Tom again quotes bbc.com. Unbelievable.

The only aspect of the operation I find questionable was the exuberance after the attack. The impression was made the strike ended Iran’s nuclear program. The impression is premature. It would have been better to follow the example of General Caine’s cautious remarks.

Wake me when Iran walks through Furdow with a video camera showing centrifuges still intact.

(06-25-2025 08:06 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The only aspect of the operation I find questionable was the exuberance after the attack. The impression was made the strike ended Iran’s nuclear program. The impression is premature. It would have been better to follow the example of General Caine’s cautious remarks.

I believe the exuberance came from the following factors:

1) Operation from launch to landing was essentially flawless. This has rarely been the case on missions like this. Take for example the bin Laden raid when we crashed and left behind a super secret stealth helo that virtually no one knew about until that moment.

2) Our assets entered foreign airspace undetected and exited without even being fired upon once. That's pretty amazing.

3) By all accounts, the munitions dropped hit their marks. Moreover there was apprehension about whether they would work as described and tested. However, it appears the data from the immediate impact indicates not only that it penetrated a good distance into the mountain, the munitions detonated as expected.

Based on these factors, it's difficult to imagine much survived down there. But it's going to take months for Iran to dig out of it (if they even choose to do so). Only then will we get a sense if there is anything left down there worth salvaging.

(06-25-2025 07:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 03:26 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 03:23 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 01:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 01:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  It made all the sense in the world to break it.

It made Z E R O sense.

If it's not perfect or trump didn't like it, then renegotiate a new one. He's the greatest negotiator of all time, right?

Killing it outright with no immediate replacement made NO sense.

We know trump. He likely killed it simply because Obama made it. He's that childish and vindictive.

In July 2019, Iran announced that it had breached the limit set on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which the IAEA confirmed. On 5 January 2020, Iran declared that it would no longer abide by the deal's limitations but would continue to coordinate with IAEA.

Why be involved in a deal that Iran had already admitted it would not abide by?

Now go look at the date Trump pulled out, and compare it to the dates Iran violated it. I’ll wait while the hamster wheels turn.

The dates are irrelevant.

Dude, you're better than this.

(06-25-2025 06:40 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  The IAEA is saying it was most likely destroyed. Also, the story you posted from the BBC is based on info from anonymous sources which hasn't been corroborated.

But hey, let's denigrate our military, shall we, Tom.

And yes, I said it was a bad deal on another message board forum. I wasn't posting in the Spin Room when Obama made the deal. Otherwise, I would've said it here. Not that you care, because anything to make the left look good, right? Right.

Your words don't carry much weight around here.

Oh, FFS, NOBODY IS DENIGRATING OUR MILITARY!

And here's your confirmation.

(06-25-2025 06:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So....NOT obliterated? No way trump could have been wrong...or lying...or spouting off before he knew the facts. He probably saw a big explosion on TV and turned in for the night.

Quote:But sources familiar with the Pentagon's intelligence assessment say Iran's centrifuges are largely "intact" and the impact was limited to above-ground structures.

Entrances to two nuclear facilities were sealed off, and some infrastructure was destroyed or damaged, but much of the facilities, which are deep underground, escaped the brunt of the blasts.

The anonymous sources told US media it is estimated that the attack only set Iran back "a few months, tops", and that any resumption of its nuclear programme may be based on how long it takes the country to dig out and make repairs.

Sources also confirmed to CBS that some of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile was moved before the strikes, according to the intelligence assessment.

The US 30,000lb (14,000kg) Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb was thought to be the only weapon capable of destroying Iran's underground enrichment facilities.

US strikes did not destroy Iran nuclear programme, says intelligence assessment

Can't wait to see who gets fired for likely telling the truth...LOL

Gee, Tom, you sound gleeful that maybe the strike wasn't as effective as hoped.

Are you pulling for the Iranians over Trump?

Btw, that supposed negative assessment came from "Pentagon intel," and Hegseth himself said yesterday that the sites were "obliterated." And he watched in real time.

Do you think the "Pentagon" somehow had boots on the ground since then to counteract his lyin' eyes?

First, GFY.
Second, yes, we either have assets there (likely spies) in addition to all sorts of intelligence such as intercepting communications, etc. That's what the leaked Pentagon report is.
Lastly, if you think anyone can confidently make an assessment on an underground target merely from a satellite image, you're dumber than I thought.

(06-25-2025 07:01 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is disturbing reading some Dem's root for failure instead of watchfully waiting for the full damage assessment.

The bottom line is we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons if it is within our power to stop it. Pallets full of cash bribing Iran does not work. Along with other measures (diplomacy is alway the first option), it may mean follow up strikes at a time of our choosing on the nuclear chain links.

Nobody here is rooting for our failure.

But what do you want, an honest assessment of what we achieved, or some North Korea **** so you can whistle a happy tune?

(06-25-2025 07:27 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 07:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  These are quotes from Tom's link (which is the BBC):

1. The White House said the "flat-out wrong" assessment was leaked by "a low-level loser in the intelligence community".

2. The US has 18 intelligence agencies, which sometimes produce conflicting reports based on their mission and area of expertise. For example, the American intelligence community is still not in agreement over the origins of Covid-19.

3. It is possible future intelligence reports will include more information showing a different level of damage to the facilities.

According to CBS, officials familiar with the report warned it was an early assessment that could change as more information becomes available about the sites. It is also not clear at what confidence level the findings included in the report were made.

4. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and an expert on secret nuclear weapons development, said the damage Iran sustained by the US attacks will mean "it will take significant time, investment and energy" for it to restore its nuclear programme.

In a post on X, Albright added that Iran is "under intense scrutiny and observation from the United States and Israel", and it risks further attacks if it tries to rebuild.

5. A report in Saudi news outlet Al Hadath, citing an unnamed Israeli source, said that Israel believes most of Iran's enriched uranium is buried under the rubble.

It's going to take some time to fully assess damage assessment.

All I'm saying. It was wrong and reckless for trump and Hegseth so spout off so confidently that early.

(06-25-2025 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So....NOT obliterated? No way trump could have been wrong...or lying...or spouting off before he knew the facts. He probably saw a big explosion on TV and turned in for the night.

Quote:But sources familiar with the Pentagon's intelligence assessment say Iran's centrifuges are largely "intact" and the impact was limited to above-ground structures.

Entrances to two nuclear facilities were sealed off, and some infrastructure was destroyed or damaged, but much of the facilities, which are deep underground, escaped the brunt of the blasts.

The anonymous sources told US media it is estimated that the attack only set Iran back "a few months, tops", and that any resumption of its nuclear programme may be based on how long it takes the country to dig out and make repairs.

Sources also confirmed to CBS that some of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile was moved before the strikes, according to the intelligence assessment.

The US 30,000lb (14,000kg) Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb was thought to be the only weapon capable of destroying Iran's underground enrichment facilities.

US strikes did not destroy Iran nuclear programme, says intelligence assessment

Can't wait to see who gets fired for likely telling the truth...LOL

Gee, Tom, you sound gleeful that maybe the strike wasn't as effective as hoped.

Are you pulling for the Iranians over Trump?

Btw, that supposed negative assessment came from "Pentagon intel," and Hegseth himself said yesterday that the sites were "obliterated." And he watched in real time.

Do you think the "Pentagon" somehow had boots on the ground since then to counteract his lyin' eyes?

First, GFY.
Second, yes, we either have assets there (likely spies) in addition to all sorts of intelligence such as intercepting communications, etc. That's what the leaked Pentagon report is.
Lastly, if you think anyone can confidently make an assessment on an underground target merely from a satellite image, you're dumber than I thought.

Why so gleeful at the possibility the mission wasn't as successful as hoped?

Why so angry all the time? You've had a burr under your saddle ever since Nov. 5.

Also, your first instruction to me is anatomically impossible.

And we, meaning Amercians, most likely do not have assets there. The Israelis might.

As to your last comment, please contact Hegseth and tell him he's dumb, too, since he contradicted that report. Do you think Hegseth doesn't have access to all sources within the Pentagon, including wherever the contradicting report came from? It's not just eyes on the real-time explosion, genius.

And if Hegseth doesn't know, then how would the unknown Pentagon sources know?

Regarding the first term and the revisionist history by some posters here, the Trump administration did attempt to negotiate a new deal after pulling out of the flawed first one (a deal that would have sunsetted some prohibitions of Iran's efforts for a nuclear weapon as early as next month). However, Iran refused to have direct talks with the U.S. and also squashed backchannel efforts with Trump 45 admin citing their right to enrich uranium to whatever levels they wanted. All the original deal did was a) delay a nuclear weapon in exchange for sanction relief and unfreezing of funds and b) which they used to further enrich uranium and fund terrorism across the world including Oct. 7. What the JCPOA did was basically do nothing to prevent the long term development of a nuclear weapon and restore funds for them to use in their malign activities.

Most people who are supportive of Trump's actions don't even understand Iran. Those who don't support him are even dumber on this issue. This a complex issue and some of the comments prior about JCPOA are asinine and that's generous.

(06-25-2025 08:22 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 08:06 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The only aspect of the operation I find questionable was the exuberance after the attack. The impression was made the strike ended Iran’s nuclear program. The impression is premature. It would have been better to follow the example of General Caine’s cautious remarks.

I believe the exuberance came from the following factors:

1) Operation from launch to landing was essentially flawless. This has rarely been the case on missions like this. Take for example the bin Laden raid when we crashed and left behind a super secret stealth helo that virtually no one knew about until that moment.

2) Our assets entered foreign airspace undetected and exited without even being fired upon once. That's pretty amazing.

3) By all accounts, the munitions dropped hit their marks. Moreover there was apprehension about whether they would work as described and tested. However, it appears the data from the immediate impact indicates not only that it penetrated a good distance into the mountain, the munitions detonated as expected.

Based on these factors, it's difficult to imagine much survived down there. But it's going to take months for Iran to dig out of it (if they even choose to do so). Only then will we get sense if there is anything left down there worth salvaging.

There's two factors in this as far as the bomb hitting their mark, and the bombs detonating at the right time.

We know the bombs "hit" their mark at Furdow because A) where they hit made sense and B) the multiple entrance holes were all geometrically perfectly spaced from one another.

The second part of this is having the bomb detonate at the correct time. These bombs, at one time, used very high speed accelerometers and microprocessors to determine when the bomb was penetrating through rock/concrete and when it had entered an open chamber. (I have no idea if they have been upgraded to something else.) These programmable detonators could be set to enter an underground bunker from the top down, and if the bunker had 3 levels/stories to it, and you wanted it to explode when it entered the 3rd level, it could be programmed to do that by counting when it was slowing down and when had entered an open void.

Based upon the amount of pulverized concrete dust and the appearance of some sort of metal structure that was blown out through one of the bomb entrance holes, we know that at least some of the detonators went off when they should have.

And because we know those two things, the correct assumption is that the internal structure at Furdow is completely wrecked, to the point where centrifuges and other equipment were scoured from their footings and are completely unrecognizable.

^^ Someone please explain this in simple terms to Tom. Thanks.

(06-25-2025 07:45 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 07:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 03:26 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 03:23 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-24-2025 01:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It made Z E R O sense.

If it's not perfect or trump didn't like it, then renegotiate a new one. He's the greatest negotiator of all time, right?

Killing it outright with no immediate replacement made NO sense.

We know trump. He likely killed it simply because Obama made it. He's that childish and vindictive.

In July 2019, Iran announced that it had breached the limit set on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which the IAEA confirmed. On 5 January 2020, Iran declared that it would no longer abide by the deal's limitations but would continue to coordinate with IAEA.

Why be involved in a deal that Iran had already admitted it would not abide by?

Now go look at the date Trump pulled out, and compare it to the dates Iran violated it. I’ll wait while the hamster wheels turn.

The dates are irrelevant. It was a bad deal from the beginning.

Then why did you list all the dates of when Iran did things in your post? Those are all after Trump pulled out of the deal, but while he was still president. Why should Iran follow an agreement that the other side pulled out of?

To add detail. This isn't rocket science. The dates are irrelevant but provided some context. It was a terrible deal from the beginning, that's why Trump pulled out of it. Iran was never going to abide by the agreement. Looks like the rest of the world agrees.

(06-25-2025 08:50 AM)TripleA Wrote:  ^^ Someone please explain this in simple terms to Tom. Thanks.

I don't understand why anybody even reads his posts.

(06-25-2025 08:36 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So....NOT obliterated? No way trump could have been wrong...or lying...or spouting off before he knew the facts. He probably saw a big explosion on TV and turned in for the night.

Quote:But sources familiar with the Pentagon's intelligence assessment say Iran's centrifuges are largely "intact" and the impact was limited to above-ground structures.

Entrances to two nuclear facilities were sealed off, and some infrastructure was destroyed or damaged, but much of the facilities, which are deep underground, escaped the brunt of the blasts.

The anonymous sources told US media it is estimated that the attack only set Iran back "a few months, tops", and that any resumption of its nuclear programme may be based on how long it takes the country to dig out and make repairs.

Sources also confirmed to CBS that some of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile was moved before the strikes, according to the intelligence assessment.

The US 30,000lb (14,000kg) Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb was thought to be the only weapon capable of destroying Iran's underground enrichment facilities.

US strikes did not destroy Iran nuclear programme, says intelligence assessment

Can't wait to see who gets fired for likely telling the truth...LOL

Gee, Tom, you sound gleeful that maybe the strike wasn't as effective as hoped.

Are you pulling for the Iranians over Trump?

Btw, that supposed negative assessment came from "Pentagon intel," and Hegseth himself said yesterday that the sites were "obliterated." And he watched in real time.

Do you think the "Pentagon" somehow had boots on the ground since then to counteract his lyin' eyes?

First, GFY.
Second, yes, we either have assets there (likely spies) in addition to all sorts of intelligence such as intercepting communications, etc. That's what the leaked Pentagon report is.
Lastly, if you think anyone can confidently make an assessment on an underground target merely from a satellite image, you're dumber than I thought.

Why so gleeful at the possibility the mission wasn't as successful as hoped?

Why so angry all the time? You've had a burr under your saddle ever since Nov. 5.

Also, your first instruction to me is anatomically impossible.

And we, meaning Amercians, most likely do not have assets there. The Israelis might.

As to your last comment, please contact Hegseth and tell him he's dumb, too, since he contradicted that report. Do you think Hegseth doesn't have access to all sources within the Pentagon, including wherever the contradicting report came from? It's not just eyes on the real-time explosion, genius.

And if Hegseth doesn't know, then how would the unknown Pentagon sources know?

1. Not gleeful.
2. Not angry any time, unless my sports team loses.
3. We have all sorts of intelligence assets covering that area most likely, and yes, many are likely tied to Israel and other allies. That doesn't have to mean people directly on the ground. I heard a retired general explain all of it last night. Hertling I believe. He said the first report on such matters is almost always wrong.
4. Hegseth is an unqualified hack. And no, he didn't know what the ******* assessment was right after the attack. Nobody did.

(06-25-2025 08:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 08:50 AM)TripleA Wrote:  ^^ Someone please explain this in simple terms to Tom. Thanks.

I don't understand why anybody even reads his posts.

I don't, unless he responds directly to me. He does make me laugh, at times.

But lately, he has just been big mad, lol.

Let me get this straight. They are complaining that maybe the attack didn't do as much damage as they initially reported? So, they are basically asking Trump to bomb them again? Wow.

Iran wouldn’t be at the negotiation table if the mission failed to reach its goal. Some sources “familiar” with the intelligence running to the legacy media is nothing more than the the same kind of sources that ran to the media on numerous times to create a narrative against Trump on numerous occasions

(06-25-2025 09:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 08:36 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2025 06:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So....NOT obliterated? No way trump could have been wrong...or lying...or spouting off before he knew the facts. He probably saw a big explosion on TV and turned in for the night.

US strikes did not destroy Iran nuclear programme, says intelligence assessment

Can't wait to see who gets fired for likely telling the truth...LOL

Gee, Tom, you sound gleeful that maybe the strike wasn't as effective as hoped.

Are you pulling for the Iranians over Trump?

Btw, that supposed negative assessment came from "Pentagon intel," and Hegseth himself said yesterday that the sites were "obliterated." And he watched in real time.

Do you think the "Pentagon" somehow had boots on the ground since then to counteract his lyin' eyes?

First, GFY.
Second, yes, we either have assets there (likely spies) in addition to all sorts of intelligence such as intercepting communications, etc. That's what the leaked Pentagon report is.
Lastly, if you think anyone can confidently make an assessment on an underground target merely from a satellite image, you're dumber than I thought.

Why so gleeful at the possibility the mission wasn't as successful as hoped?

Why so angry all the time? You've had a burr under your saddle ever since Nov. 5.

Also, your first instruction to me is anatomically impossible.

And we, meaning Amercians, most likely do not have assets there. The Israelis might.

As to your last comment, please contact Hegseth and tell him he's dumb, too, since he contradicted that report. Do you think Hegseth doesn't have access to all sources within the Pentagon, including wherever the contradicting report came from? It's not just eyes on the real-time explosion, genius.

And if Hegseth doesn't know, then how would the unknown Pentagon sources know?

1. Not gleeful.
2. Not angry any time, unless my sports team loses.
3. We have all sorts of intelligence assets covering that area most likely, and yes, many are likely tied to Israel and other allies. That doesn't have to mean people directly on the ground. I heard a retired general explain all of it last night. Hertling I believe. He said the first report on such matters is almost always wrong.
4. Hegseth is an unqualified hack. And no, he didn't know what the ******* assessment was right after the attack. Nobody did.

You sound happy about the potential results being less than reported. Otherwise, you sound angry most of the time. Your problem, not mine.

Hegseth made comments well after the actual event. My point was, he has access to any intel that anybody else has, PLUS he saw the event.

The idea that you think Hegseth is an unqualified hack makes me laugh. Austin was a lot better, right? I don't recall you calling Austin a hack.