Iran vows not to give up "a single particle" of nuclear material

CBS News via Yahoo ^ | November 11th, 2026 | Duarte Dias

[Mariner]

The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary vowed Wednesday that Tehran would not allow the removal of "even a single particle of enriched nuclear material" from the country, casting doubt on diplomatic efforts as the U.S. has long sought a peace deal that would see Iran give up its enriched uranium.President Trump has argued that he needed to launch the war with Iran to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which the regime has always denied any intention of doing. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters Tuesday that "crazy Islamists in Tehran will never ever have a nuclear weapon."The war with Iran will cost Persian Gulf nations, most of which are close U.S. allies, more than $200 billion in damages, insurer Allianz Trade said Wednesday. Economic losses could reach nearly four times that amount by 2030, the insurer added.

---

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

[Mariner]

They won't have to.

POTUS will meet their demands.

[traderrob6]

BIOYA loser

[traderrob6]

BIOYA loser

[traderrob6]

BIOYA loser

[escapefromboston]

Okay Iran.

[BenLurkin]

Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy. It’s sitting on an ocean of oil.

[BenLurkin]

Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy. It’s sitting on an ocean of oil.

[Leaning Right]

The Iranian mullahs are much like the imperial Japanese of WW2. Stone cold fanatics. Nothing short of a massive ground invasion would have forced them to give up their nuclear material.

That’s why Trump’s Operation Midnight Hammer from last year made sense. Wreck the nuclear sites. It was the best option realistically available.

After that.. lots of drifting by the administration. The trick now for Trump will be how to cleanly end this.

[TTFX]

That’s why Trump’s Operation Midnight Hammer from last year made sense. Wreck the nuclear sites. It was the best option realistically available.

- - - - - - -

I doubt it was the best option, because it increases their determination to get nuclear weapons without seizing the uranium. If invading and taking the uranium wasn’t an option, I think the best option was to do nothing.

[Ikeon]

Every person who reads this needs to understand.

MUSLIMS WANT YOU DEAD OR AS SLAVES.

Thats the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

if you dont believe it, you literally are too stupid to protect yourself from these dumb savages and are going to get others killed saving your dumb ass.

THEY DONT CARE ABOUT YOU, YOUR LIFE, OR GOD ALMIGHTY.

You are less than a flea to them.

David didnt try to save Goliath. He took a rock and flung it at his stupid savage godless head.

[thegagline]

Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy. It’s sitting on an ocean of oil.

In that case, neither does the United States.

[BenLurkin]

Too bad. We got it.

[rktman]

Are the new pallets of cash being readied?

[Leaning Right]

> it increases their determination to get nuclear weapons <

The idiot George W. Bush got that ball rolling.

Back in 2002 George W. Bush publicly declared that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were an “axis of evil”. Bush then invaded Iraq and deposed its leader, Saddam Hussein - who was later hanged.

Can’t really blame Iran and North Korea for feeling threatened, and wanting their own nuclear deterrent. After all, they were on the list.

[neverevergiveup]

Maybe we should contaminate all of their sites with ‘dirty bombs’. Enough contamination will prevent them from accessing those sites, and reconstructing those tunnels for many, many years.

[MomentsofSanity]

Made sense? After last years bombing he said their abilities were “completely obliterated” and it set them back years to decades.

Then a couple months later Iran was a couple weeks away again from a nuclear weapon. If they only need 8 months to go from obliterated to on the verge of a nuclear weapon then it either wasn’t a good option or we were lied to about the results.