Taro T

Only the ones hoping for a lawyer still hand out that name. 😉

Nor was the "Trump has started WWIII" claim this past weekend fear-mongering hysteria ... Nor were any of the other times they claimed that over the past 9 or so years fear-mongering hysteria ...

1A. The only way to PROVE it is to inspect it. And personally expect any peace treaty coming out of this war will include an ability for either the US or Israel to inspect the actual bombed facilities (possibly technically through the auspices of a 3rd party like the UN or the IAEA but in either case am expecting that US &/or Israeli boots will be on the ground for that one). 1B. Likely the 60% uranium hexaflouride itself has not been destroyed, but it is also likely under several hundred feet of rock and debris. Would expect the centrifuges used to purify it likely are destroyed and are many of the Iranian scientists and engineers that oversaw and designed the purification operations. The only way to guarantee that the Iranians can't use that uranium is if somebody else takes possession of it. Expect that will be a key demand of the US/Israeli side in any peace agreement. 1C. Forgotten in all this talk of the bombing of the enrichment facilities is that the Israelis also did a number on the Iranians missile building capacity. Finding themselves back near square 1 on that front is another good thing that likely has come out of this kerfuffle. 2. Are the mullahs still in power? Then regime change still hasn't happened. Are they removed / dead? (Oviously not asked today as they aren't, but hopefully soon.) If yes, then regime change has happened. 3. No data. Won't even hazard a guess.

Isn't "may you live in interesting times" an ancient Chinese curse? (If it isn't, it definitely should be.)

Don't know if they were destroyed or not. Do know the IAEA has said there is significant damage to at least 4 of the facilities. There is radiation eminating from at least 2 of them but radiation hasn't been detected beyond the perimeter of any of the facilities. And they did specifically state that one of the entrances to Fordam was hit and at least 2 strikes hit Natanz. Don't know if the Fordam faciliy was destroyed, but do expect it is under a couple hundred feet of rubble in a worst case. So, it isn't exactly an easy get back if somehow the 12 - 30,000# bombs didn't penetrate all 300' that the facility was reported to have been originally underground. And while we're all speculating whether or not the Iranians would've moved uranium after the Israelis first took out their air defenses, it is just as likely, possibly moreso that the Iranians moved uranium TO the Fordam site because it was believed to be inaccessible to the attacks rather than move uranium OUT of that seemingly (at least that was how it was described 3 days ago) unpenetrable facility. But, considering pretty much all "intelligence reports" prior to the raids of these past 2 weeks said that there was no way to knock the Iranian defenses out this easily and that Iran would get support both from its benefactors and from the proxy groups it funds but except for the Yeminis firing a few missiles, NONE of that intelligence was correct; not sure just how reliable those same sources now claming that these strikes were unsuccessful actually are. They have a vested interest in these raids failing. Just like the Israelis and the US have a vested interest in them having succeeded. And am going back to the old axiom, NEVER trust reports during the 1st 48 hours of ANY major event. They're almost always wrong. But considering it is in America's and the world's best interests for the Iranian nuclear program to have been destroyed, will cautiously hope that the early reports stating that's the case happen to be the correct ones.

Yep. Pretty much a weirder and less talented version of BNL.

Have not seen/heard Leavitt's statement, so will take your word for it that is what she said. And, what she said goes exactly with what was stated in the post you responded to. That post said it was either someone in government leaking classified (or apparently top secret in this instance) info or CNN was making it up. Per your post, she said it was someone in government leaking top secret info. And the question still remains as to which one is a more accurate restating of the information. Whether 47 exaggerated or the leaker lied or a little of both, we don't know yet what the truth is. Personally will wait for more info to come out before deciding which of those scenarios is the correct one. (And yes, it is almost definite that 47 exaggerated; it is what he does. But that doesn't mean necessarily that the 3 facilities aren't essentially completely back to ground zero so to speak. Which, if it's the case would make 47's version significantly closer to the truth IF in fact that is what's happened than what the leaker has divulged.) (Just like 47 isn't necessarily going to tell the truth, the leaker might have motives to lie as well. And when we have no idea who that leaker is at this time, can't honestly say whether they are or aren't lying.)

One thing to remember about any of CNN's reporting, at least for the next 3-1/2 years, is that most of their insiders that held securitiy clearances even after leaving government service had them revoked by 47. So, in a matter like this, they're either getting told by somebody still working in the government that is leaking classified information or they're making it up as they go. A significant portion of their former sources have dried up.

Well,a ceasefire is only that - a ceasefire. It doesn't mean there necessarily is a resolution but it does provide time for negotiations. IMHO it would be very shortsighted and antithetical to obtaining a peace agreement for 47 to be calling for regime change. Seems he couching that about as well as we can hope (though very much in his particular brand of communication) in stating that we aren't calling for regime change but we aren't opposed to it (and personally take that as saying we'd really like to see the Iranian people overthrow what's left of the regime and also that if they don't negotiate in good faith an end of their nuclear program that we WILL actively work towards regime change). Will be interesting to see how negotiations between the 3 parties go now that we seem to be in a ceasefire. If the mullahs survive this, expect that they will be required to grant full unfettered access to their nuclear sites and that ANY lack of access will result in more bombs landing on them. Will also be very interested to see what, if any, concessions the Israelis and the Americans make in the negotiations. Expecting those to be minimal and strictly something that we don't particularly care about that lets the mullahs CLAIM some form of victory, however minor it might be. To your earlier questions of "why now?" IMHO 2 additional reasons beyond what @sherpa has mentioned: 1 Russia is otherwise occupied, which is the same reason Assad fell over in Syria and 2. the guy that always seemed to be partial to solutions that Iran would favor in that region of the world such as wanting to partition Iraq after Saddam fell is no longer even titularly in the WH.

Ironically, the ones that are most blissful seem to be the most over the top pissed off people around. Such a dichotomy.

And 2 ways to view the "our goal is not regime change in Iran" but "we'd be good with it should it happen" that don't leave these as contradictory messages are: 1. we have no intention of enacting regime change but if the Iranian people try to make it happen, we'd be more than willing to support them. And 2. we've said repeatedly that we want to negotiate an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s). If the mullahs are finally willing to come to the table, great. But if they aren't, well there's more than 1 way to "negotiate" an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s). We'll let the mullahs choose which way they want it to play out, but they have to make their choice very quickly. Am not thrilled that the Netanyahu decided to bring this decades long conflict to a head nor that the US got involved. But at the end of the day, prefer this to Iran having a nuclear weapon or 9.

Well, in fairness to him, Vanity Fair was behind a paywall.

The thing to watch for is in states that don't have eminent domain laws that somebody buys land with the only access roads to some adjacent lands and then they effectively buy a whole lot more land than they'd actually paid for. Because without eminent domain, you can't force somebody to allow a road in on their property. It's how folks like Ted Turner ended up getting some really great land. Buy up everything surrounding what you REALLY want and then make a swap of some of what you have for what you actually want. As long as the feds &/or the state can get roads built to what lies beyond what is being sold off, there isn't a whole lot to be worried about provided you aren't a competitor of clean coal (the real reason 42 converted large chunks of Utah to national parkland - to prevent low sulfur coal from being mined) or a rancher with a dirt cheap lease on federal lands for grazing purposes or someone else benefiting from that land not being private / exploitable.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? You're going back to your Billsy level halucinations. You're equating our government pushing private companies to restrict free speech (the deplatforming outlets that ran with the Hunter Biden laptop story back in 2020, and the deplatforming of Dr. Bhattacharya for his views regarding covid in 2021 as prime examples) with people asking the government to not sponsor artists like Maplethorpe? Interesting take. And one of a comparison of apples and kumquats. And you know darn well that what 44 is calling for is for the government censoring views that challenge it. A reimagining of the Disinformation Governence Board if you will. The fact that you can't even admit that you know that's what he's calling for tells us one of 2 things about you. So, have fun with it.