Iran Reportedly Warns Apple is Among Potential Targets

[BaldiMac]

You seem to measure national security on the word of a 34 times convicted felon. Is that a logical position?

Why not give the felon, fraud, and liar the benefit of the doubt? 😂

 

[steve62388]

The Steve that does not rely on the straw man fallacies is the winner here. So it’s 333 over 62388 in this case.

Let him answer the question, or you can try. Although I doubt you have a coherent answer.

 

[steve62388]

Their military has been severely downgraded. Know now that they had missiles with twice the distance they said before, you would feel better leaving the regime in place and allowing them to finally get the ballistic missile able to reach the U.S. and add a nuclear warhead to it?
NATO is bey9ind worthless and now they have proven it, so we will spend less money defending worthless allies and more money on our own military. Win-win.
There comes a time when nations have to act and Iran has been at war with us for 47 years, this time we have someone in Office who will finally meet that threat, not hand them billions of dollars like Obama The Appeaser and DEI Joe.

American growth since WW2 has benefited from having these allies.

The administration can’t admonish their allies, take aggressive steps against them, and then cry for their help. That’s one of the reasons why nobody is coming to your aid now.

You now look at China as your geopolitical competition, but your former allies are already making closer ties with China, because they are being seen as a more reliable partner. This strengthens China and weakens the us.

I really don’t know why you can’t see that denigrating what are supposed to be your allies will only weaken you in the long term. It’s so obvious.

 

[Velli]

Semantics? It's a literal fact. If there was "rampant" inflation the Federal Reserve would be raising interest rates ... like they did under Biden. We may experience serious inflation at some point in the future, but to make that claim right now is just wrong.

Getting hung up on the literal meaning of the word rather than the content of the argument is the definition of semantics… literally.

This war is increasing the cost of living, right now. THAT is a fact.

Anyway, it is interesting (and sad) to me that some people would exchange national security in exchange for $1 at the gas pumps.

This is because you refuse the notion that this war does not, in fact, increase national security. It does the opposite. You are paying to get a kick in the balls.

 

[Imperial926]

From which information do you understand that? The numbers I can find shows US gas prices up by 40% vs 20% in most western countries. US increase is lower in dollars, but much higher as a percentage, since the US price is so much lower (less than half, even after the price hike).

As for Artemis, yes that’s how you keep a population contempt while you hold them down. Why do you think Middle East countries spend billions upon billions on sports events?

I prefer bragging about our free health care, rather than basking in glory over Andreas Mogensen.

This from various sources: -
As of April 2026, both US and UK petrol prices have seen record surges due to Middle East conflict-driven oil price volatility, with US prices surpassing $4 per gallon for the first time in years
and UK petrol jumping by over 20p per litre in a single month.

BBC +2
US Petrol Price Update

• Price Level: Average US fuel prices have exceeded $4 a gallon, with sharp increases from roughly $2.98 just a month prior.
• Regional Variance: Prices are higher in some areas, such as California averaging over $5 per gallon.
• Cause: The rise is driven by supply concerns during the current conflict in Iran, with oil prices recently hitting $110 a barrel.
  
  
  BBC +2

UK Petrol Price Update

• Price Level: The average cost for a litre of unleaded petrol in the UK rose to around 152.83p in March, with further upward pressure, following a 20p per litre increase.
• Price Shock: This increase is regarded as an "unprecedented" monthly record, surpassing the 2022 energy crisis.
• Comparison: UK fuel remains significantly more expensive than US prices due to higher taxation.
  
  
  Yahoo Finance UK +4

Key Takeaway
Both nations are experiencing severe price hikes due to oil market instability, but UK consumers face a higher cost per litre compared to the US, which benefits from lower domestic taxes and high production.

 

[Velli]

This from various sources: -
As of April 2026, both US and UK petrol prices have seen record surges due to Middle East conflict-driven oil price volatility, with US prices surpassing $4 per gallon for the first time in years
and UK petrol jumping by over 20p per litre in a single month.
View attachment 2619218BBC +2
US Petrol Price Update

• Price Level: Average US fuel prices have exceeded $4 a gallon, with sharp increases from roughly $2.98 just a month prior.
• Regional Variance: Prices are higher in some areas, such as California averaging over $5 per gallon.
• Cause: The rise is driven by supply concerns during the current conflict in Iran, with oil prices recently hitting $110 a barrel.
  View attachment 2619220BBC +2

UK Petrol Price Update

• Price Level: The average cost for a litre of unleaded petrol in the UK rose to around 152.83p in March, with further upward pressure, following a 20p per litre increase.
• Price Shock: This increase is regarded as an "unprecedented" monthly record, surpassing the 2022 energy crisis.
• Comparison: UK fuel remains significantly more expensive than US prices due to higher taxation.
  View attachment 2619219Yahoo Finance UK +4

Key Takeaway
Both nations are experiencing severe price hikes due to oil market instability, but UK consumers face a higher cost per litre compared to the US, which benefits from lower domestic taxes and high production.

This does not back up your statement.

 

[Madhatter32]

This is because you refuse the notion that this war does not, in fact, increase national security. It does the opposite. You are paying to get a kick in the balls.

Per the WSJ editorial board April 1, 2026 with regard to Trump's address to the nation: The strongest argument for bombing Iran is to deny the radical regime a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump made the case with vigor. You can nitpick that he exaggerated the immediacy of when Iran would have a bomb or have missiles capable of hitting America. But only a naif would believe the ayatollahs weren’t set on both. Someone had to stop them, and Mr. Trump acted when other Presidents and world leaders would not.

 

[steve62388]

Per the WSJ editorial board April 1, 2026 with regard to Trump's address to the nation: The strongest argument for bombing Iran is to deny the radical regime a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump made the case with vigor. You can nitpick that he exaggerated the immediacy of when Iran would have a bomb or have missiles capable of hitting America. But only a naif would believe the ayatollahs weren’t set on both. Someone had to stop them, and Mr. Trump acted when other Presidents and world leaders would not.

The JCPOA was working, the IAEA confirmed that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. Guess who ripped up the JCPOA?

After the bombings in 2025 trump said “it a was a virtual obliteration”, and the U.S. strikes had set back the Iranian nuclear program "basically decades”. Was he lying, mistaken, or exaggerating? If you’re back there now it has to be one of those.

 

[surferfb]

Per the WSJ editorial board April 1, 2026 with regard to Trump's address to the nation: The strongest argument for bombing Iran is to deny the radical regime a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump made the case with vigor. You can nitpick that he exaggerated the immediacy of when Iran would have a bomb or have missiles capable of hitting America. But only a naif would believe the ayatollahs weren’t set on both. Someone had to stop them, and Mr. Trump acted when other Presidents and world leaders would not.

Let me translate the WSJ into the world of reality.

"The strongest argument for bombing Iran is to deny the radical regime a nuclear weapon" - We'll completely ignore the fact that the administration claims they did that nine months ago. And don't look at JCPOA - which Trump tore up because he's an idiot.
"Mr. Trump made the case with vigor" - I mean, we all saw the speech, if that's vigor I'd like whatever drugs the WSJ Editorial board is on.
"You can nitpick that exaggerated the immediacy...." - "We're ok with the President lying us into a war because he's a Republican"
"Only a naif would believe the ayatollahs weren't set on both" - No one thinks they weren't. Just that they were far, far away from obtaining the goal.
"Someone had to stop them, and Mr. Trump acted when other President's and world leaders would not." - "We know stopping them wasn't worth the cost, given they were so faraway from obtaining their goal, (which is why every President including Donald Trump in his first term didn't do what Trump just did) but we're part of the 35% of dead enders who would applaud him for literally anything, even throwing our families in jail, so we like it!"

 

[Madhatter32]

After the bombings in 2025 trump said “it a was a virtual obliteration”, and the U.S. strikes had set back the Iranian nuclear program "basically decades”. Was he lying, mistaken, or exaggerating? If you’re back there now it has to be one of those.

Steve: Does it really have to be one of those? Many understand that he was talking about Iran's capacity to produce highly enriched uranium -- not the existing materials. We covered this ground. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...among-potential-targets.2480247/post-34520460

 

[Madhatter32]

Let me translate the WSJ into the world of reality.

"Only a naif would believe the ayatollahs weren't set on both" - No one thinks they weren't. Just that they were far, far away from obtaining the goal.

Surferfb: FYI your statement is false. Even the IAEA reports that Iran stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium for 10 nuclear bombs. That sounds very imminent -- not "far, far away."

 

[steve62388]

Steve: Does it really have to be one of those? Many understand that he was talking about Iran's capacity to produce highly enriched uranium -- not the existing materials. We covered this ground. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...among-potential-targets.2480247/post-34520460

Yes it does, clearly, any rational person would understand that. According to trump their capability was set back decades.

His prior statements do not match with the claim that the US has to bomb Iran now. So which is it, did he lie, make a mistake, or did he exaggerate?

I also note you refuse to engage with the fact the JCPOA was working, but trump pulled out. I would wager that you cannot rationalise that.

 

[Imperial926]

This does not back up your statement.

Well, I'll let you do the legwork. I would however recommend this considered view that America is not going to feel the effects of this whole debacle anywhere near as much as Asia, the EU and the UK.

 

[surferfb]

Surferfb: FYI your statement is false. Even the IAEA reports that Iran stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium for 10 nuclear bombs. That sounds very imminent -- not "far, far away."

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth disagrees with you: “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons."

As does the Israel Atomic Energy Commission: “The devastating US strike on Fordo destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material.”

As does Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “The operation was a resounding success. Our missiles were delivered precisely and accurately, obliterating key Iranian capabilities needed to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon.”

As does Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright: “Overall, Israel’s and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack.”

 

[steve62388]

Surferfb: FYI your statement is false. Even the IAEA reports that Iran stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium for 10 nuclear bombs. That sounds very imminent -- not "far, far away."

Under the terms of the JCPOA, which the IAEA confirmed were being met, Iran could stockpile 300kg of Uranium, which if refined further could produce one quarter the amount needed for one nuclear weapon.

Section 3: Understanding the JCPOA | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

Once trump abandoned the JCPOA that limit was no longer in place. Do you think if he wasn’t so stupid then you wouldn’t be in this no-win scenario now?

 

[surferfb]

Surferfb: FYI your statement is false. Even the IAEA reports that Iran stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium for 10 nuclear bombs. That sounds very imminent -- not "far, far away."

For further reason why you're wrong here, please take a look at this article.

Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say

Although President Trump has claimed Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon, much more work was needed for the country to do so

www.scientificamerican.com

I'll pull out some key quotes for those who won't click through. All emphasis is mine.

According to an IAEA estimate, as of June 2025, Iran possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material. That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA. That further enrichment would take a matter of weeks in a fully functioning Iranian nuclear complex, perhaps explaining the time line within Trump’s declaration.

That step alone doesn’t equal a bomb, however. And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground Iranian facilities. The administration’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff nonetheless claimed on March 3, after the start of the current war, that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs. Trump administration officials reportedly failed to include nuclear technical experts in their negotiation teams with Iran prior to the war, adding to the uncertainty. If Iran really had rebuilt these facilities, that might have led—over months and not weeks—to the nation resuming its uranium enrichment, Lewis says. “But this is all ‘if,’ ‘maybe’ and ‘later,’” he adds.
...
Since the first Trump administration withdrew from the international agreement with Iran to halt enrichment in 2018, Iran had stopped at the intermediate step of 60 percent enrichment in its production of uranium and had not proceeded to the 90 percent required for bombs. “Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: ‘We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium,’” noted Robert E. Kelley of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2021. Iran had buried entrances to tunnels at its Isfahan nuclear complex in February, leaving observers to conclude that the uranium remains stored, likely in canisters of uranium hexafluoride gas, or in disarray there after the June 2025 bombing of the site.

To be as close as Trump claimed to having a conventional nuclear weapon, Iran would have needed to secure and enrich that gas to 90 percent in centrifuges, extract and chemically separate it back to solid uranium, shape it into spheres of uranium metal (a task that is “not simple,” Rofer says) and then construct explosive devices around them.

 

[jon9091]

Trump attacked Iran for one reason.

 

[Artemiz]

Surferfb: FYI your statement is false. Even the IAEA reports that Iran stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium for 10 nuclear bombs. That sounds very imminent -- not "far, far away."

And the same IAEA stated Iran hasn’t been actively weaponizing said Uranium.
I’ve got lumber all over my backyard. Doesn’t mean I’ve been working to compete with IKEA. Two very different things.

Cherry-picking is all you’re doing here. And you’d have figured out all this if you’d just went out and did a lil research instead of listening to Newsmax and OAN like it’s the word of God.

You’d have been more enlightened with the most up to date report the US & Israel collectively chose to restrict access to the agency to sell those lies to their supporters.
Why not give them access if what they’re saying is actually true and shut us up with a verified report?

 

[jon9091]

36% and sinking like a stone.

 

[Artemiz]

36% and sinking like a stone.

View attachment 2619258

I’ve always wondered who that 36% were?
His kids (because he’s making them a lot of money) and Stephen Miller make up 2%. Who are these other 34%?

 

[turbineseaplane]

36% and sinking like a stone.

View attachment 2619258

Excellent.
Drag it down further.

We need to be rid of this cancer on our country.

 

[jimmy_john]

I’ve always wondered who that 36% were?
His kids (because he’s making them a lot of money) and Stephen Miller make up 2%. Who are these other 34%?

By some estimates about 30% of the population isn't convinced the earth is round.

 

[Artemiz]

By some estimates about 30% of the population isn't convinced the earth is round.

There’s the overlap

 

[Velli]

Well, I'll let you do the legwork. I would however recommend this considered view that America is not going to feel the effects of this whole debacle anywhere near as much as Asia, the EU and the UK.

I did “do the legwork”, I presented you with facts. Sigh.

 

[Imperial926]

I did “do the legwork”, I presented you with facts. Sigh.

If you watch this video it’s made clear that the US is suffering far less. Is your point purely about fuel? It’s generally acknowledged at this point that the US are causing the rest of the world to suffer far more than themselves. Sigh.