3 months ago

https://rad-patriot.com/8386/mit-prof-ted-postol-can-we-believe-trump-admins-narrative-on-irans-nuke-sites-no/
(My initial information suggested that Trump's quick assessment of the attack on Iran's nuclear enrichment program was full of holes. Yes, the surface buildings were probably all destroyed, yet it was doubtful that the actual deep underground labs were seriously affected. Iran had obviously gone to great expense and long ago implemented a strategy to protect their enrichment program. A lot of questions are being asked about the legality & effectiveness of the invasion of Iran by Israel & the US.

Theodore Postol is retired Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. He did his undergraduate work in physics and his graduate work in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Postol joined the staff of Argonne National Laboratory, where he studied the microscopic dynamics and structure of liquids and disordered solids using neutron, x-ray and light scattering, along with computer molecular dynamics techniques. Subsequently he went to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment to study methods of basing the MX Missile, and later worked as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations. After leaving the Pentagon, Dr. Postol helped to build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study developments in weapons technology of relevance to defense and arms control policy. In 1990 Dr. Postol was awarded the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society. In 1995 he received the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses.

As you can see, Professor Postol is well qualified to analyze the Pentagon's briefing and point out the deceptions and question the perceived effectiveness of Trump's mission. As you listen, there is no way that Trump could have known how effective the B-2 strike was so quickly. We do have very advanced infrared monitoring technologies that could shed light on how effective the bombing might have been, yet it is doubtful that this info will be made public, especially since it is unlikely to support Trump's assessment. — RAD)

Less than a week ago, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered B-2 bombers to drop massive bunker-buster bombs (GBU-57s) on an underground Iranian nuclear site. The Pentagon's narrative, presented by Defense Secretary Hegsth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Kaine, portrayed the operation as a product of 15 years of preparation and intelligence gathering, focusing on one deeply buried facility believed to be central to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers attacked the Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites in the night between June 21 & 22, 2025.

The key takeaway from the Pentagon’s briefing
The target site had been under surveillance since 2009.

It was believed to house uranium enrichment equipment inside a fortified mountain.

The Pentagon worked for years to develop the GBU-57 to destroy such hardened targets.

Officials claimed the bombs hit their intended locations and described the strike as flawless.

Counter-analysis by Prof. Ted Postol (MIT, Ret.)
Postol suggests the Pentagon is likely engaging in deception, not just misinformation.

He acknowledges the years of planning but believes key technical people were not consulted before the public briefing.

He argues that the evidence suggests the bombs did not succeed in destroying the intended underground targets.

He highlights that Iran anticipated the strike and installed ultra-high-performance concrete caps on ventilation shafts, showing technical sophistication and strategic preparedness.

These concrete structures contain embedded fibers that prevent critical cracking, making them especially resistant to penetration by bunker-buster bombs.

Postol says if the uranium had been present, the Iranians would’ve had to be "spectacularly incompetent" to leave it unprotected, which he finds highly implausible.

Conclusion
The operation was meticulously planned, but according to Postol, the actual effect of the bombing may not match the Pentagon’s narrative. He raises serious doubts about whether the bombs truly destroyed the underground facility or if the mission's success has been overstated for political purposes.

Loading 1 comment...