Which would have given the Mossad four years to note what was going on and adjust bombing plans.
That is a more reasonable assumption, under cover of chaos.
DB2
A couple weeks, at least. Israel started sending bombers over on June 12. Since centrifuges are susceptible to interruptions in power supply, the prudent thing would have been to spin them down in controlled fashion rather than allow them to come down unregulated and probably crash as they did with the Natanz software strike a while ago.
Whether they “moved” them or not is another issue, but according to the conspiracy theorists they’re adept at doing that, since they must have done that all the time during the days of the Obama agreement inspections.
For the record, it’s unclear that the labs were hit, although I’ll bet they got shook up a lot. And if they were hit, it’s also unclear that the enriched uranium was still there.
2 Likes
In a follow-up post, Symon added: “This activity may suggest that Iran, anticipating a strike, has started reinforcing the facility possibly by moving in materials to strengthen tunnels or seal the site in preparation of a fallout.”
The images have triggered speculation online that Iran may have tried to move advanced centrifuges or key components out of Fordow before the US strike. Technically, it is possible, but such a move is logistically complex and time-consuming. Centrifuges are sensitive machines that must be disassembled with care, secured during transit, and reinstalled in highly controlled environments. Fordow’s location — 80 to 90 metres underground in a mountain — adds to the challenge.
DB2
1 Like
Unclear to the general public. US satellites would have a full record of the comings and goings. Iranian, US, and Israeli statements leave things very unclear to us. Americans worrying is a useful tool. If our troops get hit we will rally for war.
1 Like
She deployed twice. How dare you diminish Gabbard. She is brave and honorable. Your words bother me greatly.
LOL
Little Marco Rubio said on Sundays news that intelligence was irrelevant. So now we all know what most people already know. This administration is not running on intelligence.
6 Likes
If Mossad is that good, why would they share that info with the USA? The previous admin was unlikely to act on it, and the current admin is a security nightmare. All it takes to serve Bibi’s purposes is to drag the US into the conflict with a big show of force.
2 Likes
Hello? The Mossad is Israeli, and they have demonstrated great skill in this campaign. It is unlikely that they would have been unaware of a multi-year campaign to disperse Iranian facilities.
DB2
1 Like
I am only Quoting Marco. According to him they are irrelevant.
3 Likes
The US and the West have used Israel in the middle east to defend their oil. It could have been Iran but the Shah was toppled and Khomeini did not want to do the American bidding. Unlike the Arabs, Iran is still fighting.
Israel beat Egypt and Syria, and they quiet down. Later on, Bin Laden wanted the US out of the middle east. He got taken out.
So any such contestation will be met with American might. Maybe we will not need Israel anymore if a friendly regime in Iran topples the Mullahs. We always say that the iranian people loves the US. I am not so sure they do after the bombing of their country.
So might we still need Israel? That is where the sense of insecurity comes from.
More proof that intelligence is irrelevant.
1 Like
Israel is our bulldog in the region to be sure. So there is some benefit for us.
However, many conservative Christians in the US see the formation of the State of Israel as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy which many believe is a requirement for the second coming of Jesus. Therefore support for Israel among this group is unwavering.
There has been lots of talk about cutting foreign aid. After Ukraine which is a special case, Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign aid. There has been no talk to cutting aid to Israel. Two of the other largest recipients are Jordan and Egypt, both of whom we pay off so they will play nice with Israel. No talk of cutting those budgets either.
It is time we reconsider our relationship with Israel and what we get out of the deal. We get some benefits, but lots of trouble too.
3 Likes
“Some people say” it would take a really long time - years, apparently, at least months and months.
Google’s Gemini has a slightly different take:
**In summary, there is no single answer to how long it takes to remove centrifuges from a factory.** It depends on the specific project and the complexity of the removal process. For a large-scale project, a more involved decommissioning process, potentially taking several months, would be expected. For smaller, more routine removals, the process could be completed within days or weeks.
As I understand it those centrifuges could be spun down in a couple hours, tops, if done by the technicians who do that sort of thing. Moving the centrifuges would take a lot more time, obviously, but some portion of it could be saved in a matter of days, or the two weeks since Israel started bombing them. The rest of it may or may not be destroyed, we really don’t know, as I have learned from our adventures in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among others. I’d like to think they were, because nobody wants another ultra-religious theocracy to have a nuke, and in any event, it’s already done.
I do think diplomacy, leading to a treaty that benefits everybody would be a good idea, except, wait, I’m being told we had that once, and …
2 Likes
These days, the US may have less use of the middle east since it doesn’t need its oil as much. But it still wants to have control over it so it can deny oil to others.
The US continues to support and supply Israel even it is not exactly in its interests. The Israeli Lobby is strong.
Absolutely. FDR made a security deal with King Saud, not because we needed the oil, but because we wanted to control it.
The price of oil is still set on the global market. So we need to make sure the oil keep flowing globally to keep the price reasonable, else our economy will suffer.
Well, that depends on what part of the economy you really care about. Yes, I saw the posturing, for public consumption, but then there is the “energy dominance” agenda.
Steve
Not sure what you mean here. Energy is the ‘master resource’ and is an input to all parts of the economy.
DB2