to engage.

All hallmarks of people with an 'agenda' - Ive dealt by now with so many of them.

It’s likely clear from my posts that I wouldn’t have dismantled the JCPOA in 2018 — that decision created the breach. And I believed a diplomatic solution to that breech was not only preferable, but possible.

Let’s not lose sight of what the JCPOA accomplished. It capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.6%, far below weapons-grade. It eliminated 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile and imposed the most intrusive inspection regime in the world. The IAEA repeatedly confirmed Iran’s compliance.

The U.S. could have stayed in the deal. Trump didn’t. Biden could have rejoined it in his first term. He didn’t. And the window closed. Iran’s program advanced, and the political space for diplomacy shrank.

When the U.S. walked away and reimposed sanctions while Iran was still compliant, it shattered diplomatic credibility and undermined those in Iran who had staked their future on engagement. Yes, Iran eventually breached the limits — but only after waiting a year in vain for the U.S. to change course.

Now, we’re watching bombs fall on nuclear sites — strikes that will make any nuclear programme harder to monitor. Moreover they've triggered an open-ended safeguards quagmire that could reshape how the IAEA operates for years to come.

I had been watching the diplomatic talks in Muscat with cautious hope. But the strikes have undercut the backchannels Oman has carefully maintained — and made diplomacy harder, not easier.

Let’s also be honest: the demand that Iran give up all enrichment was never realistic. If you want talks to fail, that’s the demand you make. Iran’s position — maintaining some domestic enrichment under tight IAEA oversight — is rooted in national pride and bitter experience. This isn’t about trust. It’s about creating a framework where verification substitutes for it.

Iran is no model international citizen. But insisting on a nuclear program they’ve paid dearly for — in sanctions, isolation, and assassinated scientists — is not extreme when paired with rigorous safeguards. And serious proposals were still on the table: capping enrichment, exporting or diluting stockpiles, restoring 24/7 IAEA inspections.

President Obama said it best in 2009:

“Sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo.”

There we have it. A mistake for Europe to become involved with the conflict with Russia.

You do realise that Russia started this conflict? Russia, not Ukraine?

You do realise that Rutte, Pistorius, Kaja, Ben Hodges and other very well thought of people all warn that Russia is actively engaging in hybrid warfare? Has been putting small explosive devices on planes, until Biden stopped them? Has been actively and with a lot of resources attacking Western democracy?

The moment you mentioned your 'sources' it was clear to anyone with any knowledge that you were were a Russian apologist and a hater of the West.

@mrsrtobinson Yes, it's correct that renewables are heavily subsidised and are far less energy dense than FFs. We should have invested in nuclear a couple of decades ago when we became a net energy importer. This really is a major problem for the UK now, and one without a solution, especially after they have been heavily involved in the conflict with Russia. That was a major strategic error for Europe- look at Germany now.

@loopinloo" ....is substantially higher than in regions like the Middle East, where large, easily accessible onshore reservoirs and simpler extraction methods keep costs much lower."

Maybe, but that oil isn't heading our way, most of it goes to Asia. The cost of transporting it from the ME to UK would be humongous, especially now.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-is-being-very-careful-with-shipping-middle-east-ceo-says-2025-06-19/

At the moment renewables are heavily subsidised

In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household.
The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence.
Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom.

See here for more detailed info;- https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/390-uk-renewable-electricity-subsidy-totals-2002-to-the-present-day

We should have invested in nuclear years ago

I totally agree with you. I am fearful of the repercussions. We may not see them in the next few days or weeks, it may be a drawn out process over months or years but I worry that something major will ignite at some point.

Diplomacy is the correct and most effective way to deal with conflicts.
There is nearly zero chance that the US popping in and delivering lots of big bombs on Iran will destroy all their uranium supplies. The multiple potential risks are so much greater that I am surprised that Trump and others in the US government were so stupid and short sighted.

The N Sea oil won't help at all in Iran close the S of H and quite possibly won't be of any economic benefit to the UK at all.
The other poster has made a valid point but there is also the major difficulty wrt the extraction and the cost of extraction. With the oil price currently so low, it is very doubtful that extraction of this oil deep in the dangerous N sea would be of any financial benefit. This may change if the oil price sky rockets, which is also why fracking was briefly profitable in the US and has now petered out.
It's also worth noting that the UK N Sea oil is not a government asset but has been sold to private companies (like everything else in the UK). The Norwegians, on the other hand, have managed their assets far, far better.

It's meeting multiple goals of this administration.

That's not necessarily the same thing as strategic interests. There's a big difference, especially when you're talking about this administration.

Millions of people took to the streets last weekend in peaceful protests against this administration's authoritarian policies. Within a week there's military action against the Big Bad and threats of retaliation in the US via terrorism and those threats can be used as an excuse for increased illegal domestic actions by the administration to crackdown.

Of course it was unnecessary. Donald Trump claimed last August

"There will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III!"

@loopinlooyou recognise Iran was in breach, what would you have done to change that?

I understand the JCPOA but we’re here now, what would you have done re the breach?

How are these U.S. strikes serving any of America's strategic interests?

Normalizing military escalation as a domestic political tool is incredibly dangerous. You don’t just degrade democracy — you torch diplomacy, destabilize the Middle East, and invite the very threats you claim to be preventing.

This wasn’t a necessary war. It was a strategic failure dressed up as strength. And I fear the collateral damage unfortunately won't end in Iran.

It's meeting multiple goals.

It keeps Israel sweet.

It's a distraction for those in the US who are concerned about the ICE actions and the breakdown of the rule of law.

By raising fear of terrorist threats in retaliation, the Trump administration can become even more draconian in response to the public disapproval and protests against their domestic policies. It's an excuse for even more authoritarian policy and crackdown on protests.

While the UK has significant oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, it’s important to understand that they don't provide much energy security for the UK.

Much of the oil extracted is by private companies who sell it on the open international market, not specifically to the UK. In fact, around 80% of oil produced in the North Sea is exported, partly because some of it cannot be refined in the UK, and partly because global market prices dictate where it goes—not national energy needs.

There are also physical and economic limitations. The remaining North Sea oil fields are mature fields requiring enhanced recovery techniques. The D-cost (the development cost of getting a barrel out the ground) —is substantially higher than in regions like the Middle East, where large, easily accessible onshore reservoirs and simpler extraction methods keep costs much lower.

UK and Norway have the largest reserves of North Sea Oil/Gas between us.

In 2023-24, the UK government's North Sea revenue was £4.9 billion, down from £9.9 billion in the previous year.

According to the OBR between 2027-28, cash receipts are forecast to rise to £10.6 billion.

Some think it's just scaremongering - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/iran-oil-doomsday-hormuz-may-be-more-fear-than-reality-bousso-2025-06-22/

You might find this worth a read: IAEA Statement – 13 June 2025 (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/statement-on-the-situation-in-iran-13-june-2025). It doesn’t pull punches: bombing nuclear facilities risks a total breakdown of nuclear oversight, non-proliferation norms, and regional stability.

Yes, Iran is now in breach of its nuclear obligations. But this didn’t begin last week—it began when the U.S. deliberately dismantled the very deal that was working.

The Iran nuclear deal—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—was arguably the most significant American diplomatic achievement since the end of the Cold War. It was a triumph of technical rigor, political will, and global coordination: bringing together the U.S., EU, China, Russia, the U.N., and Iran. Despite fierce opposition in Washington, Congress affirmed it. Most importantly, Iran verifiably complied, as confirmed by the IAEA.

President Obama chose diplomacy. And it worked—until Trump decided it shouldn’t.

His withdrawal in 2018 didn’t bring Iran to heel. It shredded U.S. credibility and paved the way for what we’re seeing now.

After U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the IAEA can no longer locate roughly 410kg of 60% enriched uranium—material Iran had once allowed inspectors to track. Now it’s likely been moved to undisclosed, hardened facilities. By bombing Iran’s sites, Israel and the US haven’t just disrupted the IAEA’s accountancy of Iran’s nuclear stockpile, they’ve also degraded the tools that monitors will be able to use according to Robert Kelley, who led inspections of Iraq and Libya as an IAEA director. That includes the forensic method used to detect the potential diversion of uranium. “Now that sites have been bombed and all classes of materials have been scattered everywhere the IAEA will never again be able to use environmental sampling,” he said. “Particles of every isotopic description have infinite half-lives for forensic purposes and it will be impossible to sort out their origin.”

As Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator and Princeton researcher, recently warned: even when Iran accepted the most intrusive inspections in non-proliferation history, the U.S. still walked away. Then came sabotage. Assassinations. Now military strikes.

What message does that send? That cooperation is a trap. That transparency is punished. That restraint is a liability.

And what has Netanyahu been saying?

That Iran is “weeks” away from a bomb—a line he’s used for over two decades. He even brought a cartoon bomb to the UN in 2012. Now in 2025, he’s claiming Iran has enough uranium for “nine bombs,” even though Iran has not enriched above 60% (weapons-grade is 90%). The IAEA and U.S. intelligence contradict his claims.

In fact, the 2025 U.S. Intelligence Community Threat Assessment states:

“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so.” You may find it interesting to read here: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ATA-2025-24-Mar-Unclass-Final-Final-Version.pdf

And that pressure? It’s precisely what's being escalated now.

We don’t fully know why Iran halted its weapons program in 2003—or why it has stayed paused for over 20 years. Clearly, there have always been voices in Tehran advocating for a bomb—and others arguing against it. Until now, the doves have prevailed.

But after this strike, that debate may shift. There will be new people at the table. Others won’t be there at all. The 86-year-old supreme leader may have a very rough go of it with younger members of the Guards who appeared to want a more aggressive nuclear policy. And some will surely ask: Would Israel have dared attack if Iran had a nuclear deterrent?

That’s the danger. When diplomacy is replaced by force, when false alarms are treated as justification, and when oversight mechanisms are bombed rather than reinforced, we don't make war less likely.

I hope there is a way back? I was just reading and contemplating an interview with Mousavian where he outlined what he hoped was a realistic diplomatic off-ramp:

Iran caps enrichment below 5%.

Dilutes or exports its 60% uranium stockpile.

Restores full IAEA inspection access.

Moves toward a regional multilateral enrichment consortium with Gulf states—building real long-term confidence.

It would be great if we could rebuild the diplomacy that worked—before it’s too late.

@MistressoftheDarkSide I read your post about your appalling situation with your son. I'm very glad you won.

I think that once one has had strong experience that touches you deeply of being powerless and at the mercy - the whim even - of processes and people who can devastate and ruin your life, an awareness remains that the power to govern our own lives has limits. When you've been touched painfully as deeply as that, you never forget the experience of being entirely unable to influence the outcome that your life rests on. I believe from what I've read it's the actual origin of trauma, the real thing, and living with that is very hard. You can't go back to the happy unawareness of before.

This situation with the ME is deeply frightening in that Iran's, Hamas', Israel's and now the US's actions have destabilized an already highly volatile region and the effects of it will go on for decades one way or another. Your fear and feeling of powerlessness are thoroughly understandable, for all that it's removed from your every day life.

Have you had (skilled) counselling/therapy to help you come to terms with your experience with your son?

Counselling really doesn't cure everything, but it can help. Other than that, once you realise that our lives are not entirely under our control, the best things that help day-to-day are an awareness that every good moment counts. Living in the now. Other than that, I find some comfort in that people have faced the upheaval of their lives for hundreds and hundreds of years and mostly coped. Facing deep uncertainty isn't new; our grandparents, their parents, and their parents all faced it. The last 75 years in the UK have been a (very nice) aberration in that there's been peace and relative plenty for almost everyone.

There isn't any certain comfort that anyone can give, but just to say that I hear you.

The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.

Nineteen of the 35 countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted for the motion, which was backed by the US, UK, France and Germany.

It says Iran's "many failures" to provide the IAEA with full answers about its undeclared nuclear material and activities constitutes non-compliance. It also expresses concern about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons.

Iran condemned the resolution as "political" and said it would open a new enrichment facility.

It follows a report from the IAEA last week which criticised Iran's "general lack of co-operation" and said it had enough uranium enriched to 60% purity, near weapons grade, to potentially make nine nuclear bombs.

From the article. So what could be done?

Destroying Iran’s nuclear program isn’t as simple as dropping bunker-buster bombs. It’s a complex military and intelligence challenge — one that airstrikes alone cannot resolve. Worse, the U.S. and Israeli attacks have crippled international oversight, making it far harder to monitor what remains.

To reiterate again: none of the nuclear sites targeted were hidden or secret. These were safeguarded facilities, operating under expanded IAEA monitoring. The U.S. bombed sites under active international inspection — not covert weapons bunkers.

Airpower, no matter how precise or overwhelming, cannot eliminate Iran’s nuclear potential. What would you see as a “mission accomplished” moment? Even after the extensive airstrikes, serious uncertainty persists about what survived, what can be rebuilt, and how quickly. Without on-site inspections, Israel won’t be able to reliably assess the damage to Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities or its existing enriched uranium stocks.

Iran is unlikely to allow U.S. or Israeli teams to verify what was destroyed, what may have been removed, or where key centrifuge components are now being produced. Special forces could attempt on-the-ground reconnaissance, but such missions would carry obvious and high risks of direct confrontation with Iranian forces.

This lack of verifiable knowledge means that even with U.S. support, Israel would never be confident that Iran no longer has a path to the bomb. Concerns about a covert nuclear program would fester, much like the fears that led the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 in search of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

A valid concern is the U.S.-assisted strike may do the opposite of solving the problem: it could push Iran to accelerate its nuclear ambitions. Overreliance on force — and overconfidence in the reach of military technology — risks creating exactly the crisis both countries claim to want to avoid.

This says it was failing them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o.amp

On what I hear it’s the radio I highly recommend for less provocative info, I don’t do X

It doesn't sound much different to American and Israeli rhetoric. A gang of overgrown boys shouting, "I'm gonna kick your head in!" from the other side of the field.

The truth is that Iran did keep its fissile materials safe, until a few days ago. As noted, the IAEA & UN had inspectors and auditors monitoring materials and activities. This is despite Trump ignoring the previous treaty, by placing sanctions, preventing oil trade on the open market, sequestrating their money etc last time he was in power.

For those saying drill in the North Sea, there isn't the level of oil there was in the 80s. We've taken it, it's gone. Oilfields exploited now have much smaller volumes, the giants are long gone.

It takes 10 years, typically, to develop a field, you can't just go in and dump a rig there next week.

A clear mismatch of expectations between the U.S. and Israel is becoming apparent. Israel has leaned heavily on military force while abandoning diplomacy—an approach that history shows is unsustainable. By aligning itself so closely with Netanyahu’s militaristic strategy, the U.S. is not just enabling escalation; it’s deepening regional instability.

American bases in Iraq, Qatar, and Bahrain may be strategic assets, but from Iran’s perspective, they represent a direct threat—making them likely targets and raising the risk of broader conflict. Militarization in this context doesn't deter; it provokes. It doesn’t create peace—it undermines it. Is this really what “peace through strength” was meant to achieve?

One could argue that Trump’s decision to act militarily is the direct consequence of his own earlier choice—nearly a decade ago—to dismantle the very diplomatic framework designed to prevent exactly this scenario.

In the long term, the legacy of this attack—combined with the atrocities in Gaza—will likely erode the very sense of security that Israelis and some Americans believed they were ensuring for Israel. Once again, U.S. politicians will face the familiar dilemma: whether to continue supporting the behaviour of a foreign ally, even if a future Iranian governments—like others before—expresses willingness to engage in security talks but questions American sincerity, especially in light of past rejections of diplomatic overtures.

So doesn’t that make it even more important not to dismantle the guardrails that were keeping Iran’s nuclear program in check? Under the nuclear deal, Iran’s breakout time was about a year, its uranium stockpile was capped, and everything was subject to intrusive, verifiable inspections.

This isn’t some abstract foreign policy debate—it’s a real-world case of a failed strategy colliding with its consequences. We didn’t have to be here. This was a test of whether America could still solve hard problems with brains instead of bombs, diplomacy instead of destruction.

Also, I’d be curious what exactly you heard from the Iranian spokesperson. It’s worth remembering that their rhetoric, like much of Trump’s social media feed, isn’t necessarily aimed at us—it’s performative, often for a domestic audience, and yes, often sounds deranged to outside ears.