Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The US has bombed Fordow and other sites.

807 replies

MistressoftheDarkSide · 22/06/2025 01:19

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/22/israel-iran-war-live-trump-says-us-has-attacked-nuclear-sites-in-iran-including-fordow

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 13:08

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 13:04

@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.

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.

loopinloo · 23/06/2025 13:10

EasternStandard · 23/06/2025 11:54

@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?

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.”

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 13:12

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.

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 13:12

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 13:08

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.

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.

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 13:14

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 13:12

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.

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

EasternStandard · 23/06/2025 13:15

@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

loopinloo · 23/06/2025 13:23

EasternStandard · 23/06/2025 13:15

@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

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?

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 13:35

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 13:14

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

Grow up and let Russia invade Europe unimpeded you mean?

MushMonster · 23/06/2025 13:41

loopinloo · 23/06/2025 09:38

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.

I fully agree.
There is nothing to win for US appearing weak and controlled by Netanyahu. Appearing untrustworthy. Ignoring the international law we have built. Even their own Constitution!
If we want someone to trully respect us, we cannot be the local bully and thug. Or worst the little bully and thug stuck to a bigger bully and thug.

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:20

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 13:35

Grow up and let Russia invade Europe unimpeded you mean?

This thread is about the US attacks on Iran.
If you want to chat about Putin and Russia, go and start your own thread.

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 14:29

Wasn't there a conversation earlier about issues that touch the Middle East and the attack on Iran?

You seem to be rather carefully avoiding answering the question. Why is that?

Can you say your position on whether Europe should have come to Ukraine's defense or not?

Because according to what the leaders of Europe are saying, Russia is preparing to attack within 5 years and we need to be ready. War is taking place within Europe already, and might very well escalate because Iran's great ally, Russia, is planning on attacking.

Can you face that?

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:29

MushMonster · 23/06/2025 13:41

I fully agree.
There is nothing to win for US appearing weak and controlled by Netanyahu. Appearing untrustworthy. Ignoring the international law we have built. Even their own Constitution!
If we want someone to trully respect us, we cannot be the local bully and thug. Or worst the little bully and thug stuck to a bigger bully and thug.

I'm sure that Trumps international reputation and probably domestic reputation will have taken a beating as a result of this.
He will now be seen, not only as a bully internationally but also as someone not to be trusted in negotiations. To be planning missiles strikes with Israel at the same time as being in peaceful talks with the Iranians about their uranium is duplicitous.
Unfortunately, the UK has already lost its reputation!
Let us hope that some cooler heads can be prevail at some point before this situation escalates massively.

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:30

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 14:29

Wasn't there a conversation earlier about issues that touch the Middle East and the attack on Iran?

You seem to be rather carefully avoiding answering the question. Why is that?

Can you say your position on whether Europe should have come to Ukraine's defense or not?

Because according to what the leaders of Europe are saying, Russia is preparing to attack within 5 years and we need to be ready. War is taking place within Europe already, and might very well escalate because Iran's great ally, Russia, is planning on attacking.

Can you face that?

Start your own threat if you want to talk about Putin and Russia.

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 14:33

Oh you brought Russia up. Just asking you your opinion, since you did.

You're so very clear that warmongering and attacks are wrong. Can you condemn Russia?

notimagain · 23/06/2025 14:35

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:30

Start your own threat if you want to talk about Putin and Russia.

Hah, priceless...

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 14:37

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:30

Start your own threat if you want to talk about Putin and Russia.

What's the problem here?

You can condemn unprovoked invasions, can't you?

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:52

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 14:37

What's the problem here?

You can condemn unprovoked invasions, can't you?

Stop trying to derail the thread @DucklingSwimmingInstructress. For the third time, go and start your own thread and stop the threats.You obviously need help.

notimagain · 23/06/2025 15:02

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 14:52

Stop trying to derail the thread @DucklingSwimmingInstructress. For the third time, go and start your own thread and stop the threats.You obviously need help.

If you had been paying any attention to anything other than what seems to be your subject of spcial interest over the last few years you'll see @DucklingSwimmingInstructress has started, or certainly contributed to the multiple threads running on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It's interesting to me that you could kill this side argument in a few seconds, stone cold dead, by condeming all unprovoked invasions..do that, thread is back on the rails....but you won"t...so I guess we'll have to draw our own comclusions.

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 15:04

No, I'm just interested in the misrepresentation you convey and the way you ignore evidence that doesn't fit your agenda.

Tell you what, I'll go away if you can clearly state in black and white that unprovoked invasions, including Russia of Ukraine, are a bad thing.

Very simple, and it'll give you what you want... with a gentle reminder that you brought up Russia and the reliance on Russia's energy in the first place.

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 15:05

Because at this point you seem utterly unable to condemn it, which is very strange in someone so knowledgeable.

rainingsnoring · 23/06/2025 15:12

notimagain · 23/06/2025 15:02

If you had been paying any attention to anything other than what seems to be your subject of spcial interest over the last few years you'll see @DucklingSwimmingInstructress has started, or certainly contributed to the multiple threads running on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It's interesting to me that you could kill this side argument in a few seconds, stone cold dead, by condeming all unprovoked invasions..do that, thread is back on the rails....but you won"t...so I guess we'll have to draw our own comclusions.

I don't want to get into a discussion with someone who has been lurking around waiting to attack at the mention of Russia. That behaviour is unhinged.
Perhaps they are not the only one lurking around though waiting to police other people's comments.

How about the pair of you stop wrecking @MistressoftheDarkSide's thread and move on.

bigboykitty · 23/06/2025 15:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

EasternStandard · 23/06/2025 15:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Why do you say that re pp?

DucklingSwimmingInstructress · 23/06/2025 15:21

@rainingsnoring Yet there's no need for a discussion. All that's needed is one sentence.

"I condemn unprovoked aggression, including Russia against Ukraine, Hamas against Israel and the destruction in Gaza".

It's so simple, what -is- your problem?

tamade · 23/06/2025 15:27

mrsrtobinson · 22/06/2025 07:04

Because Israel and USA have not sworn to destroy another sovereign country.

Iran has been threatening to remove Israel from the map for years.

The US (and Co) has destroyed plenty of countries.
And not just the obvious ones like Iraq with war and bombs I might add.