That enrichment occurred after Trump voluntarily exited the JCPOA. The IAEA reported no enrichment over the 3.67% threshold through 2018, then reported over 400kg at 60% in 2025, all created in the period after Trump pulled out. You are describing a consequence of ending the JCPOA.
The cases you link relate to someone with previous convictions that could affect their legal status and someone potentially filing faulty documents and overstaying their legal status. They were not just visitors, so not sure why you are comparing these cases to you simply going to a conference unless you are being deliberately dishonest to make a point
I concede that [3] is not the best case of this reading more into it. My point still stands though.
If visitors are one immigration mistake away from weeks in a detention camp, or any other unjust punishment it's reasonable that visitors would not want to visit.
A quick search suggests 25k Canadians enter the US daily for multi-day trips. If ICE was any real concern here for Canadians we'd hear a lot more about it I think.
Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war".
That's what's being said here. Otherwise, it's a useless thing to say.
> What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes?
There was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Certainly no evidence that they were `n days` away from getting nukes.
My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development.
The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."
> Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war".
Bridges fall down sometimes. I don't think it's acceptable. It's a statement of fact. There are always going to be mistakes, in every field and in pursuit of every goal. Your objection and implications aren't particularly charitable here.
> My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development.
Iran was not complying with the monitoring requirements.
> The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."
Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it.
This isn't really a question or doubt any reasonable person can have. There can be an argument about how close they are at any given moment, but they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
I disagree with your interpretation of these reports.
The ODNI report wasn't saying that Iran was perusing nuclear weapons, but rather that it was stockpiling weapons grade uranium. And, in particular, it calls out the reason they did this. Because the US withdrew from the JCPOA. It also called out the fact that Iran continued to say that they'd rejoin the JCPOA if the US was willing to.
Trump in the first term withdrew from our agreements, why should Iran have continued obeying the terms of an agreement that the US renegged on?
That's why I say they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons. They were stockpiling enriched uranium mostly because they were trying to use that as a negotiation tactic with the US.
But in negotiations with Trump both before the 12 day war and this time, they had agreed to re-enter the monitoring regime with the JCPOA and to completely destroy their stockpile, in return for lifted sanctions.
> Iran uses its nuclear program for negotiation leverage and to respond to perceived international pressure. During the past year, it has modulated its production and inventory of 60-percent uranium. Tehran has said it would restore JCPOA limits if the United States fulfilled its JCPOA commitments and the IAEA closed its outstanding safeguards investigations.
This reminds me of this great talk from Temporal about how they built their Python SDK by creating a distributed deterministic event loop on top of asyncio[1]
I don’t get why they get so much praise for design with such a big design flaw:
If a flight is delayed even 1 minute, it’s highlighted as red text. This throws me off every time.
Google does not this. It still shows as green if it’s just a few minutes delayed.
I’ve reported this to the Flighty team and they ignored me so I can only assume they think this is a good idea, and I will therefore never pay for their app.
the headline literally says "could", not that it did. can you point to evidence that DOGE cutbacks did negatively affect aviation safety, particularly with regards to ATCs?
reply