Trumps senior counter terrorism officer resigns due to the war with Iran and has said they only went to war because of Israeli pressure, not because of any imminent threat from Iran.

Ignoring the production of weapons doesn’t make the issue go away though, it makes it more difficult if not impossible to resolve.

Phew, so glad it isn't relevant to you. That was definitely my concern. It's not like the rest of us in the world have to live alongside Iran

I think there’d be a point where nothing could be done. If they got close and had greater capability than now they’d be doing the same ie just using what they have anywhere but the outcome would be existential.

There is a test for ‘imminent threat’ - the Caroline affair, ‘instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation’.

That's irrelevant to me because they were already committed to developing nuclear weapons in future based on both their own words and actions.

What can you say about people who believe the IRGC - the same organisation that slaughtered thousands of their own civilians across a few days, and lied about the numbers involved?

I don't believe that Iran weren't going to progress on weapons. They had already enriched uranium to 60%, far beyond the enrichments level considered necessary for civilian purposes - why??

They were also replacing first-generation centrifuges at the Fordo enrichment centre with advanced sixth-generation machines & boasting that Additional measures are also being planned and will be announced in due course.

Sounds pretty sinister.

I don't think that having a country with undeclared nuclear weapons attacking them and angrily and violently lashing out and blowing up their gas fields is going to do much to persuade them that they don't need to develop nuclear weapons in future.

To me it depends what is meant by "imminent threat".

Threat in the next few months or even years ... maybe not.

But Iran were fiercely defending their right to develop nuclear weapons and moving towards having the capability. In their own words (June 25):

the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has issued necessary directives for launching a new enrichment facility in a secure location, and replacing first-generation centrifuges at the Martyr Ali Mohammadi (Fordo) enrichment center with advanced sixth-generation machines.

Additional measures are also being planned and will be announced in due course.

Do people think if the IRGC say they’re not doing this it’s enough?

At some point Iran’s weapon capability makes doing much in response near impossible.

The situation happening now occurring in five to ten years is at a higher magnitude. So can everyone just say fine to Iran and think the issue of what they’ll do goes away?

If it doesn’t go away then it’s a bit game over.

What do you think @Twiglets1is there a way that Iran would have not progressed on weapons?

The alternative is that Trump was encouraged to enter the war by others. One of them being Israel? Like Rubio also initially suggested.

He suggested U.S. was aware Israel was planning to take action against Iran, and officials believed that those strikes would have prompted an Iranian response against U.S. assets. He suggested that this was why U.S. attacked Iran.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/marco-rubio-trump-iran_n_69a621aee4b050e17482c8b5

Also it is the height of madness to withdraw from an agreement (America), after not fulfilling the obligations agreed to in that agreement (ease of sanctions) and expect the other party (Iran) to stick to the terms of that agreement and even worse use that fact as an excuse to attack them several times.

Only someone with a low iq (Trump) would think that is fair or makes sense.

“Gabbard and Ratcliffe said that Iran’s nuclear programme stood “obliterated” and had not resumed, its missile programme was still nearly a decade away from being able to harm the United States”

“Iran “could use” existing technology “to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035 should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability”, said Gabbard.”

https://www.firstpost.com/world/tulsi-gabbard-cia-chief-john-ratcliffe-contradict-trump-on-iran-nuclear-bomb-icbm-missiles-imminent-threat-level-operation-epic-fury-13991115.html

@Twiglets1

“Since 2019, Iran is considered to have been incrementally violating the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”

Trump withdrew from US from the JCPOA and imposed sanctions on Iran in 2018.

The diplomatic efforts to revive an improved version of the JCPOA this seemed to going well prior to Israel and U.S. choosing to initiate this war. That information is also available in the press. See quotes by Oman FM.

Even before the bombing of nuclear facilities in 2025, U.S. intelligence showed there was no imminent threat of a deliverable nuclear bomb.

The CIA director as well as the US director of National Intelligence evidence this week also raises doubts about an imminent threat.

which explains why Israel & the US ‘obliterated’ nuclear facilities last June.

In response to the IAEA resolution, which Iran said was politically motivated, it announced a number of measures intended to accelerate its nuclear programme.

The measures that this refers to were outlined in a joint statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Atomic Energy Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated June 12th 2025:

As previously stated, the Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution.
Accordingly, the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has issued necessary directives for launching a new enrichment facility in a secure location, and replacing first-generation centrifuges at the Martyr Ali Mohammadi (Fordo) enrichment center with advanced sixth-generation machines.
Additional measures are also being planned and will be announced in due course.

https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/768213/Joint-statement-by-the-Ministry-of-Foreign-Affairs-and-the-Atomic-Energy-Organization-of-the-Islamic-Republic-of-Iran

Status of Iran’s nuclear programme (June 2025)

Since 2019, Iran is considered to have been incrementally violating the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, commonly referred to as the ‘Iran nuclear deal’), which was agreed between Iran, the UK, China, France, Russia, the US, and Germany in 2015.

Under the terms of that deal, Iran accepted limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran is currently enriching uranium to 60%, which is significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA and far beyond enrichments levels considered necessary for civilian purposes.

Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90%. Iran’s overall stockpile of enriched uranium (at varying degrees of enrichment) is currently more than 40 times that permitted under the JCPOA, and it continues to expand its enrichment
capabilities with the installation of additional, more advanced, centrifuges.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted in May 2025 that while enrichment is not forbidden in and of itself, “the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon State in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60% remains a matter of serious concern” (PDF).

Iran’s nuclear ‘breakout’ time (the time taken to develop enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon) is estimated to be almost zero (PDF).

The IAEA considers Iran to have enough nuclear material for nine nuclear weapons if further enrichment to 90% is achieved. However, ‘breakout’ time does not account for the technological capability and time required to successfully construct a deliverable nuclear weapon (weaponisation).

Nuclear experts widely agree that Iran has not, to date, moved towards weaponisation. It is considered that such a step would take several months, or even years.

In June 2025, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution which, for the first time since 2005, formally found Iran to be non-compliant with its nuclear safeguards obligations (PDF).

In response to the IAEA resolution, which Iran said was politically motivated, it announced a number of measures intended to accelerate its nuclear programme.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10284/

Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, provided a written statement to the recent senate Intelligence Committee meeting that the Iranians had made “no efforts” since the U.S. bombing of their nuclear facilities “to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

Then during direct questioning by the committee-she declined to answer whether Iran had posed an imminent nuclear threat. The lack of an affirmative surely tells us the answer?

Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

That's all your reading. It could just as easily be, using Trump's greed and stupidity to get him to do what I want.

It could just as easily be lots of other things, but it isn't. You could have described things lots of other ways.The one thing you did pick, however, has the Protocols embedded through it like a stick of rock. A lot of people reading this thread do see that; if you still can't, then I can't help you any further.

Yup. That was me.

As an American, and despite the fact that I believe it's against American interests to partner with Israel in military action against Israel, I am going to try to persuade Trump to do it anyway. Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

Oh, please. Get off the high horse.

Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

That's all your reading. It could just as easily be, using Trump's greed and stupidity to get him to do what I want.

Just as Putin does.

Let's go back to the phrase that caught my attention: the captured by Israel neocons

Yup. Because that's what they are.

Sure they did:

the captured by Israel neocons

Perhaps you didn't understand my point after all.

Well I never said that and I didn't see anyone else say that either so not sure why you needed to bring it up on this thread.

If we've moved away from they're lobbying because they've been brainwashed by Jews then that's progress.

I would suggest the lobbyists are not considering what's in the best interest of American constituents that's not what they're lobbying for, they're lobbying for what's in the best interests of themselves.

Edited to add there are many voices coming out of America very unhappy about it but as I've said it is their elected representatives they are angry with for not acting in what they perceive to be their best interest

The line is crossed when someone implies that the lobbying is intended to be to the detriment of the USA.

Contrast:

As an American, I think America's interests are furthered by partnering with Israel in military action against Iran, so that's what the US administration should do.

vs.

As an American, and despite the fact that I believe it's against American interests to partner with Israel in military action against Israel, I am going to try to persuade Trump to do it anyway. Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

Let's go back to the phrase that caught my attention: the captured by Israel neocons

That suggests the author thinks the second scenario is what is happening. Not the first. That the neocons have to be "captured" - enslaved - controlled by - Israel. That if they were free agents able to speak their own minds, they'd feel differently. Not that the, er, neocons see the interests of the USA and Israel naturally aligned on this point, and are prepared to say so.

Yes so why did you say it's crossing a line to suggest it? Or am I missing something.

Lobbyists will lobby and try to influence, it's the elected representative that have a price and make a decision based on that rather than what's good for their own constituents who I have a problem with