Medvedev: Countries Ready To Supply Iran With Nukes \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

Medvedev: Countries Ready To Supply Iran With Nukes xcancel.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1936725544017567860

206 sats \ 10 comments \ @optimism 22 Jun Politics_And_Law

Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.

The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.

A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.

Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking.

The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon.

Iran’s political regime has survived — and in all likelihood, has come out even stronger.

The people are rallying around the country’s spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it.

Donald Trump, once hailed as ‘president of peace,’ has now pushed the US into another war.

The vast majority of countries around the world oppose the actions of Israel and the United States.

At this rate, Trump can forget about the Nobel Peace Prize — not even with how rigged it has become.

Re-read #3. Read it as "Russia is" instead of "A number of countries are". Ugh.

view all related items

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Jun

Russia's certainly the most likely, but why not China or Pakistan too?

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism OP 22 Jun

Because Medvedev doesn't speak for their security services, but he does for Russia. He cannot say "we're going to", so he tries to be sneaky lol

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 22 Jun

Gotcha. He might plausibly have information about what other countries are planning to do though.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism OP 22 Jun

The only 3 scenarios I can think of:

Some other country or countries told him and he wants them to NOT do it so he spills the beans on X.
His intelligence services spied on another country and he wants them to NOT do it so he spills the beans on X.
Russia is considering to deliver nukes to Iran and he tries to diffuse the source

Edit: or a combination of the above. Someone said they'd do it, he picks up on it with hard intel, publishes so they don't, and then Russia does it. Would be great cover because they have the intel to prove that "it wasn't us".

I'm still thinking the most likely is #3 here, but the other 2 are plausible. Russian politicians are well versed at multiple layers of deception.

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 22 Jun

I keep saying it: The deep-states goal is embroil the US in a 3 sided war.

Russia: Check Iran: Check China: TBA

This is how deep-state will counter Trumps mandate, and looks like he fell for it....

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism OP 22 Jun

Swamps be swampin.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @unschooled 22 Jun

The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.

I cant help thinking perhaps this wouldn't have happened had the western (Isreal's) propaganda machine had been more honest about Iran's nuclear capabilities. The thirty years delusion that Netanyahu has been peddling has been counter productive, to say the least. There's two main reasons.

First, trying to neuter a sovereign nation's enrichment of uranium during an era when nuclear power is clearly going to be a trump card vis a vis Ai, is most certainly a strategic move, not least because of the country's geographic position being a passage to Eastern markets. A sane person will realize this as the incentive and will consequently have to understand Iran won't give it up easily.

Secondly, if the Cold War era taught us anything, it is that M.A.D. is arguably the strongest incentive for global peace.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism OP 23 Jun

I cant help thinking perhaps this wouldn't have happened had the western (Isreal's) propaganda machine had been more honest about Iran's nuclear capabilities.

The words will continue sound to me like a carefully chose taunt, not sure if it is true or false, only that we can count on Medvedev trying to play 5D chess - not sure how good he is at that. But yes, if you're already found guilty of something without doing it and feeling the consequences, you might as well do it and actually be guilty. Then at least you'll also have the "pleasures" you're being punished for, not just the punishment.

That said, let's not pretend that the Iranian regime is proliferating peace and prosperity for the whole universe. They may have decided to develop the arms many years ago. We don't know when, and we'll probably never know the truth, simply because of the endless lies. This is why the enemy of the commoner isn't a particular state, it's all states.

if the Cold War era taught us anything, it is that M.A.D. is arguably the strongest incentive for global peace.

Is this what global peace looks like though? Growing up (in a nuclear armed country) during the Cold War, I've always felt that deterrence only worked on the homelands of nuclearly armed countries, and that the reason it worked was because the war hawks had non-nuclear playgrounds - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, to name a few, to lay waste to lives on. If there would have been total multilateral assured destruction, then the pessimist in me expects there to be actual nuclear wars and M.A.D. be damned. As long as people willfully subject themselves to leaders with war powers, there will be wars.

I also wonder if every regime would be capable of the restraint needed for not using their nuclear arms. I don't want to find out, tbh.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @unschooled 22h

if you're already found guilty of something without doing it and feeling the consequences, you might as well do it and actually be guilty.

I haven't yet seen any proof that they are "found guilty" of weaponizing their nuclear potential. Only that the US politicians can't seem to get their story straight about it. But if we should take Netanyahu at his word, then they should have had a weaponized nuclear arsenal 30 years ago, right?

I wouldn't claim it was a peaceful time, but I don't think by any stretch of the imagination it's hard to picture the carnage that would have ensued if for a moment the US or Russia hadn't believed their enemy blown them to smithereens.

My understanding is that, among those wars you listed, Iraq is a similar case, in that we were expected to believe that this was necessary in the name of "peace" in the M.E. to stop them from developing their nuclear capabilities. The isreali-american axis is very good at coercing once thriving nations into the peaceful third world. In fact, it demonstrates perfectly the lack of restraint you mentioned.

I know plenty of Americans as I do Iranians, and what I see from both is a rally around governments they were once very critical of. Nasty business, war.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism OP 21h

I haven't seen any proof either and I don't think we ever will: "there is no evidence because we successfully destroyed everything"... or something like that.

Iraq is a similar case

I meant the Iraq/Iran war of the 80's which was still during (the tail end of) the Cold War, as that was the near-decade-long theatre of destruction for a couple million lives.

But yeah, the US invasion under Bush Jr. was supposedly a lie - although I saw a comment here on SN this morning that refutes that and claims that it was all legit. Who knows... When there's an appearance that it's acceptable for leadership to lie to the people, then it doesn't really matter what the truth is. It just matters whether one gets to profit off the leadership in sufficient means to survive the next leadership. This is probably why they all love shitcoins.

I know plenty of Americans as I do Iranians, and what I see from both is a rally around governments they were once very critical of. Nasty business, war.

Yeah, add some nationalism to flavor it off and we'll never see the end of retards dancing in the streets at the demise of what their lords and masters told them was the enemy - also on both sides. The greater the massacre, the greater the party. Humanity really is a sad species.