[Buttons840]

> have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program

The US Director of National Intelligence testified to congress a few weeks ago that no US intelligence agency believes that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, and that they believed Iran was at least 3 years away from having the ability to build a nuclear bomb even if they tried.

What you are saying directly contradicts what US intelligence agencies have said.

A couple sources: https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren... https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

[alephnerd]

> US Director of National Intelligence

The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.

[Buttons840]

Is there a better representative of the US intelligence agencies than the Director of National Intelligence? Maybe a true Scotsman?

[alephnerd]

At this moment no. Most administrative and strategy positions for Intel and Foreign Service seats have remained unconfirmed. Maybe the head of the CIA - John Ratcliffe, an avowed Iran+China Hawk - but this administration is hard to read given how disjointed and domestic-driven decisionmaking is.

Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

[dragonwriter]

> Furthermore, the DNI is at the lowest rung of the intel hierarchy on the Hill, as it is a post-9/11 invention, and faces inter-service competition from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

The DNI is by law [0] the head of the intelligence community; the role was created to separate that function from the CIA Director (formerly, "Director of Central Intelligence"), who previously was the head of the intelligence community as well as the head of one of the major constituent agencies within that community. The CIA, FBI, and NSA or components of the intelligence community, not "competitors" with the DNI.

(And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill", which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.)

[0] 50 U.S. Code § 3023(b)(1) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President, the Director of National Intelligence shall— (1) serve as head of the intelligence community; (2) act as the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and (3) consistent with section 1018 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023

[alephnerd]

By law sure, but in action the DNI has little-to-no staffing, and the heads of the other agencies are represented in the NSC and JCS, so the DNI tends to be an afterthought.

> which is a metonym for the Legislative branch because of the location of the Capitol complex on Capitol hill.

IK. I used to work there. It is the general denonym for working in either the Executive or Legislative.

> And all of those are executive branch positions, so not in any hierarchy "on the Hill"

Strongly disagree from personal experience. Just like any organization, resourcing gives certain groups or agencies more heft and leeway than others.

[c0redump]

So basically the DNI says things that you disagree with, and therefore is illegitimate.

[alephnerd]

No. It's because she has been frozen out by the Trump admin for weeks now - as was seen with the fact that she was not invited to the Camp David but the other Intel heads were to discuss the Iran crisis when Netanyahu informed the admin about the then imminent strikes [0] - and the role of DNI is itself on the chopping block to be merged as part of Project 2025 (one of the few things I agree with them about - the DNI is a redundant role that was only developed during 9/11, and has been made redundant by the NSC and fusion centers).

[0] - https://www.axios.com/2025/06/10/trump-camp-david-iran-gaza-...

[dttze]

Explain how "backing" them has anything to do with what she said about the weapons. Dismissing her because of that is the bad faith.

[dttze]

Not to mention the Ayatollah has had a long standing fatwa against the procurement of nuclear weapons.

[ben_w]

Yeah, and the ten commandments in the New Testament don't give exceptions for "death penalty" and "war"*, that doesn't stop Christians from signing up for the military or even seeing a contradiction.

* on the former, NT has an example of the crowd who want to stone someone, instead being convinced to leave; and the latter NT contains the origin of the phrase "to go the extra mile", which is about helping foreign soldiers occupying your territory and ordering you to help them (Matthew 5:41)

[dttze]

Just because most Christians are hypocrites that worship Mammon doesn't mean the Ayatollah is.

[ben_w]

"Ayatollah" is more like "Bishop" in this analogy. Bishop of Rome doesn't like AI, news reports this, nothing changes.

[dttze]

To be frank, you are ignorant on the topic and should do more research. This isn't the Catholic Church; he is the supreme leader of Iran and the commander in chief of their military. What he says goes.

[ben_w]

The Bishop of Rome is more commonly (but technically incorrectly) known as "the Pope".

There are thousands of Ayatollah, you mean specifically the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The Catholic Church used to be powerful, but it too has had mismatches between even ex cathedra teachings and what people actually do: see also US politics having occasional arguments about if being Catholic disqualified someone from politics because they submitted to the Bishop of Rome over the people.

And that's without the way government leaders often tell bold faced lies (and less obvious lies, too).

[ngruhn]

No idea whether that estimate is accurate but 3 years doesn't sound long for an existential risk. If a large astroid hits earth in 3 years, I better do something now. Should probably have invaded 10 years ago.

[mousethatroared]

Bibi has been saying that Iran is weeks away from the bomb since the 80s.

Meanwhile, he's the only megalomaniac in the region with a Bomb.

[ngruhn]

so you think they're not trying to get a nuke?

[mousethatroared]

I thought I implied that I don't care.

[noworriesnate]

The obvious solution is to get Israel to give up nukes in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. I think that would everyone happy except the Israelis who want to murder people without repercussion.

[ngruhn]

It's crazy to me that this is peoples take away. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas have the explicitly stated goal to annihilate Israel and its people. But Israel is the genozidal one. They're attacking military targets in Iran. Iran is bombing urban centers. I'm sure the IDF would very much prefer to only attack military targets in Gaza as well. Unfortunately, the Hamas decided to hide them under houses.

[ngruhn]

Right. You just wanna see Israel burn either way.

[mousethatroared]

I doubt it, Israel has 300 nukes.

But, to be honest, I am grateful that intercepting missiles and drones is giving IDF pilots something to do other than bombing Gazans.

Just sayin'

[whodidntante]

So, is Tulsi Gabbard now considered a reliable source of intelligence ?

And that it should be no one's concern about a regime that is stretched for resources yet has over a dozen very expensive facilities working on militarizing nuclear technology that also publicly and repeatedly calls for the destruction of not just Israel but also America ?

[mousethatroared]

This wasn't Tulsi saying it, but the intelligence community going back to the dubbya administration.

Some of us are old enough to remember.

In honor of W. "fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice? Well you cant fool me twice"

[whodidntante]

I think this is quite different than Iraq. We know Iran has many sites were they are developing nuclear technology, sites that they not only do they not let inspections happen, but that are literally buried deep in the ground. We also know they are acquiring or have acquired the technology to enrich to weapons grade, and they themselves have said they will continue to enrich beyond what a civilian program needs.

In other words, this is not a civilian energy program.

Maybe they can build a bomb in 1 month, maybe three years. You may not agree whether or not action should be taken, but I do not see that agreement/disagreement based on the difference.

In any case, our "intelligence" community has lost a lot of credibility, and has been politicized for decades. I would not bet my life, let alone an entire nation, on what they have to say.

[Buttons840]

If the intelligence community is not trust worthy, then upon what are you basing the claims in your post?

[whodidntante]

There is quite a lot of info from many diverse sources. Even assuming a lot of misinformation or incorrect information, there is just too much to say there is nothing here.

Common sense also needs to take into account that Iran already does have a working civilian reactor, and its fuel is supplied by Russia. Given the state of Iran's economy, there is no rational reason for it to be spending vast sums to build so many facilities simply to supply fuel to a reactor that is already supplied by someone else. They would be far better off spending their much needed resources building additional civilian reactors.

Is Iran close to producing an actual bomb ? Don't know. Is Iran investing huge sums to produce weapons grade nuclear material ? There is quite a lot of information to indicate that this is so, and there is only one reason to do this - to produce a nuclear bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran

Long list of nuclear sites, cross referenced from many diverse sources. Assume half is misinformation, there is a lot of evidence of a wide ranging program

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/analysis-of-iaea...

Analysis of the many IAEI reports. I am not sure of the reputation of the authors, but I have read through similar findings from different sources.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/12/nx-s1-5431395/iran-nuclear-en...

"Iran isn't complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years" from an IAEI report, reported by NPR

[gerash]

So the intelligence community doesn't know as much as what you heard on TV?

[whodidntante]

I watch TV for entertainment, not news I read from different and often conflicting sources for information, for whatever that is worth I draw my own conclusions, for whatever they are worth, which sometimes change over time

I believe that Iran is and has been trying very hard to produce enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. I do not know how close they are to an actual bomb, but I also do not believe the technical know how is beyond them, they have smart people, funding, and a technology infrastructure to make it happen. The hard part is the enriched uranium.

I also do not believe that Iran getting close to a bomb is the real reason for Israel's current offensive. Neither do I believe that Israel "acted alone", the US is complicit. Neither do I believe that Hamas and Hezbollah acted alone, Iran is complicit. The past 20 months has always been about Israel/Iran and US/Russia/China.

You may believe differently.

[GuinansEyebrows]

i'm not going to lie, though - when i read that elsewhere this morning, the first thing i thought was "i wonder if that 'intelligence' came from chatgpt as well?" [0]

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-admits-to-asking... - forgive the crappy source, i'm not super serious about this line of discussion :)

[mousethatroared]

It's been the assessment of three intelligence community going back decades.

Myself, I think they already have a bomb. Or actually don't want it for moral reasons. There is no universe where Pakistan and N. Korea have it and they're "working on it"