This same facility was hit last year. According to the multiple sources it no nuclear material onsite last year, and hadn't been repaired yet - so it's unlikely anything but an empty building was hit.
The reason it was likely targeted is that this type of reactor has the capability to produce ~10kg of plutonium a year which would be enough to allow for the production of nuclear weapons.
216
Virtual-History-6099Mar 27, 2026
+56
"The reason it was likely targeted is that this type of reactor has the capability to produce ~10kg of plutonium a year which would be enough to allow for the production of nuclear weapons." - Yes and the IDF said the Islamic regime was in the process of rebuilding it.
56
illiter-itMar 27, 2026
+5
Oh well it must be true then
5
d_wibMar 27, 2026
+72
Even if you don’t want to believe Israel about most things they say, why else would they target it if it wasn’t a concern?
72
BakigkopMar 28, 2026
-3
Because the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program legitimizes this war. If they never bomb a nuclear facility how are they going to justify this war. The question should be why didn't they bomb this immediately if it's so important for Iranian nukes? If anything important ever was there it definitely wasn't after weeks of war.
-3
Saturn_winterMar 27, 2026
-95
Because it's part of energy infrastructure and making innocent civilians suffer gets their rocks off
-95
UnoStufatoMar 27, 2026
+67
Do you actually think nuclear research reactors produce meaningful amounts of energy? That's absolutely hilarious.
67
Limon-PepinoMar 27, 2026
+57
Its not though. It hasnt been active since 2015.
57
blackslatewaterMar 27, 2026
+42
It is out of operation and hasn’t been active in over a decade.
42
FUDintheNUDMar 27, 2026
-13
I dunno. But Israels got nukes too. So bombing their nuclear facilities is fair game.
-13
cytokine7Mar 27, 2026
-14
They don’t think this far ahead
-14
sk169Mar 27, 2026
-4
Two weeks away
-4
dawgfan24348Mar 27, 2026
-80
Ah yes the nuclear weapons that Iran is always about to get
-80
Icy-Falcon-9956Mar 27, 2026
+59
This is why they have always failed to get it.
A 2024 investigation revealed that Erik van Sabben, a Dutch engineer, was key to planting the Stuxnet malware in Iran's Natanz nuclear facility around 2007, acting for U.S./Israeli intelligence without his own government's full knowledge. He used his position to introduce the virus, destroying roughly 1,000 centrifuges.
This is also the premise of season 3 of the show Tehran on Apple. Really good show, highly recommend if you want to learn more about irans regime.
59
[deleted]Mar 27, 2026
-54
[deleted]
-54
Icy-Falcon-9956Mar 27, 2026
+36
Did you even read the part about my comment that says “2007”. That would be 2 decades.
36
enigmaticowlMar 27, 2026
+12
Exactly.
They’ve also been assassinating Iran’s nuclear program scientists for the last couple of decades to stall the program’s development.
It’s like saying, “The doctors have been telling me that I have a cancerous tumor for awhile now, but it’s not growing/spreading, so it doesn’t make sense to me that it’s actually cancer, I think they’re overblowing the threat.”
Meanwhile, you’re leaving out the fact that you’ve been undergoing chemo/radiation therapies and surgeries the whole time - it doesn’t mean you don’t have a malignancy or that the malignancy isn’t at risk of growing/metastasizing or that you can stop treatment, all it means is that the aggressive treatment regimen has been working (so far) to contain the threat.
12
dawgfan24348Mar 27, 2026
-62
So that justifies Israel attacking Iran
-62
Mammoth_Payment_6101Mar 27, 2026
+84
No that would more be the issue of Iran openly and loudly threatening to wipe out Israel for decades whilst funding proxy groups that murder Israelis and Jews around the world.
84
4baobaoMar 27, 2026
-40
so what does that have to do with US
-40
Mammoth_Payment_6101Mar 27, 2026
+27
You do realise that the Iranian revolution literally began with the kidnapping of Americans?
Look into how Twelver Shia Islam works. They don't like you guys very much.
27
dawgfan24348Mar 27, 2026
-22
Gee that couldn't have anything to do with what we did in the 50s
-22
BarryMcKokinorMar 27, 2026
+18
U.S. benefits immenselyif they can normalize relations by their two allies in the region who as of yet didn’t really get along. Saudi and adjacent and Israel. Why do you think Iran allowed hezbolla to do the massacre? Bc they freaked out at Kushner actually producing results in relations normalizing ..
18
Ok-Assistant4338Mar 27, 2026
+22
I think it’s fair to say they were pursuing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn’t they? They knew a war would eventually happen. Now how close they really were is up for debate
22
Soggy_Parking1353Mar 27, 2026
+12
No it's just the historical record
12
therealhairykrishnaMar 27, 2026
+29
Seems a reasonable target compared to some of the others.
29
klingmaMar 27, 2026
+8
Right - that's the type of facility you hit if you think nuclear weapons are being produced.
8
[deleted]Mar 27, 2026
+58
[removed]
58
InvestigatorOk9354Mar 27, 2026
+12
It's not bad, I'm curious why it was necessary if we're being told the truth about their nuclear program and the strikes earlier this year. We were told back then that the nuclear program was completely obliterated, so what was the state of this reactor before today? Was it not destroyed after all? That would call into question the effectiveness of the strikes earlier this year. If this reactor was a threat why wasn't it hit three weeks ago? The story we're told just doesn't add up if you're looking for an actual plan and strategy.
12
mickeyt1Mar 27, 2026
+7
It’s pretty obvious that Trump was way over his skis and speaking in hyperbole like he always does. It can be true that it was seriously set back enough that Trump felt that was the thing to say in the moment (like an idiot) and that these strikes make sense.
7
SporksInjectedMar 27, 2026
+4
You should look up the IAEA reports since they’re less biased and not attached to either country.
4
PinheadLarry2323Mar 27, 2026
-15
Not according to terrorist puppet state sympathizers on Listnook
-15
SpiderSlitScrotumsMar 27, 2026
+28
Is this the new “you’re antisemitic” if you criticize the idiocy of this war?
28
Aromatic-Teacher-717Mar 27, 2026
+19
Same as it ever was.
19
Stepfordhusband69Mar 27, 2026
-15
But you probably were antisemitic if that’s how you think it went down.
-15
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
-2
America and Israel are objectively terrorist states.
-2
klingmaMar 27, 2026
+1
No, but nice try!
1
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
-5
It's just a fact.
-5
beragisMar 28, 2026
+3
It's only a fact to terrorists.
3
84CressidaMar 27, 2026
You have a different definition of the word “fact” than everyone else.
0
klingmaMar 27, 2026
-6
You're trying!
-6
[deleted]Mar 27, 2026
-29
[removed]
-29
PinheadLarry2323Mar 27, 2026
+16
Iran refuses to let the IAEA in to view their enrichment facilities
16
[deleted]Mar 27, 2026
-22
[removed]
-22
PMJamesPMMar 27, 2026
+11
When your enemy repeatedly says “Death to …” … they shouldn’t be too surprised that they were heard.
11
PinheadLarry2323Mar 27, 2026
+10
Iran restricted IAEA access well before any attacks. The US left the JCPOA in 2018 due to Iran’s ballistic missile program, regional proxy activities/support for terrorism, and human rights issues.
Restrictions escalated incrementally starting in 2019-2021 in response to the U.S. withdrawal and reimposed sanctions, not an attack. Iran removed or limited surveillance cameras, barred inspectors from certain sites (e.g., centrifuge manufacturing), and later withdrew designations of experienced IAEA inspectors. By 2023-2024, the IAEA already reported serious gaps in monitoring and “no continuity of knowledge” on parts of the program.
The U.S. “tearing up the deal” did not force Iran to enrich, Iran chose to respond by incrementally violating the agreement rather than strictly adhering while pursuing diplomacy. The deal’s limits were multilateral (involving the P5+1 and endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231), not a bilateral U.S.-Iran pact that the U.S. alone could “tear up” in a way that absolved Iran.
10
[deleted]Mar 27, 2026
-14
[removed]
-14
PinheadLarry2323Mar 27, 2026
+13
Terror state doing terror things gets upset when they get called out for doing terror things, more at 7:00
13
OffsetsMar 27, 2026
-36
Iran has always stated that their radioactive material was for power plant usage. The information that is available to the public has never disputed that.
So it was unknown if they truly wanted a nuclear weapon.
But now, after Israel and the US bombed the shit out of them, you can guarantee that they want nukes. Trump has ensured that Iran will pursue nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.
-36
84CressidaMar 27, 2026
+41
The IAEA said they enriched 60% uranium, far above the amount needed for energy. Listnook just likes to ignore this.
41
Different_Height_157Mar 27, 2026
-23
If only we had a deal that kept that in check. It would have been great if that deal included regular inspections.
-23
enigmaticowlMar 27, 2026
+15
Except that the deal didn’t keep fuckall in check.
The massive recovery and exposure of tens of thousands of secret files (in 2018, right when the agreement ended) showed that Iran had already been violating the agreement for *years* with undeclared facilities, exceeding enrichment parameters, etc.
15
Different_Height_157Mar 27, 2026
-13
So I guess it’s great that we tore it up, ended diplomacy and started threatening them over and over until we got to this point where they have more reason to build a nuke.
-13
enigmaticowlMar 27, 2026
+8
Yes, once you accept the fact that *Iran* (not the U.S.) refused to abide by the nuclear deal, this is absolutely better than leaving a “deal” in place that is not being followed and is allowing a regime that openly proclaims its intent to annihilate other countries (and which can’t be deterred from using them because “mutually assured destruction” means nothing to suicidal martyrdom-seeking jihadis) to inch their way toward nuclear weapons.
Hope this helps.
8
Sh4ckleford_RustyMar 27, 2026
+9
Them getting caught with 60% enriched uranium shows they clearly weren't following the deal..
9
Different_Height_157Mar 27, 2026
-11
IAEA said that recently, after Iran had no deal for just short of a decade.
-11
Sh4ckleford_RustyMar 27, 2026
+3
The deal ended in 2018 and they detected enriched uranium in 2019. Find a nuclear scientist that will agree that it's plausible to achieve that in such a short time span.
3
GrimHolyMar 27, 2026
+3
Why are you trying so hard to defend Iran? Genuine question. It’s not a dispute they violated the deal. It’s not a dispute the level of uranium they are enriching. It’s not disputed that they treat women like property, hang gays, murder apostates, stone women, fund terrorism, supply weapons to violent terrorist organizations, and so much more.
So I ask you sincerely, why do you defend Iran so hard.
3
SporksInjectedMar 27, 2026
+3
It’s because this is not a real person. You’re talking to a language model.
Watch how it mixes popular and unpopular opinions in its responses.
3
Different_Height_157Mar 27, 2026
-5
Where am I defending Iran? Yea Iran is an Islamic extremist county but let’s not forget we were trying to electrocute the gay out of people for most of the 2010s in our Christian extremist states
-5
SporksInjectedMar 27, 2026
+1
The problem is they were not honoring that deal. It was a good deal though.
1
PinheadLarry2323Mar 27, 2026
+24
The problem comes into play when talking about the quality they’re enriching the material at. The percentage of enrichment they’re achieving is only used for weapons.
They also refuse to let international agencies like the IAEA come in to see what they’re doing, which is required of all countries
24
NoxispikeMar 27, 2026
+19
Iran promised to limit their missile to have a max range under 2000 KMs. They attempted to hit a US-UK joint military base in the middle of the Indian ocean, which is close to 4000 KMs away. This proves that Iranian government lied about their military capability.
Iran also admitted that they have 60% uranium. For commercial power plant, 5% is more than enough. Even for research purpose, 20% is generally enough. I see no reason for them to have 60% uranium other than making nuclear weapon. Whether Israel or US hit Iran or not, Iran will continue with their nuclear plan.
I'm not saying that Iranian building a nuclear weapon is good or bad. In fact, it's reasonable for any capable nation to want to have one for self preservation. The point I want to make is, I don't believe it's reasonable to say Iran will get a nuke BECAUSE Israel or US hit them.
19
GrimHolyMar 27, 2026
I mean it seems pretty easy to say that it would be horrific for the world if Iran got a bomb but good for the countries own interest
0
UnTidesMar 27, 2026
-19
I thought we invaded to open that Strait? Also to free the women from things like abortions and voting.
-19
GrimHolyMar 27, 2026
+7
You do realize Iran has some of the worst women’s rights in the world right
7
ArthursFistMar 28, 2026
-4
Had to make sure the plutonium wasn’t in the girls schools first, worked our way to nuclear reactors.
-4
CaptainfoxlutherMar 27, 2026
+13
Good. Destruction of infrastructure needed for the direct construction of nuclear weapons should be celebrated.
13
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
+10
We should destroy Israel's secret nuclear weapons program too. They are clearly too much of an irresponsible rogue state driven by religion to have them. And sanction them for having secret nuclear weapons.
10
klingmaMar 27, 2026
+14
It's not really secret - everyone knows they have nuclear weapons, they just play coy about it.
14
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
-10
Refusing to admit it and accept international inspection is still bad even if it's not technically a "secret" because everybody knows the secret (and yet they still lie about it!). How is this an acceptable way for a country to behave in the international community. It's not at all.
How would people react if Iran (or another country) had a secret nuclear weapons program that they refused to acknowledge, refused to allow inspected but everyone knows "they just play coy about it". It would not be accepted. America would probably start a war about it.
"Playing coy about it" is lying about it and an insult to the world. Israel also has shown they are not responsible actors at all. They're a rogue state willing to kill civilians, collectively punish, commit war crimes. They're also motivated by religion, and are increasingly radicalized in their leadership and society. We cannot have a state like this just "playing coy" about having nuclear weapons.
And if we do accept Israel "playing coy" we can't reasonably then hold other countries to a completely different standard.
-10
DrabCadre2Mar 27, 2026
+10
Trying to denuclearize Israel would be like trying to denuclearize North Korea. Good Luck!
10
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
+4
Yes very challenging. We should condemn them and sanction them for it though like we would for any other country doing that and demand transparency and accountability.
And not be hypocrites playing along with Israel's lies about it while holding different countries to another standard.
4
DrabCadre2Mar 27, 2026
+11
Heres the neat part about geopolitics. Holding different standards to other countries is something everyone does about every issue under the sun. Trying ti apply a simple black and white lens will never work. Nobody in the region cares that Israel has nukes
11
ZipzMar 27, 2026
+9
Everything you said about Israel is even more true about it Pakistan
9
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
-2
How is "everything \[I\] said about Israel even more true about Pakistan"?
Pakistan acknowledges possessing nuclear weapons. Clear major difference there.
I'm not defending Pakistan though. Their nuclear weapons are also concerning (along with a lot about that state), but it's jut not true that everything I said about Israel is even more true about Pakistan. Pakistan acknowledges their nukes.
Pakistan is also not generally regarded as one of the bestest bestest most moral can never do anything wrong greatest allies of America and the West.
-2
ZipzMar 27, 2026
+7
They aren’t apart of NPT and they don’t have the excuse like Israel does that Israel got nukes before NPT became a thing
7
neontetra1548Mar 27, 2026
+2
Yeah I agree they're not part of NPT that's bad.
You retract your previous claim that: "Everything you said about Israel is even more true about it Pakistan", right? It's objectively wrong and you're pivoting away from it.
2
ZipzMar 27, 2026
+7
It’s a hyperbole and it’s pretty ridiculous your biggest gripe about it is one is an open secret while one isn’t
But ya Pakistan isnt a rouge nation and that doesn’t let inspections happen and arent illegally operating a nuclear program.
It’s funny how you are more upset about “coyness” than you are on which country is more likely to use it
7
beragisMar 28, 2026
+7
While I would prefer neither have weapons, I would rather have Israel with nuclear weapons than Iran.
7
GrimHolyMar 27, 2026
+2
The problem is they have them and the second a country has them there is almost nothing that can be done. See North Korea. Which is why it is imperative that Iran never gets one
2
This-Clock-GAMar 27, 2026
+9
…thanks for the confirmation?
The goal is for Iran not to have nukes lol.
9
findingmikeMar 28, 2026
-4
Tbf they thought it was a kids' school.
-4
FUDintheNUDMar 27, 2026
-5
Better than bombing schools and hospitals 🙏
-5
[deleted]Mar 27, 2026
-3
[deleted]
-3
84CressidaMar 27, 2026
+2
So is this comment.
2
not_mark_twain_Mar 27, 2026
-7
Well someone struck a school, so I’ll assume everything is on the table.
87 Comments