Iran building new production hall for centrifuges in mountains near Natanz

[Imran Khan]

iran is doing this since ages they dont make nukes and they never let it go . seems they passing time

 

[925boy]

A better strategy is to build the bomb and then negotiate from position of strength......

Only problem with this bro is that Russia, China and other global powers will align with US pressure and position against Iran since some of them also dont want Iran to have a nuclear bomb...

iran is doing this since ages they dont make nukes and they never let it go . seems they passing time

They're learning the science and preparing for a breakout...IF NEEDED. Plus, i think they do it for defiance- the more the west hates Iran doing nuclear work, the more Iranians do i , kind of like a "taboo effect"

 

[aryobarzan]

The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.

 

[TheImmortal]

The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.

Yes, because North Korea is the beacon of prosperity and economic power since it became a nuclear power

/s

People think nukes make you strong. Pakistan had nukes and US flew right in and killed Osama Bin Laden without telling Pakistan.

So nukes don’t protect you as much as people think. Iran getting nukes makes Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, etc all get nukes as well. Which defeats the purpose because now Iran has 4 middle eastern nuclear Weapons powers instead of 1 (Israel).

Would you sleep comfortably with knowing a Facist terrorist regime like Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons?

This is why Iran has done the cost benefit analysis and determined it is not in Iran’s interest at this time. Maybe in 20 years or 50 years things change. By then nuclear weapons will likely be replaced with deadlier weapons.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.

1000 ballistic missile impacting on strategic points inside Isra"el", with an average destructive power of one ton of HE + kinetic energy,

= definitive loss of legitimacy of the zionist project, mass exodus of eastern European and western settlers out of Occupied Palestine, end of the zionist regime,

= same effect as 1 nuclear weapon hitting Isra"el" minus the mass killing of cvilians, the lasting radiation fallout, potential damage to Al-Quds and Masjid ul-Aqsa, casualties among indigeneous Palestinians communities. Which would furthermore single out Iran as the morally commendable side.

To the US regime and to the oligarchy ruling America, the political survival of the zionist entity is many times more important than the physical existence of New York metropolis + Los Angeles metropolis + Chicago metropolis and the lives of the 45 million or so American citizens living there.

In other words, Iran's ballistic missile arsenal has a greater deterrent power than 50 nuclear warheads mounted on ICBM's capable of obliterating the above mentioned urban agglomerations, thanks to the fact that Iran's most powerful enemy, the US, happens to be deeply controlled by and entirely beholden to international zionism.

This is what Iran can do if they drop a nuclear bomb in some Iranian desert. Of course it must be made clear to them that this is what will happen in case they use nuclear weapons on Iran.

To successfully hit Isra"el" with 1000 BM's, Iran would need to fire - in a pessimistic scenario - some 5000 at them. This is while the number of ballistic missiles at Iran's disposal is most probably in the tens of thousands. The launches should be spread over 4 to 10 joint salvos maximum.

Let's say 2000 would get destroyed on the ground by enemy air power and long range missiles, notwithstanding huge efforts put by Iran into making her BM arsenal extra survivable (like hardened underground mountain bases, mobile unmarked launchers looking like civilian trucks, massive use of decoys and so on) - which is certainly an overestimation but let's just assume. Let's then suppose that of the 3000 missiles taking off, some 1000 will succumb to technical malfunction along their journey (again, likely an overestimate). Of the 2000 remaining missiles, let's assume the enemy's anti-ballistic missile shield, which would be extremely saturated and probably does not possess enough interceptors to begin with, nonetheless manages to intercept no less than 50%.

That's still 1000 BM's hitting and largely knocking out strategic targets, such as air force bases, IDF ground force bases, military headquarters and C&C centers, radar stations, anti-missile and air defence batteries, arms industrial complexes, the Dimona nuclear weapons plant, the prime minister's office, key infrastructures like power plants, high tech factories etc.

That's while Iran retains a less than 6-month (to be hopefully reduced to a few weeks in the near future, after Trump gets reelected) nuclear break-out option.

As for Iran's neighbours acquiring nuclear weapons in case Iran does, it is highly unlikely that the US/Isra"el" would allow them to (nor would the prospect be any more frightening for Iran than the actual fact that criminal regimes such as the USA and Isra"el" already possess such weapons).

Unless such hypothetical, so-called "Turkish" or "Saudi" nukes are in fact placed under full American and Isra"el"i control, and would thus be Turkish or Saudi in name only - which, in turn, would represent an extremely dangerous scenario, because then, Washington and Tel Aviv could conduct nuclear first strikes against Iran, or simply threaten such strikes, while at the same time benefitting from a veil of plausible deniability and redirecting potential retaliation onto their regional clients rather than themselves.

The US and Isra"el" would thus hold hostage Iran's neighbours. That can be seen as a motivating factor for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons as of yet.

 

[aryobarzan]

1000 ballistic missile impacting on strategic points inside Isra"el", with an average destructive power of one ton of HE + kinetic energy,

= definitive loss of legitimacy of the zionist project, mass exodus of eastern European and western settlers out of Occupied Palestine, end of the zionist regime,

= same effect as 1 nuclear weapon hitting Isra"el" minus the mass killing of cvilians, the lasting radiation fallout, potential damage to Al-Quds and Masjid ul-Aqsa, casualties among indigeneous Palestinians communities. Which would furthermore single out Iran as the morally commendable side.

To the US regime and to the oligarchy ruling America, the political survival of the zionist entity is many times more important than the physical existence of New York metropolis + Los Angeles metropolis + Chicago metropolis and the lives of the 45 million or so American citizens living there.

In other words, Iran's ballistic missile arsenal has a greater deterrent power than 50 nuclear warheads mounted on ICBM's capable of obliterating the above mentioned urban agglomerations, thanks to the fact that Iran's most powerful enemy, the US, happens to be deeply controlled by and entirely beholden to international zionism.

This is what Iran can do if they drop a nuclear bomb in some Iranian desert. Of course it must be made clear to them that this is what will happen in case they use nuclear weapons on Iran.

To successfully hit Isra"el" with 1000 BM's, Iran would need to fire - in a pessimistic scenario - some 5000 at them. This is while the number of ballistic missiles at Iran's disposal is most probably in the tens of thousands. The launches should be spread over 4 to 10 joint salvos maximum.

Let's say 2000 would get destroyed on the ground by enemy air power and long range missiles, notwithstanding huge efforts put by Iran into making her BM arsenal extra survivable (like hardened underground mountain bases, mobile unmarked launchers looking like civilian trucks, massive use of decoys and so on) - which is certainly an overestimation but let's just assume. Let's then suppose that of the 3000 missiles taking off, some 1000 will succumb to technical malfunction along their journey (again, likely an overestimate). Of the 2000 remaining missiles, let's assume the enemy's anti-ballistic missile shield, which would be extremely saturated and probably does not possess enough interceptors to begin with, nonetheless manages to intercept no less than 50%.

That's still 1000 BM's hitting and largely knocking out strategic targets, such as air force bases, IDF ground force bases, military headquarters and C&C centers, radar stations, anti-missile and air defence batteries, arms industrial complexes, the Dimona nuclear weapons plant, the prime minister's office, key infrastructures like power plants, high tech factories etc.

That's while Iran retains a less than 6-month (to be hopefully reduced to a few weeks in the near future, after Trump gets reelected) nuclear break-out option.

As for Iran's neighbours acquiring nuclear weapons in case Iran does, it is highly unlikely that the US/Isra"el" would allow them to (nor would the prospect be any more frightening for Iran than the actual fact that criminal regimes such as the USA and Isra"el" already possess such weapons).

Unless such hypothetical, so-called "Turkish" or "Saudi" nukes are in fact placed under full American and Isra"el"i control, and would thus be Turkish or Saudi in name only - which, in turn, would represent an extremely dangerous scenario, because then, Washington and Tel Aviv could conduct nuclear first strikes against Iran, or simply threaten such strikes, while at the same time benefitting from a veil of plausible deniability and redirecting potential retaliation onto their regional clients rather than themselves.

The US and Isra"el" would thus hold hostage Iran's neighbours. That can be seen as a motivating factor for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons as of yet.

My dear friend "salarHaqq"...i love your posts..i also appreciate the time you take to write your points of view in an impeccable English.. I have tried many times to convince myself that what you replied about the Iran's nuclear posture against US is indeed sound ...but here is the thought that I can not dismiss.

Imagine you are the Supreme Leader ....reports arriving that a nuclear device has been detonated over lut desert..no damage no casualty....now are you going to lunch those 5000 BM towards Israhel knowing well that by doing so cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Tabrize and Mashhad will be wipped out ..estimated toll at 10 million ..iran as a country non exsiting for thousand of years...
Zionisem will survive..may be not in current day Israhel but somewhere else....Iran as a nation will disappear...
Is the price of removing Israhel from middle east justify lives of 10million people and disapperanc of iranian nation...
My conclusion: if you have the bomb and the taxi to deliver it to even one US mainland city then no nuclear exchange will occur between US and Iran....TheNorth Korean kid came up to the same conclusion..

 

[SalarHaqq]

My dear friend "salarHaqq"...i love your posts..i also appreciate the time you take to write your points of view in an impeccable English.. I have tried many times to convince myself that what you replied about the Iran's nuclear posture against US is indeed sound ...but here is the thought that I can not dismiss.

Imagine you are the Supreme Leader ....reports arriving that a nuclear device has been detonated over lut desert..no damage no casualty....now are you going to lunch those 5000 BM towards Israhel knowing well that by doing so cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Tabrize and Mashhad will be wipped out ..estimated toll at 10 million ..iran as a country non exsiting for thousand of years...
Zionisem will survive..may be not in current day Israhel but somewhere else....Iran as a nation will disappear...
Is the price of removing Israhel from middle east justify lives of 10million people and disapperanc of iranian nation...

Thanks for these words, friend.

Well, in the hypothetical scenario you describe, you can also turn your statement around and say they will nuke empty desert knowing well that by doing so, 5000 BM's will be fired against Isra"el". Is the price of destroying Iran worth the collapse of Isra"el"? Their answer to that will be resoundingly negative.

It needn't be 5000, by the way, if there is no damage as you say - although radiation would always cause considerable damage to Iranian civilians. But Iran can always calibrate its response and launch fewer missiles, hitting empty desert in Negev if you will, or landing a few meters from the Dimona reactor if needed.

Another problem with detonating a nuclear device in more or less empty Iranian deserts is that the US will not get away completely unscathed from this. Not just in terms of image, but also in terms of how its Russian and Chinese competitors would react to Washington setting such a dangerous precedent.

Iran could also warn them that the 5000 BM's will be launched in case of nuclear strikes against Iranian cities. Iran will say: if you use nukes against any of our population centers in a first strike, we will proceed with that massive decapitating bombardment of the zionist entity.

This very much has deterrent value.

My conclusion: if you have the bomb and the taxi to deliver it to even one US mainland city then no nuclear exchange will occur between US and Iran....TheNorth Korean kid came up to the same conclusion..

Believe it or not, Isra"el" matters more to the ruling US oligarchy than any mainland American city.

And Isra"el" needs no nukes to be rendered dysfunctional and emptied of its settler population: it is simply too small and therefore inherently fragile.

I'm not against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if absolutely needed for her survival. At a minimum, keeping intact a more or less short term break out option is a must in my opinion. All I'm saying is, we have not arrived at that point of absolute necessity. So long as we haven't, and considering the effective deterrence might of Iran's BM's, cost/benefit analysis favors the status quo in terms of nukes. And we needn't worry about Iran being subjected to a nuclear attack.

Even if Iran develops nukes: ICMB's are not absolutely indispensable, in reality. Of course, they would represent a bonus. But I guarantee that in order to deter the US, the capability to nuke Isra"el" would be worth every single bit as much as the capability to nuke any major US city or even several of them.

You may be sceptical about the deterrence power of Iran's asymmetric BM arsenal and might argue for nuclear armament. Nonetheless, please do not doubt for a minute that even with nukes, the prospect of Isra"el"'s downfall is enough to deter the US regime.

The North Korean leader doesn't have the tiny entity whose oligarchy controls the US right next door to him. If he had, his calculations would strongly differ too. Washington doesn't care one bit about whether Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Seoul or Busan go up in flames and all their inhabitants are massacred.

It is, however, absolute anathema to the entire American ruling class to even remotely consider in their wildest dreams (or rather, nightmares) that something might happen to their beloved zionist entity. Their attachment to Isra"el" is of a religious and/or metaphysical nature. They would easily trade every American city for Tel Aviv and Haifa.

This might change someday, and Iran would then need to adapt accordingly. But save for some system-changing upheavals, we are far from that day.

 

[aryobarzan]

Thanks for these words, friend.

Well, in the hypothetical scenario you describe, you can also turn your statement around and say they will nuke empty desert knowing well that by doing so, 5000 BM's will be fired against Isra"el". Is the price of destroying Iran worth the collapse of Isra"el"? Their answer to that will be resoundingly negative.

It needn't be 5000, by the way, if there is no damage as you say - although radiation would always cause considerable damage to Iranian civilians. But Iran can always calibrate its response and launch fewer missiles, hitting empty desert in Negev if you will, or landing a few meters from the Dimona reactor if needed.

Another problem with detonating a nuclear device in more or less empty Iranian deserts is that the US will not get away completely unscathed from this. Not just in terms of image, but also in terms of how its Russian and Chinese competitors would react to Washington setting such a dangerous precedent.

Iran could also warn them that the 5000 BM's will be launched in case of nuclear strikes against Iranian cities. Iran will say: if you use nukes against any of our population centers in a first strike, we will proceed with that massive decapitating bombardment of the zionist entity.

This very much has deterrent value.



Believe it or not, Isra"el" matters more to the ruling US oligarchy than any mainland American city.

And Isra"el" needs no nukes to be rendered dysfunctional and emptied of its settler population: it is simply too small and therefore inherently fragile.

I'm not against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if absolutely needed for her survival. At a minimum, keeping intact a more or less short term break out option is a must in my opinion. All I'm saying is, we have not arrived at that point of absolute necessity. So long as we haven't, and considering the effective deterrence might of Iran's BM's, cost/benefit analysis favors the status quo in terms of nukes.

However, even if Iran develops nukes: ICMB's are not absolutely indispensable, in reality. Of course, they would represent a bonus. But I guarantee you that in order to deter the US, the capability to nuke Isra"el" would be worth every single bit as much as the capability to nuke any major US city or even several of them.

You may be sceptical about the deterrence power of Iran's asymmetric BM arsenal and might argue for nuclear armament. However, please don't doubt for a minute that even with nukes, the prospect of Isra"el"'s downfall is enough to deter the US regime.

The North Korean leader doesn't have the tiny entity whose oligarchy controls the US right next door to him. If he had, his calculations would strongly differ too. Washington doesn't care one bit about whether Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Seoul or Busan go up in flames and all their inhabitants are massacred.

It is, however, absolute anathema to the entire American ruling class to even remotely consider in their wildest dreams (or rather, nightmares) that something might happen to their beloved zionist entity. Their attachment to Isra"el" is of a religious and/or metaphysical nature. They would easily trade every American city for Tel Aviv and Haifa.

This might change someday, and Iran would then need to adapt accordingly. But outside of system-changing upheavals, we are far from that day.
[/Qsrahelli'

Thanks for these words, friend.

Well, in the hypothetical scenario you describe, you can also turn your statement around and say they will nuke empty desert knowing well that by doing so, 5000 BM's will be fired against Isra"el". Is the price of destroying Iran worth the collapse of Isra"el"? Their answer to that will be resoundingly negative.

It needn't be 5000, by the way, if there is no damage as you say - although radiation would always cause considerable damage to Iranian civilians. But Iran can always calibrate its response and launch fewer missiles, hitting empty desert in Negev if you will, or landing a few meters from the Dimona reactor if needed.

Another problem with detonating a nuclear device in more or less empty Iranian deserts is that the US will not get away completely unscathed from this. Not just in terms of image, but also in terms of how its Russian and Chinese competitors would react to Washington setting such a dangerous precedent.

Iran could also warn them that the 5000 BM's will be launched in case of nuclear strikes against Iranian cities. Iran will say: if you use nukes against any of our population centers in a first strike, we will proceed with that massive decapitating bombardment of the zionist entity.

This very much has deterrent value.



Believe it or not, Isra"el" matters more to the ruling US oligarchy than any mainland American city.

And Isra"el" needs no nukes to be rendered dysfunctional and emptied of its settler population: it is simply too small and therefore inherently fragile.

I'm not against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if absolutely needed for her survival. At a minimum, keeping intact a more or less short term break out option is a must in my opinion. All I'm saying is, we have not arrived at that point of absolute necessity. So long as we haven't, and considering the effective deterrence might of Iran's BM's, cost/benefit analysis favors the status quo in terms of nukes.

However, even if Iran develops nukes: ICMB's are not absolutely indispensable, in reality. Of course, they would represent a bonus. But I guarantee you that in order to deter the US, the capability to nuke Isra"el" would be worth every single bit as much as the capability to nuke any major US city or even several of them.

You may be sceptical about the deterrence power of Iran's asymmetric BM arsenal and might argue for nuclear armament. However, please don't doubt for a minute that even with nukes, the prospect of Isra"el"'s downfall is enough to deter the US regime.

The North Korean leader doesn't have the tiny entity whose oligarchy controls the US right next door to him. If he had, his calculations would strongly differ too. Washington doesn't care one bit about whether Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Seoul or Busan go up in flames and all their inhabitants are massacred.

It is, however, absolute anathema to the entire American ruling class to even remotely consider in their wildest dreams (or rather, nightmares) that something might happen to their beloved zionist entity. Their attachment to Isra"el" is of a religious and/or metaphysical nature. They would easily trade every American city for Tel Aviv and Haifa.

This might change someday, and Iran would then need to adapt accordingly. But outside of system-changing upheavals, we are far from that day.

Lol.....israhelli's would be happy to know how much value IR is bestowing on their lives.

 

[OldTwilight]

The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.

well , Im saying these things for 10 years ... nothing happened ...
you cant wake up the person who pretending he is sleeping

 

[Mithridates]

if US use nukes even with the will to fight you will not be able to fight...also who says US and Israel are the same and care about each other that much you imagine??

 

[RΛIDEN]

Iran tells IAEA it will accelerate underground uranium enrichment

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran plans to install hundreds more advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges at an underground plant in breach of its deal with major powers, a U.N. nuclear watchdog report showed on Friday, a move that will raise pressure on U.S. President-elect Joe Biden.

The confidential International Atomic Energy Agency report obtained by Reuters said Iran plans to install three more cascades, or clusters, of advanced IR-2m centrifuges in the underground plant at Natanz, which was apparently built to withstand aerial bombardment.

Iran’s nuclear deal with major powers says Tehran can only use first-generation IR-1 centrifuges, which are less efficient, at the underground plant and that those are the only machines with which Iran may accumulate enriched uranium.

Iran recently moved one cascade of 174 IR-2m machines underground at Natanz and is enriching with it. It already planned to install two more cascades of other advanced models there, in addition to the 5,060 IR-1 machines that have been enriching for years in the plant built for more than 50,000.

“In a letter dated 2 December 2020, Iran informed the Agency that the operator of the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz ‘intends to start installation of three cascades of IR-2m centrifuge machines’ at FEP,” the IAEA’s report to its member states said.

Iran has breached many of the deal’s core restrictions on its nuclear activities in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement and his reimposition of crippling economic sanctions. Tehran says its breaches can quickly be reversed if Washington’s moves are undone.

Biden, who takes office on Jan. 20, has said he will bring the United States back into the deal if Iran resumes full compliance with its nuclear restrictions. That raises the prospect of a standoff over who should move first.

FASTER ENRICHMENT
Iran transferred the already-operating cascade of IR-2ms underground from an above-ground plant at Natanz where only a handful of those machines remain, the IAEA has said. The extra cascades would therefore have to involve some of the hundreds of IR-2m machines removed and put into storage under the 2015 deal.

While the first cascade did not increase Iran’s production of enriched uranium because it was already enriching above ground, the extra cascades would.

The IAEA’s last quarterly report on Iran last month showed Tehran had stockpiled 12 times the 202.8 kg of enriched uranium it is allowed to have under the deal, more than 2.4 tonnes.

That is still a fraction of the more than eight tonnes it had before the landmark 2015 deal, and it has not enriched uranium to a purity of more than 4.5% since then. It achieved 20% before 2015, closer to the 90% of weapons-grade uranium.

U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA believe Iran had a coordinated, clandestine nuclear weapons programme that it halted in 2003, the year its secret construction of Natanz was revealed by an opposition group in exile.

The deal is aimed at keeping Iran at arm’s length from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. It says it has never tried to.

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

 

[Aspen]

I think Iran will get nukes when Khameini dies and is replaced by a new successor who understands that the situation and ground realities have changed.

If Khameini's successor changes policy and decides to pursue nukes at any cost, Iran will have its "Eating grass" moment.

It is actually easier for Iran to get nukes than Pakistan because Iran already deals with sanctions and already has nuclear technology. When Pakistan started from scratch, we had neither the nuclear technology, nor the sanctions.

Iran already has the nuclear technology, the sanctions, and a real threat, they have virtually nothing to lose. Right now Iran has all the disadvantages of nukes without actually having it. The only thing preventing Iran from getting nukes is Khameini. Once he dies, Iran will probably do a nuclear test within 5-10 years of his successor coming to power as he would understand the need to change nuclear policy in response to modern challenges facing Iran much better than Khameini ever would. A nuclear test is the only way to ensure that no one will ever mess with Iran, security and stability is exactly what is needed in this turbulent time so Iran can finally stop worrying about external challenges from US and Israel all the time and move on to deal with other urgent problems like Iran's economy. Khameini's successor would understand this fact very well and make it a priority from day 1. Doing a nuclear test is not a solution for everything but it solves a lot of problems for Iran at once like improving security and allowing gov't to focus on economic stability which is why US and Israel are absolutely desperate to prevent it. They know if Iran gets a nuke, its game over. Hopefully Khameini's successor understands that as well.

Either Khameini dies in a few years or hardliners win 2021 and JCPOA gets thrown out, then Iran goes straight for nukes and decides never to trust US again until after Iran does a nuclear test.

 

[Dariush the Great]

I think Iran will get nukes when Khameini dies and is replaced by a new successor who understands that the situation and ground realities have changed.

That's what i believe will happen too. While Khamenei's stance is commendable against American,Israeli aggression his logic towards nuclear weapons is simply incomprehensible and the only reason why Iran suffered so many damage during all of these years. Had Iran built the bomb in early 90's or 2000's it wouldn't have had the problem like nowadays. Such a large nation like Iran with extremely important geostrategic positioning not only needs nuclear weapons, it needs to MASS produce them to keep the country's independence and stability safe for a very long time to come.

The supreme leader needs to do the right thing and keep Iran safe and independent by acquiring these weapons. A lot of instability and political infighting will happen very soon after his death with serious risk of conservatives getting sidelined, perhaps forever. This is why it is more important than ever for high ranking IRGC command to come forward and do the right thing.

 

[Aspen]

That's what i believe will happen too. While Khamenei's stance is commendable against American,Israeli aggression his logic towards nuclear weapons is simply incomprehensible and the only reason why Iran suffered so many damage during all of these years. Had Iran built the bomb in early 90's or 2000's it wouldn't have had the problem like nowadays. Such a large nation like Iran with extremely important geostrategic positioning not only needs nuclear weapons, it needs to MASS produce them to keep the country's independence and stability safe for a very long time to come.

The supreme leader needs to do the right thing and keep Iran safe and independent by acquiring these weapons. A lot of instability and political infighting will happen very soon after his death with serious risk of conservatives getting sidelined, perhaps forever. This is why it is more important than ever for high ranking IRGC command to come forward and do the right thing.

I wonder what would happen if IRGC decided to go for a nuclear test even if Khameini forbids it. I find it very hard to believe that anyone in a high ranking position at IRGC could see what US and Israel are getting away with these days and somehow agree with Khameini's view that going back to JCPOA is better than getting a nuke in long term or even in short term. Iran would be better off acquiring a nuke to stabilize both security and economy as a stable and secure economy with sanctions would still be better than a volatile and turbulent economy under JCPOA that changes every 4 years. For all we know, maybe IRGC already has a few nukes ready to test, that are just waiting for political approval from leadership if hardliners win 2021. Maybe IRGC decides they have finally had enough and take matters into their own hands and stop waiting for Khameini to die or for politicians to come to realization in 2050 that Iran needed nukes in 2020. Khameini will hate IRGC for doing it, but after some point, maybe IRGC will decide they don't care what Khameini thinks because Khameini is just a person and that nukes are worth it no matter what for the future security of Iran as a sovereign country. After taking losses left, right, and center with first Soleimani and now this, maybe IRGC decides its not worth it to to listen to Khameini anymore as not having a nuke has done more damage to Iran than anything else and that having a nuke cannot be worse than not having it. Khameini will die in a few years but nukes are forever. If IRGC really wants nukes, there's not much Khameni can do to stop it. So really the question is where does Iran draw the line. In my opinion Soleimani should have been the red line as it was a big wake up call that should have convinced anybody who wasn't already convinced instead of waiting for the next assassination. I hope IRGC has already started the process of building nukes for real this time and not the pretend threats like before. In short term, IRGC would suck it up and endure backlash from reformists. Maybe a few high ranking IRGC people will be executed for allowing a nuclear test, who knows. In long term, such a move may benefit IRGC because while Khameini will hate IRGC for last few years until he dies, Khameini's successor will thank IRGC for doing nuclear test before his death so that the new leader can start on a clean slate and focus on other issues like economy.

 

[Dariush the Great]

I wonder what would happen if IRGC decided to go for a nuclear test even if Khameini forbids it. For all we know, maybe IRGC already has a few nukes ready to test, that are just waiting for political approval from leadership if hardliners win 2021. Maybe IRGC decides to take matters into their own hands and stop waiting for Khameini to die or for politicians to come to realization in 2050 that Iran needed nukes in 2020. Khameini will hate IRGC for doing it, but after some point, maybe IRGC will decide they don't care what Khameini thinks because Khameini is just a person and that nukes are worth it no matter what for the future security of Iran as a sovereign country. After taking losses left, right, and center with first Soleimani and now this, maybe IRGC decides its not worth it to to listen to Khameini anymore as not having a nuke has done more damage to Iran than anything else and that having a nuke cannot be worse than not having it. Khameini will die in a few years but nukes are forever. If IRGC really wants nukes, there's not much Khameni can do to stop it. So really the question is where does Iran draw the line. In my opinion Soleimani should have been the red line as it was a big wake up call that should have convinced anybody who wasn't already convinced instead of waiting for the next assassination. I hope IRGC has already started the process of building nukes for real this time and not the pretend threats like before. In short term, IRGC would suck it up and endure backlash from reformists. Maybe a few high ranking IRGC people will be executed for allowing a nuclear test, who knows. In long term, such a move may benefit IRGC because while Khameini will hate IRGC for last few years until he dies, Khameini's successor will thank IRGC for doing nuclear test before his death so that the new leader can start on a clean slate and focus on other issues like economy.

I doubt that Khamenei himself is very much against nuclear weapons although the statements he made in the past shows that he is kinda against it. I am sure he can be convinced though, with solid arguments of why and how this will benefit Iran in the long term he can be convinced but i doubt the IRGC high ranking command made a effort for that and the blame is on them too. In any way, the IRGC also has failed to convince Khamenei or the lack of effort, the end result is the same. IRGC has also failed.

I think Khamenei is just getting in tune with the traitor reformists who are doing everything in their power to take away Iran's nuclear program. Rest assured that there are people in the IRGC that want to make nuclear weapons and there are also those who oppose such a move. For now, the power is in the hands of those who want Iran to be nuclear free- same policy dictated by arrogant powers. Khamenei should do exactly the opposite of what the West wants.

@Aspen let me add that we also do not know what is exactly going on. Perhaps Khamenei and the IRGC already tried to go for the nuclear weapons but betrayal and reformist surge put a hold on that. Add massive Western pressure to that as well and it might become a feasible scenario.