Similarities of Iraq & Iran Wars

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

After the war started, Witkoff claimed that during the first round of talks, Iranian officials said they had enough nuclear material to build 11 nuclear bombs and that they were “proud of it,” but a diplomat involved in the negotiations said that never happened.

“I can categorically state that this is inaccurate,” a Persian Gulf diplomat involved in the negotiations told MS Now.

Witkoff was referring to Iran’s stockpile of uranium that’s enriched to 60%, which is believed to be buried under rubble following the June 2025 airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and is still below the 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. The night before the US and Israel began bombing Iran, Oman’s foreign minister, who mediated the negotiations, said Iran was willing to give up its stockpile of enriched uranium to reach a deal.

During the negotiations, Witkoff also made the false claim that Iran could have material to make a bomb within a week despite the fact that Iran is unable to enrich uranium following the June 2025 strikes that President Trump said “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program. Trump has also repeated similar claims and said on Monday that he launched the war based on the advice of Witkoff, Kushner, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“In my opinion, based on what Steve and Jared and Pete, and others were telling me, Marco, that I thought they were going to attack us,” Trump said.

Seems the Iran war is based upon lies. Shades of Iraq WMDs.
The money and lives spent here could been better on the US infrastructure benefiting the US economy.

15 Likes
2

OK, that’s two in a row. Three, if you count the strike 10 months ago that “obliterated” everything.

At some point the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is bound to take over, isn’t it?

8 Likes
3

The sticking point in negotiations was enriching uranium to 20%. The Iranians would not budge. They estimate their ballistic missile program would be able to launch missiles 9 years from now at us.

The Middle East is much more violent because of Iran.

All that aside, there are plenty of reasons to dump on Trump. I am in there with you, but this is not much of a war, 600 dead. No boots on the ground.

Being all on one side is doing yourself a disservice.

The extremists are all around me. LOL

4
2 Likes
5

That is only a biased opinion by someone who for all intensive purpose has no idea to begin with. Why use a source that only takes one side of an issue? While he has no facts?

The Iranians themselves were only willing to negotiate for 20% enrichment and nothing less. A hop skip and a jump to weapons grade uranium.

All of the presidents dating back to Carter have said Iran getting nukes was a no go. This is not a new issue.

20% enriched uranium (known as HALEU or just below the threshold of Highly Enriched Uranium) is generally not required for conventional nuclear power, which uses 3–5% enrichment. However, it is increasingly needed for advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors (SMRs), and research reactors that produce medical isotopes.
Department of Energy (.gov)
Department of Energy (.gov)
+2

It would take an estimated three to four weeks to enrich a significant stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to weapons-grade (around 90%) using a clandestine facility with modern centrifuges. The exact time depends heavily on the specific technology and number of centrifuges used.

[image]Al-Awsat +4

My comment all of Iran’s operations concerning missiles, uranium, and drones have been under ground and clandestine with ongoing warring operations throughout the ME and future defenses for larger wars.

6

Don’t hold your breath. That’s not how cults of personality work. For example, TFG is buying his disciples shoes, they’re deathly afraid to not wear them. Weird…

That’s what the reported concern was. Nuclear experts acknowledge legitimate civilian uses for enriched uranium. That’s probably why the US built the Tehran Research Reactor back in the late 1960s. That’s also why the US agreed to allow up to 20% enriched uranium back in 1993.

Iran understands they probably can’t count on the US supplying enriched uranium for medical, agricultural, and industrial purposes. Being able to enrich to 20% isn’t necessarily an indication of dubious motivations.

It’s “for all intents and purposes”, but I digress.

The diplomatic dynamic duo refused to bring nuclear experts to the negotiations. They refused to go to a technical summit that could have shed light on what’s really happening. They conveyed incorrect information to TFG, which ultimately led the US to war. This is dangerous stuff. I think you’re mistaken on who has the facts, and who doesn’t.

Irregardless of what I think, supposably this war will be over soon.

12 Likes
7

Is that why everything military is under ground for offensive and defensive purposes? Oh yeah they never would hurt a fly.

8

Who was held accountable to Iraq war lies? US and Western media didn’t even acknowledge the civilian death toll. So US bombed a school where 168 civilians and 110 childrens died. What kind of coverage it got?

US voters truly don’t care. If a military target is attacked on a foreign soil, there will be huge outcry, but when US military commits war crimes routinely there is a deafening silence.

When there is no accountability and no one pays the price, yeah bad behavior will continue.

7 Likes
9

That’s not what I’m suggesting. These are very serious negotiations, we should be sending serious people. The fact that we didn’t, and now find ourselves in war, should be very concerning.

4 Likes
10

We do not have magic powers over Iran. Their people said 20%, and we were all stuck there. There is no make-believe to change that.

More importantly exam why you think any negotiation should be necessary.

11

About the Iranians not being in the E files…child marriage is legal in Iran.

Why would the Guard quit?

12

It doesn’t matter what I think. The current administration thought it was necessary, they just didn’t take it seriously. Similar to how they’re not taking this war seriously. This is a completely unserious group of people running our country. Forgive me if I think cheering them on is a very bad idea.

9 Likes
13

Again, why should there be negotiations?

Find someone else’s thinking if you do not have your own.

14

Because it’s 2026, not 3000 BCE. Diplomacy was invented for a reason. Diplomacy, when executed well, can avoid unnecessary wars.

Edit - Because Iran knows how to enrich uranium. Bombing knowledge is impossible. We have to convince them that they don’t need or shouldn’t want a nuclear weapon.

Being a warmonger doesn’t require being disrespectful.

6 Likes
15

The US preference is for regime change but short of that it wants some form of regime alteration in Iran. Essentially, the US is looking for a change significant enough that it can get its way. Of course, no states in the Middle East—or elsewhere in the world—want Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, and they don’t need a war to achieve that. The major US preoccupation is ending the Islamist regime and its support for groups that oppose Israel.

For various reasons, the US wants Israel to be the dominant power in that region, flanked—so it hopes—by the Saudis and the Gulf Arab states. If those states make peace with Israel, the US is willing to pump enough money and support into the arrangement that the kings and princes cannot refuse the American offer—an offer they supposedly cannot refuse. At least that is what the US believes it has on the table.

But again, it may not be so simple. Saudi Arabia’s defense budget -mostly benefiting the American defense industry- is larger than Iran’s, yet it can hardly defend itself, and perhaps that suits the US goal. The Saudis and the Gulf Arabs simply have to say yes, and the US will support them. Washington would like Iran to become just like them.

This action is an attempt to push things in that direction. From the Iranian viewpoint, the choice presented to them is stark: enjoy a prosperous life and economic success like the Gulf states and Israel, or continue standing up to the US and face its wrath.

But Iran is not the same as Iraq at all. The iranian government is more robust than the one of a single dictator. It will not be easily changed from the outside and it will not bend to the US.

And then there is Turkey- a significant power in the region. They also want to have a say in the region…

The whole picture is rather complex, yet we are bombarded every day with non-contextual snippets, propaganda, and questions that do not really get to the heart of the truth. While being in the dark and with no context, we are asked to vote for or against? Whatever we say, they call that a mandate from the people, and that is legitimacy. Really? The mass has to believe that Iran is a threat to us Americans? How so? Can you believe what they tell us? No! But most of us do not have much of a say in the US foreign policies- in that sense we are all ruled by autocrats!

Note that Trump hasn’t asked us…yet?

2 Likes
16

Uranium enrichment is often measured in terms of Separative Work Units, or SWUs. It takes a certain number of SWUs to enrich uranium to a given percentage of the U-235 isotope. But it isn’t a straight line relationship. Once you get to 20%, it only takes a relatively small effort to get it to the weapons-grade 90% or so.

image
image511×305 72.2 KB

As shown above, it takes around 1150 SWUs to enrich uranium to 20%. But then it only takes another 100 to 150 SWUs to reach the weapons-grade range. We know the Iranians were enriching to 60%. I see no legitimate reason to reach that range, unless they were threatening to easily go to 90% for bombs.

The above graph and more information on enrichment can be found here, if you are interested.

_ Pete

7 Likes
17

Because that’s what grownups do, instead of breaking into a fistfight at every disagreement of opinion. Iran is a sovereign, independent country whether we like it or not.(And obviously, we don’t.) We do not have the right to dictate to them who their leader will be, how they will live their life, and so on. We can surely disagree, even cajole, but at some point it’s theirs to decide . (They have decided wrongly, in my view, but my view is irrelevant.)

When they behave in ways that infringe on others, then negotiation is the first step. The last step, the VERY last step is war. That’s where we are now.

Again, where we we before?

Oh, right. Negotiation.

IMG_0812
IMG_08121194×1000 112 KB

7 Likes
18

It also helps to prevent expenditure of resources unnecessarily. The MIC likes it, because then you have to replace the armaments. But it costs taxpayers both dollars and -potentially- lives.

5 Likes
19

You are funny. You haven’t convinced me.

Last time I checked for 47 years Iran has declared war on the USA.

You have some hope.

20

I agree.

908765432109