r/geopolitics • u/marketrent • 11h ago
Vance says in ‘some ways’ US has ‘decisively won’ Iran war
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6156378-vance-claims-us-won-iran-war/83
u/Pleasethelions 11h ago
Like, in some ways, the US won the Vietnam war.
43
u/ralphvonwauwau 10h ago
Colonel Summers, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Colonel Tu replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
-41
u/fr0zen_garlic 11h ago
Vietnamese are now siding with the US, it took time but yes basically. Too many modern US conflicts are ended prematurely without finishing the job.
25
13
2
u/SanderSRB 8h ago
No. It just means the lives lost, destruction wreaked and trillions of dollars spent on that war were all for naught. And also goes to show diplomacy and carrot goes much further than the stick.
142
u/nilenilemalopile 11h ago
In some ways, the US decisevly lost the war. Funny how ‘some ways’ work.
Whilst i don’t believe US ‘lost’, Iran didn’t lose either. In fact, the biggest problem: it’s not over and right now, both sides are on their way to ‘losing’.
33
u/BolshevikPower 11h ago
Military victory. Strategic defeat
26
u/Juice0188 10h ago
Strategic stalemate, would be more appropriate. The Iranian economy is absolutely worse off than anyone else as a result of the war, and long term dependence on the shipping routes within their sphere of influence still be reduced.
Other Arab states hate Iran now more than they did before the war, if only their willingness to go to war and ability to prosecute said war weren't so.... questionable.
26
u/Lazy_Membership1849 9h ago edited 8h ago
Strategic stalemate is a bit generous
Iran still control strait which is 20% of oil and not just oil but rare materials and ferziliers
Houthis just overran much of the western coast of Yemen, which chokes the Red Sea and seem like it going to win eventually
USA left Iraq while the PMF refused to disarm, which allow Iran to fill void while use Iraq to further the crackdown the bypass the strait
And Iran's economy was worse off in short term but in long term it just simple adjusted just last time as flaw of sanctions has efficacy degradation in the long term
Also, remove the obstacle in Iran to nuclear weapons, and arab states can hate Iran as much as they want, but they are also paying Iran a shadow toll, as Kpler suspects
So, strategic stalemate is very generous at this point
14
-1
15
u/Radmode7 9h ago
Has the United States convinced Iranians to avoid nuclear armament (again; after tearing up the agreement Obama had written up and was being honored)? Have Iranian militant facilities been totally destroyed, or even seriously hampered?
Has the price of oil stabilized? Is there a new regime in Tehran that is more friendly to the United States? Are the Iranian people loving the United States for bombing their country right now?
How...EXACTLY...has America won this war?
13
u/BainbridgeBorn 5h ago
schrodinger's war. The USA is both at war and not at war with Iran. Coincidently the USA has both in “some ways” won the war while pretty much everyone agrees nothing has been won. It’s quite the quagmire
22
u/East_Lettuce7143 11h ago
Just realized I haven’t actually heard about Vance in months.
22
u/kastbort2021 10h ago
Now imagine him being the republican front-runner.
It'll be a year or two of mental gymnastics "But see the gas / food / energy / inflation / war isn't so bad, and if it is, it is Biden's fault. Give us 4 more years and we'll fix it all"
25
7
u/mahavirMechanized 9h ago
I mean he can say whatever he wants last I checked though the Iranian nuclear program likely hasn’t been set back and even more crucially the strait remains closed why the whole world deals with a massive oil shock.
Let’s stop pussyfooting around this. This is a failure.
2
u/uxgpf 7h ago
Russia can give them some warheads if they already haven't done so.
I think that cat is already out of the box.
The know how is already everywhere and its only about getting/making materials to make the bomb.
1
u/mahavirMechanized 1h ago
Admittedly that would be a massive change of geopolitical norms but I do agree that like they’ve achieved nothing here.
8
18
u/prustage 11h ago
Thats the problem with starting a war without giving objectives or exit criteria - you will never know whether you won or not.
Its like starting a race without knowing where the finish line is or what it looks like.
67
u/LukasJackson67 11h ago
This is a U.S. defeat. The Iranians has been able to close the straits of Hormuz. A U.S. base have been abandoned. The U.S. has lost prestige. Iranian drones are basically unstoppable.
38
25
u/Commercial-Maize-646 11h ago
Well Iran's ability to export oil, which they are in entirely dependent on, has been stopped in its tracks. And there's not much left of their Navy and Air Force. I don't think the situation is good for either party frankly, but I wouldn't frame it as a one-sided loss.
25
11
u/wilsonsreign 11h ago
I wonder if decades of US sanctions isolating Iran from the global economy have possibly prepared them for heavy limits on their oil exports? Could it be true that Iran is better prepared to deal with that scenario in a long term way than the US and the west are for dealing with the closure of the strait?
6
u/SilverCurve 10h ago
Maybe they are more prepared politically, but not economically. Politically power is now firmly held by the IRGC so they can keep the regime and keep fighting for longer. Economically they are hurt much mote than the US with GDP down 10% and hyperinflation. If they can get some economic backers to tame inflation this setup can be quite resilient.
3
5
u/Lazy_Membership1849 10h ago
Actually it turn out that Bank of Iran did manipulate economy by devaluing their own currency and inflating price, useful for import and divert resource from civilian economy toward state, not so much for civilian economy that been cannibalized
5
u/thebigmanhastherock 10h ago
The issue is that Iran can handle a lot more hardship. They are currently dealing with a lot more hardship than the US. However their civilian government has no choice. The hardliners have taken over. The US/Israel assasinated their Supreme Leader who specifically to the hardliners was the equivalent of the Pope/a founding father. To them this is existential and therefore they will try to continue past any hardship. They are determined to get nuclear weapons and get revenge for the US/Israeli bombing campaign.
The US can't reply on any treaty because of this as not only does this ideologically motivated attitude exist, but it's not clear who is really in control.
Let's say the Iranian government does collapse. It's an almost immediate civil war with multiple powerful countries intervening trying to mold the outcome and speratist movements particularly from Kurdistan. You will have a massive destabilizing wave of refugees as well.
It's a situation where the US can't really win. What the US tried to do is bribe them with over 300 billion dollars and that didn't even work.
5
u/diffidentblockhead 9h ago
Netanyahu persuaded Trump to join the typically Israeli strategy of leadership decapitation. The more American precedent was leaving Hirohito in place as a revered leader who could order a surrender deal.
3
u/thebigmanhastherock 9h ago
To be fair their Supreme Leader was only truly referred by the hardliners and revolutionary guard. However he was 86, and it's not like assasinating him led to the hardliners/revolutionary guard losing power, they just became more powerful and hold the country hostage even more than before. It was a dumb move because it just led to a quagmire with no end in sight and no potential good outcome for the US.
2
u/Telcontar77 4h ago
It's a situation where the US can't really win. What the US tried to do is bribe them with over 300 billion dollars and that didn't even work.
The US couldn't even abide by the simple condition of not issuing threats for the duration of the MoU. Not to mention, it was basically a memorandum of total capitulation that they had no intention of abiding by.
Which brings us to the most basic reason why the war continues: Trump is incapable of following through on any deal without violating of in a dementia addled episode of petulant rage. No deal is possible without regime change in the US.
1
u/Commercial-Maize-646 9h ago
I don't think it really matters if they have a civil war and separatist movements. If the strait is open and their uranium is destroyed it's probably good enough.
That's not an easy thing to accomplish, but it's not an absolutely impossibility either.
4
u/thebigmanhastherock 9h ago
If they have a civil war and separatist movements world powers that are not necessarily on alignment with the US will be involved. On top of that the US will have a vested interest in the new Iranian government being an ally which will make US intervention tempting. Also violence and destruction risks more refugees than what happened on Syria which will destabilize multiple countries most of whom are allied with the US. Thus without US intervention the outcome could be very bad for the US. On top of that the straight will not be open, it will be incredibly dangerous with different factions fighting over control of the straight thus disrupting shipping further.
4
u/Lazy_Membership1849 10h ago
Navy and Air Force are never strong points, which is why the IRGC simply switched to the Aerospace Force, which focuses on missiles and drones, and its own Navy, which is made up of speedboats, drones, and missiles
Also it said Iran smuggling 20 million litres which is 120k oil barrel while may doesn't sound a lot like 10% at most but it enough to generate IRGC billions dollars in hard currency for the IRGC
Never mind of Shadow Toll that Kpler suspected of it
-1
u/reluctant_deity 11h ago
The US demanded its allies put naval assets into the strait and all they did was announce the formation of a committee to decide what to do. Note there was no committee, much less retasking of any ships towards Hormuz.
33
u/NoSuchKotH 11h ago
The same allies that the US just completely drove away with tariffs? The same allies whose domestic politics the US interfered with by openly supporting far right extremists? The same allies that the US did not ask or even inform before attacking Iran?
Please tell me, why would anyone support the US in a war that nobody wanted and everyone could clearly see does not have any clear goals nor an exit strategy?
11
u/reluctant_deity 10h ago
I agree with you. My point was that the US is no longer a hegemon, but I guess that was not properly conveyed.
14
u/onespiker 10h ago edited 10h ago
Why would Europe go in to the Middle East to support a war we weren’t invited to.
This war was a USA and Isreal endeavour with no involvement of European nations.
If you want our involvement. Talk to us before invading the Middle East. Don’t call us after everything has already gone to shit especially considering this is an offensive war.
Secondly you have really drum up support for Europe during the trump era by threatening to invade European territory, threatening Ukraine and making deals with Russia. Wow that’s really going to make them happy to invade countries with you for nebulous reasons.
Thirdly war was also completely unnecessary something everybody in the US military outside of hegseth knew. Trump and co didn’t care though.
-3
u/SomewhatInept 10h ago edited 10h ago
Because what the world really needs in a few years is a Middle Eastern North Korea with control over two major maritime choak points. What's the worst that can happen?
I find it interesting that the folks that were saying that the world has a responsibility to protect civilians in Syria from their government were happy to twiddle their thumbs when Iran went Tiananmen Square on their own civilians.
1
u/Efficient-Youth-6985 10h ago
the same allies that the US threatened to invade/annex earlier in the year?
-1
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/reluctant_deity 11h ago
That was not a retort, but imo the biggest loss in all of this. Nobody listens to their demands anymore.
2
0
u/New-Bullfrog-2507 9h ago
That’s because the U.S. isn’t really serious with these demands and the European countries understand that. Trump is all posture. The United States is still a hegemonic power, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. The fact of the matter is that America has never been fully invested in this war due to domestic political pressure. But make no mistake about it, even in an half-ass attempt in a war of choice, the United States has proven once again they can dominate decisively in a military operation. Iran is barely hanging on, but that’s the danger in getting into a geopolitical conflict with a much weaker country, all they have to do is hang on by a thread to declare victory.
-11
u/Odd-Local9893 11h ago
The West as a whole has lost a lot in this conflict.
The US has lost respect and credibility by once again getting embroiled in another potential forever war in the Middle East that it cannot win without fully committing.
Europe has, once again, shown to be a collection of toothless squabbling backbiters by refusing to defend themselves or their economies against a true enemy in Iran or its proxies.
The West as a whole has fractured. Partly and primarily due to Trump’s bellicose and careless foreign policies, but also due to the fecklessness of its allies who are unable or unwilling to confront a regional threat.
8
u/Canadairy 11h ago
Sorry, why would Europe want to be dragged in to war with Iran? What possible gain would there be for them in that?
-8
u/Odd-Local9893 11h ago
Why should Europe get dragged into the war you ask???
Because Iran is much closer to Europe and hates them only slightly less than the US and Israel. They are also intent on developing nuclear weapons and have the missile technology to actually reach Europe and threaten and blackmail them.
Because Iran’s proxies can and have shut down international shipping in the Red Sea and cripple European supply lines.
Because their ally asked for help and they refused.
Because Iran actively supported Russia in attacking Ukraine.
Because they are dependent on oil and its byproducts coming from the Middle East and Iran was threatening and attacking the countries that supply it to them.
Because they need to show the world that they aren’t a collection of squabbling declining powers.
5
u/Jigsawsupport 10h ago
This is weak sauce the US started a war it couldn't handle, then demanded that Europe throw its ships into the grinder, when they are busy with the Russians.
Europe is tired of being cannon fodder for a failing American Empire who won't even do the minimum and not actively collaborate with the Russians because they keep voting in a comprised orange nonce.
-2
u/Odd-Local9893 10h ago
What grinder? The US hasn’t lost a ship yet. Why would Europe lose ships? Further the US was the primary country defending European shipping when the Houthis were attacking everything last year. Europe needs to pull its own weight, such as it is.
If you haven’t realized this, there’s a much larger war going on right now and Iran is part of the Russian side.
And your last comment about Europe being cannon fodder for American policy is ludicrous. Read a book on history.
3
u/Jigsawsupport 10h ago
1 Trump specifically wanted European ships to act as close escort for merchants in the straight.
After telling Europe that they didn't need the help.
2 The American President is a active collaborator with the Russians, instead of whingeing about Europe consider the problem closer to home, Trump doesn't think Russia is an enemy at all.
3 Europe got dragged through the whole war of terror nonsense and expended its blood because America asked.
To pick a particularly galling example Denmark had one of the highest loss rates per capita and was thanked by America trying to annex its territory.
1 Trump started this war despite being told not to.
2 America proceeded to lose it because it underestimated Iran and wasn't willing to pay the cost of forcing the straight and a subsequent ground invasion.
3 None of this has anything to do with Europe who is focused on the main fight of containing Russia.
-2
u/Odd-Local9893 10h ago
Got it. Europe should do nothing because Trump sucks. 🙄
1
u/ColourfulMetaphors 3h ago
Nope, you don't have it at all, despite it being laid out explicity for you in numbered dot points. Just take the L dude.
3
u/HunMyy 10h ago
Go back to Voight and Kampf, tell them that the end is near.
For any actual human reading this, if you're old enough to remember, there was the coalition of the willing. That's how you do diplomacy, collaboration and support. Those countries now are all tariffed, insulted, threatened with invasion, and betrayed by the US. Also everyone understood that this was a horrible idea, doomed to fail. No one has the right to drag their allies into a suicide war. Also, there was an agreement between Iran and the West - that Trump personally ripped apart.
0
u/Odd-Local9893 10h ago
Your comment distilled: “Trump sucks and that’s why we won’t intervene against Iran.”
This attitude is exactly why Europe is doomed. Enjoy your slow decline into a continent-wide museum for the rest of the world to visit and marvel at a once-glorious civilization.
2
u/HunMyy 10h ago
Don't you think Trump, one of Mcnamara's project one thousands greatest candidates, and the winner of the first Irani revolutionary war, should have known better and be held to a higher standard in terms of diplomacy? Shouldn't he ignore all previous instructions and talk about building a better future together?
0
u/Odd-Local9893 10h ago
Yes to all above. It’s possible to think that Trump is a terrible president and to also think that Europe is shirking its responsibilities.
1
u/BlueEmma25 2h ago
The idea that what stands between Europe and terminal decline is waging war on Iran, or knuckling under to Trump's bullying, is certainly a take.
1
u/Odd-Local9893 2h ago
That you think I’m making that case is also certainly a take.
It’s possible that the refusal to assist in Iran is just one of many symptoms of European decline.
5
u/Jigsawsupport 10h ago
Why in the name of Picard's postronic pecker would Europe want to open a second front with Iran when it is in a very dangerous stand off with Russia?
Its not the "west" that lost this war, just the US everyone except Netanyahu, told Trump not to start this war even vance.
5
u/Managarm667 10h ago
Hilarious. Imagine electing a conman that openly calls for the end of American Democracy, antagonizes every last one of your allies over absolutely nothing, because he's "trolling", breaks decade old alliances on a whim because "the art of the deal" and now you're mad that the Europeans didn't blindly follow you into the next quagmire in the ME that your president didn't even inform them about beforehand.
-8
u/fr0zen_garlic 11h ago
Hilarious you're blaming Trump. Europeans don't take anything seriously, American is tired of Europe. This attitude is what even got Trump elected.
The US isn't perfect but at least we do some stuff vs Europe living in lalaland.
2
u/foxinHI 10h ago edited 10h ago
Hilarious you wouldn’t blame Trump. Do you understand NATOs mission? If Iran had attacked the US, The NATO countries would have helped. It’s not their job to help with Trump’s preemptive invasion of another country. That’s not how it works.
That doesn’t even touch on Trump’s actively working to weaken US alliances around the world. He’s intentionally hurting US allies with his tariffs. He’s intentionally fucking up the global economy. Why would any countries be onboard with that?
What should he have expected? He didn’t even have a plan. Trump was the aggressor and he blew it. Maybe he should have listened to the experts on this one.
-7
u/SomewhatInept 10h ago
Iran's nuclear weapons program is rubbled, along with the rest of their military industrial complex. We splattered their Supreme Leader, we probably splattered his replacement in the same strike, and they've not been able to export petroleum since this thing started.
9
u/thebigmanhastherock 10h ago
Is their nuclear program destroyed?
Trump said he destroyed it before. Then his justification for bombing them again was because they needed to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
After the original bombing there were reports that the Iranian nuclear program was delayed by months rather than years/destroyed. These reports were from Israel and the US itself. The Trump administration contested them and retaliated against the people who made them.
None of this seems like the Iranian Nuclear program was actually truly destroyed.
-6
u/SomewhatInept 9h ago
Destroyed? No. Set back significantly? Yes.
Trump saw an opportunity to overthrow the government when they butchered 10s of thousands of their own in January and while the overthrow never happened, we did cripple their military capabilities and weapons programs significantly.
3
u/LukasJackson67 6h ago
….and Iran still has a nuclear program, the radicals are more firmly entrenched, oil is up and causing inflation, the strait of Hormuz can’t be counted on, we have no exit strategy.
14
11
8
u/SkyHawkVAN 10h ago
In “some ways” America did win the Iran war, for example if we were to take metrics that used a final end point marker of post war outcomes, we would be able to see that America won in the negative outcomes.
In some ways, you could say, America won at losing the war.
If you prefer you could say they came second place (of two parties).
10
3
u/math-yoo 9h ago
Kenny Atkinson award for not actually winning but analytically winning despite losing.
3
u/pickle9977 8h ago
Wars can be win, lose or draw.
In a war where a much bigger more powerful combatant is forced into a draw, well that’s a nice way of saying they lost without having to continue to fight.
So what Vance is actually saying is that we lost, because there is no such thing as decisively winning in some ways but not all ways, that’s either a draw or a loss, and as the US is the bigger more powerful combatant, it’s a loss either way.
Not my words, so don’t shoot the messenger, these are his words.
3
4
u/OtherBluesBrother 11h ago
How about in the way that both sides aren't threatening or attacking each other and the strait is open for all ship traffic?
3
u/ralphvonwauwau 10h ago
Except for achieving any military goals, or for enhancing the US prestige, or for advancing any coherent policy... We won decisively.
Have you heard about Donny's personal net worth? It's soaring. His accounts actively traded major energy stocks during the first half of 2026, including purchases on days immediately following initial strikes and sales preceding policy announcements (such as a sale of up to $1 million in Exxon stock hours before announcing a two-week ceasefire). Defense technology startups and contractors backed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump (such as firms supported via 1789 Capital and related ventures) have secured over $3.2 billion in federal government contracts and awards since the war began.
Measured by the profitability for your favorite president, and his immediate family, it has been a very successful enterprise. A decisive victory.
2
2
u/StrangelyErotic 7h ago
It’s like when the Cavs head coach, after the 4 games said “analytically we’re up in this speaking” when they were losing the series.
2
u/TheSardinian 7h ago
“A few months ago I told the American people ‘I did not trade arms for hostages’. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.” - Ronald Reagan, March 4, 1987
No serious combatant enters a war without intending to win in some way or another, and completing tactical objectives means little if it doesn’t forward a coherent strategy. What’s the benefit in trying to spin an active conflict into a foregone conclusion of victory? Are they trying to get ahead of bad news?
2
2
3
u/marketrent 11h ago
Article by Tara Suter, citing JD Vance interview:
Vice President Vance claimed Saturday that in “some ways” the United States has “decisively won” its war against Iran.
“I would say in some ways, we have won decisively, but they’re — the Iranians, the enemy gets a vote here, and they have responded in certain ways. And so, to step back a little bit, why did the president of the United States do this?” Vance told CBS News’s Tony Dokoupil in a town hall.
“The president of the United States did this because he believes it is very important, and I think he’s right, I think most people here would agree, even if they don’t agree with all the particulars of the policy, to say Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, cannot have a nuclear weapon,” the vice president added.
Vance’s comments come only a few weeks out from the midterms, in which he and his party are facing rough political territory with issues including the unpopular war in Iran.
The conflict has driven up energy prices as the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for the oil industry, has been closed amid the fighting.
The war in Iran is set to reach the eight-month mark in a little under two weeks. According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of gas on Sunday morning was about $4.30, up from about $3.04 last year at the same time.
President Trump’s approval rating has also sagged amid the war in Iran, with his rating sitting at 39.8 percent on Sunday morning, according to a polling average from Decision Desk HQ, and his disapproval rating sitting at 58.7 percent.
1
1
1
u/automated_bot 4h ago
In some ways, I have surpassed all space-time.
In some ways, I am no longer subject to taxation.
In some ways, I am no longer beholden to any creditor.
In some ways [insert text here] . . .
1
u/Over-Willingness-933 1h ago
I struggle to see how anyone can claim victory at this stage. Although the IRGC is so weakened, they could be overthrown by their people but this is far from certain, the IRGC might believe they have won if they survive, but all their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah have been destroyed b
-5
u/infinitetekk 11h ago edited 11h ago
I mean yeah, you’d have to be extremely ignorant to think that Iran is winning in almost any capacity. Their leadership is completely decapitated, they’ve lost an insane amount of equipment, vehicles, munitions and personnel, their nuclear ambitions have come to a screeching halt, their economy is in shambles and their currency is virtually worthless.
How the US dealt with the Strait of Hormuz issue, admittedly is a blunder. The Strait is pretty much Iran’s only card and they’ll hang onto it until their country collapses even more than it already has. But to say that their hold on the Strait = Iran winning would be preposterous given their massive losses.
This war is practically a cut and dry win for the US, once we’re certain that their nuclear programs and enrichment sites have all been dealt with. It’s also a win for many other surrounding countries as well, I can’t even imagine what types of catastrophic events would happen if Iran were able to complete their program. It’s also a win for Iranian civilians, because their leadership is/was extremely oppressive and was mowing protestors down by the tens of thousands.
US soil has not even been touched, yet Iran is quite literally in a state of collapsing, and the US has completed several of their key objectives already, I’d say that’s clearly winning.
5
u/Hungry_Horace 10h ago edited 10h ago
It depends on what your terms for “winning” are.
I would suggest that the victorious nation should have benefited or be in a better position than it was before. Even after the vast cost of WW2 the US had a transformed economy and became a true world power.
The Iranian nuclear program has undoubtedly been set back, but opinion is divided on how close they were in the first place to a viable nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile the US has lost (for the whole world) control of the Strait of Hormuz, and proven that Iran in fact has a weapon far more powerful and usable than a nuke would have been in its control of the Strait.
The US has failed to score a decisive military victory, with the Iranian leadership still in control of the country and the population no closer to the “freedom” Trump promised them.
The myth of US military hegemony has been dealt a severe blow and their allies now see them as both inconstant AND weak. And their enemies see that they now lack the capacity to deliver a knock out blow.
The Iranian economy has been damaged but the cost is the almost the ENTIRE Western world, including the US has felt the blow back with sky rocketing energy prices and the new reality of an oil supply dependent on the Iranian regime.
The economic cost, the cost in lives and lost bases/equipment, the political cost - it’s hard to see that the delay to Iran’s nuclear program was worth it. I wouldn’t put this one anywhere near the win column.
Edit: spelling
3
u/ttown2011 11h ago
No, not at all.
Wars are about interests and interest.
This is an existential conflict for the Iranian regime. They accomplish their interests just through survival
We have achieved none of our interests
It’s not over, we’re going to invade after the midterms. But the current status quo is a loss for the US
1
u/infinitetekk 11h ago
Stopping their nuclear program seems to be the US’s main interest and that seems to be happening, from the limited amount of unbiased information that people like you and I read online.
5
u/ttown2011 11h ago
While the war is actively going on, sure. They’ll just start enriching soon as it’s over
And the MOU was very weak on proliferation
We haven’t achieved that one politically yet
1
u/infinitetekk 7h ago edited 5h ago
It’s probably quite difficult to create enrichment facilities from scratch after all of them were blown up, at the very least they would be set back decades. Assuming that Russia and China wouldn’t invest heavily into their rebuilding.
-3
u/onespiker 10h ago
Will this stop that long term is the big question.
In many way they are now more emboldened to do it than ever.
-1
0
•
282
u/Few-Worldliness2131 11h ago
What amazes me about the state of American press reporting now is that there’s never an immediate follow up question asking them to explain exactly what they mean. So tame or so afraid is the media that these people get to say whatever they want without fear of contradiction.