Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain
Feb 18, 2026
A former senior U.S. intelligence official who is an informal advisor to the Trump administration on Middle East policy told Drop Site that, based on his discussions with current officials, he assesses an 80-90% likelihood of U.S. strikes within weeks.
Iran realizes that it is facing an unprecedented threat from the U.S. if a deal that conforms with Trump’s terms is not reached, former Pentagon official Jasmine El-Gamal told Drop Site. “This is not a dress rehearsal,” she said. “This is it. This is not the negotiations of last year or the year before or the year before that. They’re backed into a corner. There’s no off ramp.”
Its never been about anything Iran is doing. They have never had a nuclear weapons program.
Not that I support this action, but Don’t they have an enrichment facility with centrifuges?
They want nuclear energy, not weapons (though it’s pretty stupid for them, nukes are the only thing stopping US monster)
They have nuclear power plants that require enriched uranium.
If Iran wanted a nuclear bomb, instead of spending months trying to enrich Uranium beyond what’s required for power and medicine, they could simply chemically separate plutonium out from spent fuel.
A uranium bomb is easier to develop and mass producing enriched uranium with existing centrifuges is as well.
The reports from the IAEA clearly showed Iran had put their centrifuges in a cascade to make as much weapons grade uranium from mid 2024 to the attacks last summer.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-stock-near-bomb-grade-uranium-grows-sharply-iaea-report-shows-2025-02-26/
That’s how any uranium enrichment works, each centrifuge only enriches the uranium by like .3%. They have a cascade that enriches to 60%, which is what the NPT allows. Weapons grade is 90%.
As replied to your other comment, your claim seems like a big fat lie
No one needs 60% unless they want to make a bomb
60% was chosen as the limit for the NPT because it has non-weapons purpose and cannot be used to create a bomb without a shitton more refinement.
Can you give a source where 60% “was chosen”?
It seems you’re sidestepping because you’ve been caught in a lie
(Also, 60 to 90 does not a shitton more refinement need ;-) )
Yeah, and Iraq is totally producing weapons of mass destruction
You can find the reports yourself on the IAEA site
Sorry you got duped about Iraq. Did you get your news from Reuters?
“Heh, no u” you empire simps are pathetic
Do you think the IAEA falsified their reports? Not even Iran is making that claim, so you’re just simping into the wind lol
This is just “no u” again, boring
I wouldn’t take a Lemmy comment as evidence either way.
Can you explain why they were mass producing weapons-grade uranium?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mg7kx2d45o
They weren’t, weapons grade is 90, 60 is what is permitted by the NPT agreement, which is what they were enriching to.
Well I don’t really expect you to answer the question why they would be enriching to 60 anymore, but could you give a source on your claim that “this would be permitted by the NPT agreement”?
My guess is that that’s a big fat lie
Here the treaty in question to get you started
edit: here’s the IAEA resolution explicitly stating that Iran was in breach of the NPT safeguards agreement. I’m really interested in your sources that refute this
That resolution refers to the requirements set by the 2019 agreement after the Trump unilaterally tore up the previous, multilateral agreement. America does not get to dictate what other states are allowed to do.
Yeah but can you back up your claim that Iran was permitted 60% ‘under the NPT’?
It seems you’re sidestepping because you’ve been caught in a lie