The Israel-Iran War ?

[Razgovory]

How does the White House know the US intelligence reports are incorrect?

[crazy canuck]

From the NYTimes

A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country's nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, the officials said the early findings concluded.

Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program had been delayed, but by less than six months.

[Zoupa]

[Legbiter]

Iran is basically fucked if this boffin analysis is correct. They're now effectively boxed in like Saddam was in the 90's. 

We saw the reports on the leaked DIA report, and have a few comments.  The aspects raised are addressing a narrow question, albeit an important one, namely how quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon in a worst case assessment post-attack.  With residual stocks of 60 percent and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.  We agree, but this is an on-going process, where it is necessary to continue hunting down these items or make a deal where Iran has to give them up.

But the situation is dynamic and not static. One change today, after the completion of the DIA report, is intelligence evidence that more enriched uranium stocks are in the rubble than believed just yesterday.

Considering the damage to Iran's three known enrichment facilities, the destruction of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, its uranium conversion facility, uranium metal production plant, and other facilities involved in its nuclear weaponization process, reconstituting these capabilities will take significant time, investment, and energy to return to its previous state before the war or build nuclear weapons.  Iran has likely lost close to 20,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, creating a major bottleneck in any reconstitution effort.  Moreover, there has been considerable damage to Iran's ability to build the nuclear weapon itself.

Further complicating matters for Iran, the country is under intense scrutiny and observation from the United States and Israel.  Any major effort to reconstitute its capabilities may well be met with further strikes.

More analysis and information will be required to completely ascertain the true state of Iran's enrichment and other nuclear capabilities. But to reduce what has happened to a worst case assessment, while it has value, is misleading to say the least.

https://x.com/DAVIDHALBRIGHT1/status/1937617920508531159

[Legbiter]

I think this ceasefire is very likely to only last a few weeks/months before a new round of hostilities resume.

[crazy canuck]

Excellent some guy on X said that he doesn't agree with the intelligence agencies of the United States and their assessment that very little is done by the attack. By all means let's definitely trust what we read on social media.

[Legbiter]

He's a former IAEA inspector who runs a nonproliferation think tank and I noticed him because journalists on x were retweeting him.

[Tamas]

He's a former IAEA inspector who runs a nonproliferation think tank and I noticed him because journalists on x were retweeting him.

What should be considered is that:

a) that thinkthank likely has fewer tools available to ascertain damage and
b) the Pentagon, in the current environment especially, is likely very reluctant to disprove the US President unless they are confident in their assessment

[crazy canuck]

He's a former IAEA inspector who runs a nonproliferation think tank and I noticed him because journalists on x were retweeting him.

Yes, the key to that is he does not have access to any information about what just happened other than what he is inferring from what he reads from news reports.

And the fact that news reporters are tweeting him, and treating him as a source shows exactly the problem with social media.

Why would anybody prefer the judgement of somebody who used to do the job to the judgement of people who are currently doing the job?

[The Minsky Moment]

Albright's account is citing a recently released statement from Israel's Atomic Energy Commission:

The devastating US strike on Fordow destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran's military nuclear program, has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material

It's an interesting statement for both what it says and what it doesn't say.  It says that Fordow's "critical infrastructure" was destroyed, rendering it "inoperable".  It does not say that the underground facilities themselves were destroyed.  That makes the statement consistent with the leaked US intelligence assessment, as well as the pre-strike analysis from many sources questioning whether the deep penetration bombs could penetrate through the layers of hard rock  to reach the underground facility.

The implication is that the surface and immediate sub-surface elements of the site were indeed "obliterated".  And that is significant because it would include things like roads, elevators, lifts, stores, depots, etc. at or around the site.  I.e. "critical infrastructure" and stuff that is needed to operate the site on a day-to-day basis. But the implication is also that whatever was been protected underground at the site was not eliminated.

[Legbiter]

He laid out the worst-case scenario in the first paragraph I quoted.

We saw the reports on the leaked DIA report, and have a few comments.  The aspects raised are addressing a narrow question, albeit an important one, namely how quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon in a worst case assessment post-attack.  With residual stocks of 60 percent and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.  We agree, but this is an on-going process, where it is necessary to continue hunting down these items or make a deal where Iran has to give them up.

He's also doing his own satellite damage assessment based on his expertise.

But we will see, this ceasefire will not last more than months before a new escalation cycle kicks in I predict. 

[Valmy]

I have to say I am kind of impressed by how confusing this situation is.

Is this war over? Did the bombing achieve any of our objectives? What the fuck are our objectives? Is Iran dangerous? Is Iran a joke?

Did Iran somehow implant tons of sleeper cells throughout the country that are going to rise up and...um...do something at any minute? And why did Joe Biden allow them to do that?

I have no idea. It's crazy.

[Tamas]

He laid out the worst-case scenario in the first paragraph I quoted.

We saw the reports on the leaked DIA report, and have a few comments.  The aspects raised are addressing a narrow question, albeit an important one, namely how quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon in a worst case assessment post-attack.  With residual stocks of 60 percent and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.  We agree, but this is an on-going process, where it is necessary to continue hunting down these items or make a deal where Iran has to give them up.

He's also doing his own satellite damage assessment based on his expertise.

But we will see, this ceasefire will not last more than months before a new escalation cycle kicks in I predict. 

I guess you fail to see CC's point. Ultimately, he is just a guy on Twitter. Sure he has/claims to have qualifications more than the average person, but, at the end of the day, he is a rando on Twitter.

[Legbiter]

I guess you fail to see CC's point. Ultimately, he is just a guy on Twitter. Sure he has/claims to have qualifications more than the average person, but, at the end of the day, he is a rando on Twitter.

You can do what you like with this first semester uni undergraduate "what is Knowledge" tosh. 

[crazy canuck]

I guess you fail to see CC's point. Ultimately, he is just a guy on Twitter. Sure he has/claims to have qualifications more than the average person, but, at the end of the day, he is a rando on Twitter.

My point is that the people who have the data are more reliable then someone second guessing the people with the actual data.