- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Irans nuclear enrichment obliterated in June 2025 strikes, Iran did not rebuild them
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:01 pm
LINK
During questioning from Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Gabbard reiterated that the intelligence community assessed that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was "obliterated" in last year's strikes — a portion of her written testimony she omitted from her opening statement.
"So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's air strikes," Ossoff asked.
"Yes," Gabbard said.
Ossoff asked her whether there had been "no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability."
"Correct?" he asked.
"That's right," she said.
Ossoff also asked her whether the intelligence community assessed that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the regime. Gabbard said Iran "maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment" and only the president "can determine what is and is not an imminent threat."
"It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat," she said. "That is up to the president, based on a volume of information that he receives."
During questioning from Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Gabbard reiterated that the intelligence community assessed that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was "obliterated" in last year's strikes — a portion of her written testimony she omitted from her opening statement.
"So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's air strikes," Ossoff asked.
"Yes," Gabbard said.
Ossoff asked her whether there had been "no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability."
"Correct?" he asked.
"That's right," she said.
Ossoff also asked her whether the intelligence community assessed that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the regime. Gabbard said Iran "maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment" and only the president "can determine what is and is not an imminent threat."
"It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat," she said. "That is up to the president, based on a volume of information that he receives."
12
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:02 pm to RelicBatches86
I think the only way to truly end the program is to seize the uranium.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:02 pm to RelicBatches86
Did they or did they not have enough material to produce 11 nukes as they allegedly stated in negotiations?
Did they actually state that in negotiations?
Did they actually state that in negotiations?
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:03 pm to RelicBatches86
OMB!
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:04 pm to RelicBatches86
1. I do not believe selected leaks.
2. Tulsi Gabbard is an untrustworthy count and should have never been hired.
2. Tulsi Gabbard is an untrustworthy count and should have never been hired.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:04 pm to RelicBatches86
Doesn't matter either way. Regime change in Iran was the right decision and always will be.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:06 pm to RelicBatches86
Coming from someone who was once inside the obnoxiously called intelligence community at one time, these type of “assessments” they’re talking about often can range from pure speculation-pretty likely. It all depends on the level and quality of intelligence assets you have to produce it.
Example: In Humint you rate the quality of a source from A-E and the quality of the information the same way but with numbers 1-5 to create something that will look like B3, If your assessment is full of D4 sources and you have no sigint to confirm it and imint shows nothing your assesment is useless
If he was being an honest actor he would’ve asked a question that’s just as important if not more, and that’s how confident DNI is in the assessment. This can range from low confidence and various categories in between until high confidence.
As long as they have the fissile material though; they’re a threat. Imminent can be justified anyway you want. Was Gadaffi imminently coming for the homeland when Hilary decided to toss him?
Example: In Humint you rate the quality of a source from A-E and the quality of the information the same way but with numbers 1-5 to create something that will look like B3, If your assessment is full of D4 sources and you have no sigint to confirm it and imint shows nothing your assesment is useless
If he was being an honest actor he would’ve asked a question that’s just as important if not more, and that’s how confident DNI is in the assessment. This can range from low confidence and various categories in between until high confidence.
As long as they have the fissile material though; they’re a threat. Imminent can be justified anyway you want. Was Gadaffi imminently coming for the homeland when Hilary decided to toss him?
This post was edited on 3/18/26 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:11 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
I think the only way to truly end the program is to seize the uranium.
exactly
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:46 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Did they or did they not have enough material to produce 11 nukes as they allegedly stated in negotiations?
To me this is irrelevant. I'm not an advocate of being world police but when they make this threat to your face AND decline your offer of free nuclear fuel forever then they have made it very clear what the end goal is. Waiting past that point makes no sense to me.
It is like someone standing on my front porch and saying they are going to rape my wife or abuse my children. I'm not going to ask if that is in 5 minutes or 5 years. They are going to die of lead poisoning right there.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:53 pm to RelicBatches86
I think in their meetings they said they had enough of the 60% enrichment to quickly make 11 bombs, almost bragging to the US delegates just a few weeks ago. Whether it’s true or not, there’s no one to verify that, but probably not the best rebuttal to peace talks, and it cost them, and everyone, majorly….
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:55 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
I think the only way to truly end the program is to seize the uranium.
Yep and that’s impossible without a full scale invasion. It is buried 100s of meter below ground that a bunker buster cant reach. Would mostly take excavators and tools that would make it difficult for a quick special ops mission
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:56 pm to notsince98
quote:
To me this is irrelevant. I'm not an advocate of being world police but when they make this threat to your face AND decline your offer of free nuclear fuel forever then they have made it very clear what the end goal is. Waiting past that point makes no sense to me. It is like someone standing on my front porch and saying they are going to rape my wife or abuse my children. I'm not going to ask if that is in 5 minutes or 5 years. They are going to die of lead poisoning right there.
We have golden dome. There is zero chance of an iranian nuke reaching the US. Their missles arent capable of leaving the middle east
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:07 pm to Burt Reynolds
quote:
We have golden dome. There is zero chance of an iranian nuke reaching the US. Their missles arent capable of leaving the middle east
any system is capable of failure. That isn't something you "risk" when you dont have to. That is just playing russian roulette.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:09 pm to jbdawgs03
No. Orange man stupid. Or Orange man an Isreali stooge. Perhaps Orange man neocon frick.
All are correct answers.
All are correct answers.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:10 pm to RelicBatches86
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:12 pm to RelicBatches86
This has always been about regime change. Nobody serious actually believes Iran is a threat to the US
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:13 pm to WeeWee
quote:
2. Tulsi Gabbard is an untrustworthy count and should have never been hired.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:14 pm to DallasTiger11
Iran is a threat to the US as a state sponsor of terror that has killed and wants to continue to kill Americans. What do you not understand about that?
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:19 pm to back9Tiger
If your bar for a threat to the US is killing some Americans we better start purging a lot more than just Iran
Posted on 3/18/26 at 3:29 pm to RelicBatches86
quote:
During questioning from Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Gabbard reiterated that the intelligence community assessed that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was "obliterated" in last year's strikes — a portion of her written testimony she omitted from her opening statement.
So were the Democrats lying when they claimed that the strikes merely pushed the program back and it was all a stunt? I seem to remember a bunch of them parroting that it was a stunt that really didn't have an effect.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News