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.

[BerthaPotts]

If that is really the case will this not be very damning for Trump? How will he respond to this?

“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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

And Russia.

The problem isn’t going away, it’s just kicked to a harder place.

So do you think that the choices are to angrily and violently lash out and blow up Iranian gas fields or ignore the situation, it seems to me like there are a wealth of options in between the two extremes but you disagree? Do you think that Israel violently lashing out and blowing up gas fields has helped towards stopping the production of nuclear weapons?

I’d love to know the options, can you say, I might agree one would be better.

No. I don't answer questions from people who aren't willing to do the same, I don't see how it can be productive

We’re all just posting from our own perspective & that’s mine 🤷🏼‍♀️

Up to you but surely what you raise is key. What are the options, I can be convinced this current approach isn’t the right way to go if people are ready to lay out alternatives.

I may well agree another approach as outlined would be better.

I've got no interest in convincing people of anything tbh. People can educate themselves and make up their own minds. From your post it seems like you believe(for now) that angrily lashing out and blowing up gas fields was a positive and is a legitimate way to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. That's all I was asking 🙂

Ok fine. Up to you.

I’m yet to see anyone put forward much but if someone will perhaps they’ll get a lot of support for it.

@Twiglets1
US intelligence agencies have themselves, as I have already linked an article confirming, that the risk was felt to at least 10 years away.

They have also said that there has been no evidence of Iran working towards developing a threat since their nuclear facilities being attacked in 2025.

Personally, I don’t see 10 years as being imminent.

If people are saying ten years then I’m not sure how it gets easier to deal with as it gets closer to having the weapons.

So it's nothing to do with an imminent threat. It's just as and when.

I recall hearing Ursula von der Leyen making the statement that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Seems sensible from her, other leaders likely agreed.

No one suggested what should be done to ensure that. Presumably politicians prefer to kick it in to the long grass as it will impact their popularity and their power is more important.

How Iran is dealt with in say 8 years when even stronger, be great to hear how from anyone really.