Iran Builds Up Near Weapons-Grade Uranium Stockpile Despite Nuclear Talks

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

"Iran has continued to produce highly enriched uranium at a pace of roughly one nuclear weapon’s worth a month over the past three months despite talks between Washington and Tehran on a new nuclear deal, the United Nations atomic agency said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report circulated to member states that Iran had grown its stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium to 408.6 kilograms from 274.8 kilograms in early February, an increase of around 50%. The Wall Street Journal viewed a copy of the report.

That means Iran has enough highly enriched uranium for roughly 10 nuclear weapons"

MSN

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

Yaaayyyy!!! God bless the Muslims, and war!

Pommer · May 31, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
"Iran has continued to produce highly enriched uranium at a pace of roughly one nuclear weapon’s worth a month over the past three months despite talks between Washington and Tehran on a new nuclear deal, the United Nations atomic agency said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report circulated to member states that Iran had grown its stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium to 408.6 kilograms from 274.8 kilograms in early February, an increase of around 50%. The Wall Street Journal viewed a copy of the report.

That means Iran has enough highly enriched uranium for roughly 10 nuclear weapons"

MSN

I’m not qualified to say that ~60% enrichment of uranium isn’t high enough level of enrichment for the construction of viable nuclear weapons…too bad that there isn’t some Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (anymore) that would have curtailed this development.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

Iran deserves a sharp, slap in the mouth for this. To *not* drop a bomb on Iran at this point, would be a huge sign of weakness, and will only embolden Iran to go further, and further, until someone, somewhere does do something.

...It is only a matter of time with Iran.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

I wonder! Will the American left side with Iran, if an American / Iranian war broke out? I know some liberals right now, who support Iran. I see the writing on the wall.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

Pommer said:
I’m not qualified to say that ~60% enrichment of uranium isn’t high enough level of enrichment for the construction of viable nuclear weapons…too bad that there isn’t some Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (anymore) that would have curtailed this development.

Do you support Iran's sovereign freedom to own nuclear weapons? Considering the US has them, would you say it's fair that Iran does too?

...An honest question seeking an honest answer.

Hans Blaster · May 31, 2025

Pommer said:
I’m not qualified to say that ~60% enrichment of uranium isn’t high enough level of enrichment for the construction of viable nuclear weapons…

60% enrichment is close. Most of the work needed has been done. After a little more enrichment to weapons grade, there is enough for a critical mass 3x. (That is with the original amount before this "build up".)

Pommer said:
too bad that there isn’t some Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (anymore) that would have curtailed this development.

Hmm.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

Perhaps the U.S. telling Iran they can't have nukes is the same as Israel telling Palestinians they can't have a Palestinian State?

We're just privileged colonialists, behaving badly?

ThatRobGuy · May 31, 2025

It's because they never really stopped pursuing those goals, even amid the "Iran Nuclear Deal"

While people touted the "Iran Nuclear Deal" as some sort of major step forward... between all of the various carve-outs
- Certain facilities being exempted from inspection
- Other facilities being subject to 10 or 15 year "sunset provisions" instead of a "dismantle it now!"
- "Mothballed" facilities (meaning they weren't dismantled, they were kept in a state where they could quickly ramped back up at any time
- Allowing them to store heavy water and reactor equipment in Oman (thereby, not technically violating the provisions)

...it was always a "toothless" enforcement effort.

GoldenBoy89 · May 31, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
Iran deserves a sharp, slap in the mouth for this. To *not* drop a bomb on Iran at this point, would be a huge sign of weakness, and will only embolden Iran to go further, and further, until someone, somewhere does do something.

...It is only a matter of time with Iran.

What is the “no new wars” president to do? Start a war?

GoldenBoy89 · May 31, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
I wonder! Will the American left side with Iran, if an American / Iranian war broke out? I know some liberals right now, who support Iran. I see the writing on the wall.

Why would it even matter who they support?

GoldenBoy89 · May 31, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
It's because they never really stopped pursuing those goals, even amid the "Iran Nuclear Deal"

While people touted the "Iran Nuclear Deal" as some sort of major step forward... between all of the various carve-outs
- Certain facilities being exempted from inspection
- Other facilities being subject to 10 or 15 year "sunset provisions" instead of a "dismantle it now!"
- "Mothballed" facilities (meaning they weren't dismantled, they were kept in a state where they could quickly ramped back up at any time
- Allowing them to store heavy water and reactor equipment in Oman (thereby, not technically violating the provisions)

...it was always a "toothless" enforcement effort.

I was told just the mere presence of a president Trump would keep most countries in line. Now we see Russia and Iran acting with impunity.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
What is the “no new wars” president to do? Start a war?

I would say drop bombs on Iran, Immediately.

...What do you recommend the president do?

ThatRobGuy · May 31, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
I was told just the mere presence of a president Trump would keep most countries in line. Now we see Russia and Iran acting with impunity.

Well, anyone who told you that was foolish (especially pertaining to Iran)

While there was the ever so slight possibility that flattery and financial interests could've worked on Russia (and even that one was a big "IF" since Putin is a bit of a wildcard), theocratic regimes who are convinced of martyrdom and an afterlife paradise - and don't particularly care if it means wiping out the entire planet to achieve it - are a whole different ballgame.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
Why would it even matter who they support?

Of course it matters..!! We need to maintain transparency with each other as a nation. We need to work towards common goals, left and right together. Such as our survival.

...Unless, that is, some of us are wanting to take down America, as it is, and choose to support the enemies of America instead.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

@GoldenBoy89, what is your position on Iran? Allow them to have nukes or not?

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

...I'm beginning to wonder if some liberals might be holding out, by keeping secrets, and hiding the fact that they're aroused and intrigued by the idea of America collapsing, regardless of the outcome.

If so, that's a very sick and disgusting mentality, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

ThatRobGuy · May 31, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
@GoldenBoy89, what is your position on Iran? Allow them to have nukes or not?

I would ask a more in-depth question to other people on that.

A simple "should we let them have them" is too easy.

A more probing question would be "should we be financially capitulating to terrorist regimes and paying a protection vig in order to get them to not nuke other countries?"

...because that would better describe the nature of the situation.

We don't have to have the "we'll give you $90B dollars and turn a blind eye to your human rights violations, just please don't nuke other people" conversation with Australia or Canada, despite those nations having the technical know-how to develop those things if they really wanted to.

Yet, the fact that we don't need to have those conversations with other countries highlights the fact that there's something different about Iran, but nobody wants to delve into that conversation out of political correctness.

Landon Caeli · May 31, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
I would ask a more in-depth question to other people on that.

A simple "should we let them have them" is too easy.

A more probing question would be "should we be financially capitulating to terrorist regimes and paying a protection vig in order to get them to not nuke other countries?"

...because that would better describe the nature of the situation.

We don't have to have the "we'll give you $90B dollars and turn a blind eye to your human rights violations, just please don't nuke other people" conversation with Australia or Canada, despite those nations having the technical know-how to develop those things if they really wanted to.

Yet, the fact that we don't need to have those conversations with other countries highlights the fact that there's something different about Iran, but nobody wants to delve into that conversation out of political correctness.

I agree with what you're saying, however I'm going with the idea of making it super-simple, considering we're possibly talking to people who base a majority of their political decision-making on how something does or does not effect people with 'darker skin'... That’s the level, I'm afraid, were dealing with here in many cases.

...It's the: 'Iranians have darker skin than Donald Trump, so that means support Iran' mentality level.

GoldenBoy89 · May 31, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
I would say drop bombs on Iran, Immediately.

...What do you recommend the president do?

Don’t they already have nukes? That doesn’t sound like a good idea. If he wishes to keep the no new wars moniker there’s only one option. No new wars. A war with Iran would be entirely new and entirely on the new administration.

Iran Builds Up Near Weapons-Grade Uranium Stockpile Despite Nuclear Talks

Lost in Terrapin

Lost in Terrapin

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Lost in Terrapin

Lost in Terrapin

Lost in Terrapin

Hood was a loser.

Lost in Terrapin

Part of the IT crowd

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

Lost in Terrapin

Part of the IT crowd

Lost in Terrapin

Lost in Terrapin

Lost in Terrapin

Part of the IT crowd

Lost in Terrapin

We're Still Here

Similar threads