Bharat Rakshak

There are some reports that Iran has seized an India-bound ship which violated "navigation guidance". At some point, ROW will turn against Iran. I believe Iran understands that ultimately it may not be able to extort by the end of this war.

Dismantle the weapons, extract the usable parts, develop your own triggers and controls.

They did not need to maintain 1900 weapons. 100 would do. If Pakistan and North Korea could afford them, so could Ukraine.

SRajesh wrote: ↑22 Apr 2026 12:19 Amber Gji
The same Lisbon Protocol amnd Budapest agreement made erstwhile SU to withdraw weapons and warheads from Belarus and Kazaksthan.
Kazak was their major testing and production site and housed lots of ICBM.
And no one has engineered Colourful revolution in these coiuntries yet!!
Probably a tougher nut to crack!!
Also they have claimed any ownership or loss of 'bum', yet!!

Good question - but read what I wrote - and main answer is ..In Physics (in logic/commonsense too).

Kazakhstan was essentially - Where the bombs were tested and uranium came from.
Belarus was essentially - A forward basing location for Soviet missiles.
While Ukraine — industrial + scientific hub (Just tor comparison)

• Missile design & manufacturing (Dnipro/Yuzhmash)
  Large nuclear engineering workforce
  Multiple power reactors
  Strong theoretical physics tradition (Kharkiv, Kyiv)
  Scientists & knowledge base Deep and broad eg - Physics (world class - MIT type), reactor physics, Aerospace engineering ityadi ...

Among the three, Ukraine was uniquely positioned to potentially evolve into an independent nuclear weapons state.

Kazakhstan had critical pieces (test site, uranium) but lacked integration
Belarus had almost none of the underlying capability

Makes a difference..
- Amber G.

For those who are interested in the Budapest Memorandum,

"In 2013, the government of Belarus complained that American sanctions against it were in breach of Article 3 of the Memorandum. The US government responded that its sanctions were targeted at combating human rights violations and other illicit activities of the government of Belarus and not the population of Belarus, and also noted that the Memorandum is "not legally binding""

Also note, South Africa was previously a nuclear nation. No Colour Revolution there.

A_Gupta wrote: ↑22 Apr 2026 22:25 Dismantle the weapons, extract the usable parts, develop your own triggers and controls.

They did not need to maintain 1900 weapons. 100 would do. If Pakistan and North Korea could afford them, so could Ukraine.

Besides Ukraine had >200 Kg of HEU (some of it > 90%)..which it did not return to Moscow till 2012..

Au contraire there was definitely a colour revolution in South Africa. Hehehe.

skumar wrote: ↑22 Apr 2026 20:49 <snip>

Will not spend a new post on Ukraine - we could continue in another thread.

Amber G. wrote: ↑22 Apr 2026 06:05 ***** Just for those who are interested some technical details - putting my physics hat -- skip if not interested ***
At the time of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine had -
...
Delivery systems:
---

Perhaps Ukraine could have used the 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads as battering rams dropping them from the sky from 44 Tu-95/Tu-160 bombers.
You have not answered the question - what approach could Ukraine have taken to operationalize its arsenal?
Option 1 -Hacking is not what it is today and the weapons would have fail safes that prevented tampering with disastrous consequences.
Option 2 - Development of a nuclear weapon from scratch would have taken years even with Nobel winning scientists. Any attempt to re-use would have attendant risks similar to hacking. It would taken money that Ukraine did not have at that point.
Option 3 -?

As a new born country in 1991 when NPT pressure was at its peak, Ukraine did not want to be a pariah state pursuing a nuclear weapons program against the major powers when it wanted their support to survive and needed whatever money was there for survival. They made a pragmatic decision and smartly, a virtue out of their necessity.

Zero interest in debating for debating's sake..If you can form the questions in a clear and coherent way, I can try to answer. Ii Is not clear what are you asking - which I have not answered.

Option 1 & 2 - Are comments ( nonsensical in my opinion) - not coherent questions.
Also see - See Guptaji or my comments above..

****
If Interested please read on - relevant in current situation for thinking:

The Soviet system was deliberately distributed:

Russia → design, control, enrichment, reprocessing
Ukraine → delivery systems, industry, science
Kazakhstan → testing, uranium
Belarus → forward deployment

Ukraine did *not* only have ~4,500–5,000 warheads - It's role in USSR system was Industry + deployment, and scientific depths VERY high... seriously talking about "Any attempt to re-use would have attendant risks similar to hacking" type comments are laughable.

It does not have U in huge supply and nor enrichment facilities ... but it *had* > 200 Kg of HEU from soviet era - which they did not return to Moscow (after 2010 treaty) till 2012. Also didn't I poste before.. It had *many* power reactors (to get Pu if they *really* wanted). ..And yes (easy to check out - or ask any physicist/scientist) civilian research reactors (by design/modifications and consistent with its nonproliferation commitments) now not HEU-fueled)..

As Guptaji said "If Pakistan and North Korea could afford them, so could Ukraine.:..."

Amber G. wrote: ↑22 Apr 2026 23:49
Besides Ukraine had >200 Kg of HEU (some of it > 90%)..which it did not return to Moscow till 2012..

The largest uranium processing facility of the Soviet Union was the Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant located in Kamianske, Ukraine. So it certainly had the means to enrich uranium from scratch. Couple that with reactors such as Chernobyl, Zaporizhzhia etc it could get HEU and plutonium. After that it’s just conventional bomb making…

True, Ukraine certainly had capability - but just to clarify ..

(Of course your basic premise is true - for Ukraine it was not a question of capability - it was their choice. I am just putting some more details for the record)

PChP (located in Kamianske) was a uranium milling and processing facility, not an enrichment facility. It processed raw uranium ore into "yellowcake" (uranium oxide). During the Soviet era, all enrichment plants were located in the Russian SFSR. Ukraine, AFAIK has never possessed an industrial-scale uranium enrichment plant.

Ukraine also did not and does not have a commercial or military-scale spent fuel reprocessing plant. (During the Soviet era, spent fuel from Ukrainian reactors was shipped back to Russia for reprocessing or storage.) Without a reprocessing plant, the plutonium remains "locked" inside highly radioactive spent fuel rods, which cannot "easily" be handled or used for a bomb ( needs specialized industrial infrastructure)

Ukraine has remained a non-nuclear weapon state under the NPT since 1994.

I did not fully realize it but what @Tannji said is true -- (Putting here for reference)
- Ukraine actually has one of the larger uranium resource bases in Europe.
- Estimated resources - roughly 100,000–200,000 tonnes of uranium (U)
- Main mining region - central Ukraine (Kirovohrad area)

- geologically, Ukraine is not resource-poor.

-Production ~–1,000 tonnes U per year (varies with conditions)
-Ukraine’s nuclear fleet needs roughly: ~2,000–2,500 tonnes U per year (natural uranium equivalent)
~ Domestic production covers ~30–40% of needs

My point of bringing these kind of deals - They make sense, in my opinion, provided we do not have exceptions like Trump or Putin.

sharing (and recommending) a nice article - to get basics and important back ground.

Explainer: US-Israel war on Iran

Al Jazeera spoke with MIT professor Ted Postol about what Iran could do with its 440kg of 60 percent enriched uranium.

What is uranium enrichment and how quickly could Iran build a nuclear bomb?

I think it is easy to read, scientifically correct. (Basically saying what I have been posting here - In one place!

The article explains that uranium enrichment is the process of increasing the proportion of uranium-235 (the fissile isotope) from its natural level (~0.7%) to higher concentrations.
• Low levels (3–5%) are used for nuclear power.
• Higher levels (20% and especially 60%) significantly shorten the technical path to weapons-grade (~90%) material.
A key point is that enrichment is nonlinear: once a country reaches around 60%, most of the difficult separative work is already done, so moving to 90% can be relatively quick.

On Iran specifically, the article notes:
• Iran has accumulated hundreds of kilograms of uranium enriched up to ~60%, which is close to weapons-relevant levels.
• This stockpile could theoretically be sufficient for multiple nuclear weapons if further enriched.

On timelines, the article distinguishes between material production and weaponization:
• Breakout time (producing weapons-grade uranium):
Could be weeks to a few months, given existing 60% stockpiles and centrifuge capacity.
• Actual nuclear weapon (usable bomb):
Would take longer, because it requires:
o weapon design and engineering
o explosive systems and triggering mechanisms
o potential miniaturization for delivery
So enrichment alone does not equal an immediate bomb, but it drastically reduces the time needed if a decision were made.

Finally, the article emphasizes the political and strategic ambiguity:
• Iran maintains its program is civilian and allowed under the NPT.
• Western governments worry that the shortened breakout time creates a near “threshold nuclear state,” where a bomb could be built quickly if policy changed.
(Yes it talks about JCPOA and all that)


The piece’s core message is simple:
• Enrichment is the hardest technical step.
• Iran has already done most of that work.
• The remaining gap to a bomb is short in time, but still significant in complexity and intent.

****
Some figures from here:

The above still does not answer the question: how long before Iran develops a few working bombs?

The above summary seems to say that it could be as long as a year, six months, or what?

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 05:05 The above still does not answer the question: how long before Iran develops a few working bombs?

The above summary seems to say that it could be as long as a year, six months, or what?

The reason the summary doesn't give a "hard date" is that scientists are not astrologers . As Richard Feynman, one the best professor I ever had, once said:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.

In physics, we can tell you exactly how long it takes for a centrifuge to spin U_235 to 90%. That is a technical "breakout" time. But a "working bomb" is a political, engineering, and strategic choice. To predict a date is to claim you can read the minds of a dozen Iranian generals and the stability of their supply chains.

When people demand a specific date, they aren't looking for science; they are looking for prophecy.

---
The danger of demanding a specific "day and month" is that it leads to the kind of absolute certainty that rarely survives contact with reality. For example, look at the history of political "predictions"

• Trump (The stable genius and No Obumber Hussain) Example - In June 2025, He claimed that 14 bunker-buster bombs had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. He spoke with total certainty, suggesting the threat was gone.

• The Reality - By early 2026, the US and Israel were back at the brink of war because those "obliterated" facilities were still processing enriched uranium.

Just right now WH (Pete Hegseth) actually FIRED Navy Sec John Phelan. Termination effective immediately. This article does not predict how long the blockade will (or will not) last,,..

Seriously, if a scientist tells you it could be "six months to a year," they are giving you an honest assessment of technical capability. If a politician tells you it is "definitely 42 days" or "definitely destroyed," they are selling you a narrative.

As Feynman would put it, the moment you lose the "freedom to doubt," you lose the ability to actually see the problem. Iran is a "threshold state"—they have the ingredients on the kitchen counter, but nobody can tell you exactly when (or if) they’ll decide to turn on the oven.

Amber G.-
I am comfortable with not knowing. I believe that as soon as a scientist claims to know exactly what will happen in a complex political or social system, they have stopped being a scientist and started being a "pompous fraud.

Physicists are too timid. Here is distilled wisdom, July 19, 2016.

"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

^^^ Pesh hai - Great Negotiator .."Megh Updates

"Iranians are now beating US in AI game also - best negotiation video on social media today"

Amber G. wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 00:44 Zero interest in debating for debating's sake..If you can form the questions in a clear and coherent way, I can try to answer. Ii Is not clear what are you asking - which I have not answered.

Option 1 & 2 - Are comments ( nonsensical in my opinion) - not coherent questions.
Also see - See Guptaji or my comments above..

****
If Interested please read on - relevant in current situation for thinking:

The Soviet system was deliberately distributed:

Russia → design, control, enrichment, reprocessing
Ukraine → delivery systems, industry, science
Kazakhstan → testing, uranium
Belarus → forward deployment

Ukraine did *not* only have ~4,500–5,000 warheads - It's role in USSR system was Industry + deployment, and scientific depths VERY high... seriously talking about "Any attempt to re-use would have attendant risks similar to hacking" type comments are laughable.

It does not have U in huge supply and nor enrichment facilities ... but it *had* > 200 Kg of HEU from soviet era - which they did not return to Moscow (after 2010 treaty) till 2012. Also didn't I poste before.. It had *many* power reactors (to get Pu if they *really* wanted). ..And yes (easy to check out - or ask any physicist/scientist) civilian research reactors (by design/modifications and consistent with its nonproliferation commitments) now not HEU-fueled)..

As Guptaji said "If Pakistan and North Korea could afford them, so could Ukraine.:..."

Taking it to the "International Nuclear Watch & Discussion" topic. Follow link below.

skumar wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 07:53

Amber G. wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 07:52 ^^^ Pesh hai - Great Negotiator .."Megh Updates

"Iranians are now beating US in AI game also - best negotiation video on social media today"

THere was an A.I video from the same Iranians's that showed world leaders rebuking Trump. But when it came to Japan they did not show Sanae Takaichi, but showed a Male character. That's the level of Mindset of these Jihadi's that they cannot show a Female PM and that too without headcovered.

The Helicopter is not much. Need to put Prachand on some ships. Since the only helicopter with Helina is the IA variant, this can be deployed as well.
https://x.com/VinodDX9/status/2042618620724076613
IN must be looking at arming their Naval variant with Helina. Or place order for few more Naval variants armed with Helina and guns.
IN Surface vessels should be looking at fitting Nag variants or even MPATGM onto ships to take out IRGC Swarm vessel attacks.

https://x.com/i/status/2046974300822106370
@sidhant
Indian vessel Desh Garima that crossed Hormuz, & was escorted by the Indian Navy. Visuals:

Amber Gji
Can I put a question :
What are the implications of Eyeran acquiring nuclear capability !!
Looking at some of the existing info:
1. They seem to have fairly adeuqate delivery systems looking at the recent lobbing of missilies at Isreal.
2. They have sequestered fair amount of enriched U
3. Proves they have the knowhow to jump 60 to 90
4. A Oil for tech probably had been place for a while and as usual US turned a blind eye to (just like Pak and NoKo deals)
5. Chinese have been working silently with boots on ground so to speak for Tech upgrade
When the most difficult step is 0 to 20% , it was not stopped now as the saying goes Once the Tiger has tasted Human Flesh its hard for it to go back, its just Smoke on the Water all these exercises isnt it??

This is where fire and Forget Nag/Helina will be of use. Around 35-36 boats.
https://x.com/i/status/2047264966785564831
@ShivAroor
Crazy satellite photo of a Iranian fast attack boat swarm yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz. #NDTVDatafy

BREAKING: US Military BOARDS & CAPTURES Second Iran-Linked Oil Tanker In DRAMATIC Sea Seizure |Watch
U.S. forces have seized another tanker allegedly linked to Iranian oil smuggling, escalating tensions just hours after reported attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. The vessel, Majestic X, was intercepted in the Indian Ocean as part of a wider crackdown on networks tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pentagon footage shows forces boarding the ship in a dramatic operation at sea. With global shipping lanes under pressure, this latest move signals rising stakes in a rapidly intensifying maritime standoff.

SRajesh wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 10:39 Amber Gji
Can I put a question :
What are the implications of Eyeran acquiring nuclear capability !!
Looking at some of the existing info:
1. They seem to have fairly adeuqate delivery systems looking at the recent lobbing of missilies at Isreal.
2. They have sequestered fair amount of enriched U
3. Proves they have the knowhow to jump 60 to 90
4. A Oil for tech probably had been place for a while and as usual US turned a blind eye to (just like Pak and NoKo deals)
5. Chinese have been working silently with boots on ground so to speak for Tech upgrade
When the most difficult step is 0 to 20% , it was not stopped now as the saying goes Once the Tiger has tasted Human Flesh its hard for it to go back, its just Smoke on the Water all these exercises isnt it??

Short answer — It’s difficult to provide a "hard" answer to what you are asking because, as I’ve noted before, physicists aren't astrologers.

FWIW, one can guess without reading minds in Tehran:

Political vs. Technical - Iran officially maintains their program is for civilian use (consistent with NPT). While they’ve proven the "know-how" to jump from 60% to 90% (the hardest part of enrichment is indeed the 0-20% stage), enrichment alone does not equal a usable bomb.

The "Final Mile" - To have a "capability," you still need weaponization — which involves specialized metallurgy, high-explosive triggering mechanisms, and miniaturization for those delivery systems you mentioned.

Strategic Ambiguity - By staying at the "threshold," they gain the leverage of a nuclear state without the immediate international consequences of a test.

As for the "Oil for Tech" or "Chinese boots" — these are strategic realities, but until they turn on the "oven," it remains a high-stakes game of smoke on the water.

— Amber G.

Amber G. wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 06:16

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 05:05 The above still does not answer the question: how long before Iran develops a few working bombs?

The above summary seems to say that it could be as long as a year, six months, or what?

The reason the summary doesn't give a "hard date" is that scientists are not astrologers . As Richard Feynman, one the best professor I ever had, once said: ...
Amber G.-
I am comfortable with not knowing. I believe that as soon as a scientist claims to know exactly what will happen in a complex political or social system, they have stopped being a scientist and started being a "pompous fraud.

So you don't know. You claimed previously that Moniz-(MIT trained Iranian Nuc scientist) mediated JCPOA had a "hard date" of one year before breakout and Trump shouldn't have walked out of the deal.

That is contradictory to what you are saying now that external factors make it uncertain.

How can you say for sure that Trump's decision was bad at that time?

I respectfully request that you, sir, please to avoid AI slop in your answer.

To that end, here is an MCQ.

Q: How long before Iran produces a few working bombs, i.e., getting the designed yield is (with a probability of (0.5 + \epsilon)) that it can deal a death blow to Israel?

A. 0-30 days
B. 31-180 days
C. 181-360 days
D. Greater that 360 days
E. I can only give only probablities for each of the above durations, i.e., expected time
F. I don't know
G. None of the above
H. All of the above

Thanks

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑24 Apr 2026 02:38

Amber G. wrote: ↑23 Apr 2026 06:16

The reason the summary doesn't give a "hard date" is that scientists are not astrologers . As Richard Feynman, one the best professor I ever had, once said: ...
Amber G.-
I am comfortable with not knowing. I believe that as soon as a scientist claims to know exactly what will happen in a complex political or social system, they have stopped being a scientist and started being a "pompous fraud.

So you don't know. You claimed previously that Moniz-(MIT trained Iranian Nuc scientist) mediated JCPOA had a "hard date" of one year before breakout and Trump shouldn't have walked out of the deal.

That is contradictory to what you are saying now that external factors make it uncertain.

How can you say for sure that Trump's decision was bad at that time?

I respectfully request that you, sir, please to avoid AI slop in your answer.

To that end, here is an MCQ.

Q: How long before Iran produces a few working bombs, i.e., getting the designed yield is (0.5 + \epsilon) that it can deal a death blow to Israel?

A. 0-30 days
B. 31-180 days
C. 181-360 days
D. Greater that 360 days
E. I can only give only probablities for each of the above durations, i.e., expected time
F. I don't know
G. None of the above
H. All of the above

Thanks

"One year" was the calculated engineering constraint of a treaty (breakout time), not a prophecy. A physicist knows the difference between a centrifuge flow rate and a political decision. One is math; the other is, as I said, "astrology."

As for your MCQ: I don't provide dates for "death blows" because I deal in physics, not fan fiction. These transparent "gotcha" <worse kind of trolling> tactics are stale , contribute nothing to the technical discussion, and will be ignored hereafter.

Amber G. - "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"

The question achieved its purpose. Nobody is forcing you to answer a probing question. Nevertheless, it stands.

> Q: How long before Iran produces a few working bombs, i.e., getting the designed yield is (0.5 + \epsilon) that it can deal a death blow to Israel?

It is a political decision to "deal a death blow to Israel" not an engineering or physics one. For example, India has had the capability to deal a death blow to Pakistan for decades.

^^Reporter: Would you use a nuclear weapon against Iran?

Trump:

No,Why would a stupid question like that be asked? Why would l use a nuclear weapon when we’ve totally decimated Iran without it? A nuclear weapon should never be allowed to be used by anybody.
\ “There’s nothing worse than a nuclear weapon that takes out cities, destroys the Middle East; or creates a nuclear holocaust in Europe. The missiles will reach us at some point unless we stop them now.”

There is a UNDP report that 30 million+ (about 8 million in India) will go back into poverty due to the strait being blocked. The issue that has baffled me, is why has India and GCC countries along with most directly impacted not used their assets to enforce FON? If Indian Navy is to be the net security provider of the IOR, this was a suitable candidate to show our flag and further Indian interests and its power. Of course nothing is without risks.

Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will mean Uncle Xi made a decision and shipped some over (same as for Pakistan). It will mean Taiwan returns to China and end of the petro $.

@Arun_G ji, thanks for understanding.

Yes, I agree and am aware that "Dealing a death blow" is a political decision.

So let me rephrase my question to focus on what scientists and engineers can "calculate".

Assumptions:
1. Trump fails to achieve his objectives
2. Iran has enough infra, money, and scientific resources for weaponization
3. They have enough 60% U to make say number of bombs which have a higher than even chance to be non-duds
4. They cannot weaponize in x weeks or in y months. I arbitrarily picked x to be 4 and y to be 12.

Question: How much time do Israel and the US have before the powers that be in Iran come to a political decision to drop nuclear weapons on Israel and the US bases they can reach in the Middle East?

Please note that Iran has to be sure of the reliability of the weapons and also the number that they can deliver in a short period of time (in a matter of hours) to their targets.

If Iran overstimates its capability and fails to achieve their objectives, it would cease to exist as a country. Conversely, if they drag their feet, they will run the risk of getting bombed again and might lose the weaponized bombs and delivery platforms in a US-Israel first strike, which may or may not be necessarily nuclear.

vera_k wrote: ↑24 Apr 2026 06:12 Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will mean Uncle Xi made a decision and shipped some over (same as for Pakistan). It will mean Taiwan returns to China and end of the petro $.

That is very insightful. This could have happened even with JCPOA in place. So why did China hold back?

There is a WSJ article today about potential US inability to defend Taiwan because weapons are being used up against Iran. If that's the case, then an aspiring nuclear Iran is a great monkey jar trap for both Israel and the US. Therefore Iran can go nuclear courtesy China once Chinese objectives are met.

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑24 Apr 2026 06:14
Question: How much time do Israel and the US have before the powers that be in Iran come to a political decision to drop nuclear weapons on Israel and the US bases they can reach in the Middle East?

Nuclear weapons are best used as a threat by these types for self-preservation of their regime, its interests and wider agendas. Its actual use would underwrite their own end and they know it. Pakistan and N. Korea are examples. In the case of Iran, its primary use would be to restrain Israel and US conventional responses to sub-conventional attacks by Iran. Unfortunately and evidentially, democratic states fall for it.

One of the things that US Barack Hussein Obama did was to side with Iran of all nations against Israel. He could have picked Iraq or Saudi A but he went with Iran. The reason being China. JCPOA is a cover he provided with enough cashpiles to Iran and also removed sanctions on Iran. But the ulterior motive happens to be to get China working more closely and clandestinely towards nuclear bomb making to threaten Israel. Bomb making is beyond nuclear enrichment of uranium, we are talking about sophisticated machinery, explosives, designs for make core (this requires umpteen computer similation data gladly provided by Cheens). These are not monitored per JCPOA since it is about known nuclear plants. The baksheeh trail of china towards US political people is a well known path, billy boy got the benefits for the Puke-China nuclear help. I don't know why the US Jewish people supported the Dems against Israel, the dems already are infiltrated by the Islamic cadre of US including Ilhan Omar. Ironically the Dems are against Netanyahu of Israel and indirectly are rooting for the destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile:
Iran hits out at Trump for hellhole comment on India by a Trump supporter.

China and India are the cradles of Civilization. In fact, the #hellhole is where its war-criminal president threatened to decimate the civilization in Iran.

No matter the result of the eyeraan conflict, a rabid trump and his vengeful cabinet are coming after Modi ji, and India for sure

they need to teach someone a lesson for their self generated debacle and failure to prevail and India, under the current energy constrained situation and deteriorating geopolitical framework, is their best best bet to implement just such an agenda

such gourmet machinations will place India's economy and geopolitical options under some very real stress by rocking the boat(s) in nepal, beediland, NE, and SL, via the culinary institute, and pukestan via the reckless failed marshal

even a lame dick potus, malevolently coasting through the remainder of his impotent term, does not need congress's approval to unleash his caged clandestine cohort of cockroaches to destabilise India and make the GoI very uncomfortable

chetak wrote: ↑24 Apr 2026 14:26 No matter the result of the eyeraan conflict, a rabid trump and his vengeful cabinet are coming after Modi ji, and India for sure

they need to teach someone a lesson for their self generated debacle and failure to prevail and India, under the current energy constrained situation and deteriorating geopolitical framework, is their best best bet to implement just such an agenda

such gourmet machinations will place India's economy and geopolitical options under some very real stress

Ram Madhav: "India agreed to stop buying oil from Iran. We agreed to stop buying oil from Russia despite so much criticism from our opposition. India agreed to a 50% tariff without saying too much. So where exactly is India not doing enough to work with America?" questions Ram Madhav

https://x.com/MattooShashank/status/204 ... 05062?s=20

: