Analysis of Military Capabilities and Vulnerabilities

He took a stance today, yesterday, and this same David Albright took a new stance too.

Let my friends put that up too, I have its translation.

But the poin… this is actually David Albright's new post,

where he is claiming here that…

His point is—I'll read this middle part of it:

Before the Fordow facilities, through the shafts…

designed, became the target of an attack by the US military,

many people believed this site could not be destroyed.

The New York Times newspaper…

was on the verge of publishing a report claiming that

bunker-buster bombs are unable to penetrate the mountain and destroy Fordow.

I spoke with them two days before publication,

and dissuaded them from publishing that report,

and made them aware of Fordow's vulnerabilities.

It's not now, many people claim that a pickaxe…

the mountain facilities are vulnerable to a pickaxe.

It is not vulnerable.

No, yes, it's not, he misspoke.

He misspoke when he said it's not vulnerable.

And then he claims why we can also have these weapons...

In fact, this is the person who rejected the claim of Fordow being invulnerable

and convinced them that this place can be struck.

This guy is a fixer

for the media and the establishment, for those who make a living from bombing different countries.

That's his job. He studied physics, but really...

he didn't get results at his own level of growth.

I'll do something else, I'll say, "Your track record in Iraq,

North Korea, Iran..."

If I work on this project level at all,

I'd say, really, is the decay of

Russia's nuclear weapons more worrying,

or China's?

Well, he's not worried.

Well, now I want to ask, what is the importance of this whole story?

This whole story about China?

Really, we...

This is the analysis of the Westerners themselves, that they haven't...

Yes, they had also reported it.

The Washington Post reported it, and the Wall Street Journal reported it.

I really don't have the technical knowledge for it.

Well...

But this is nothing...

Look,

there is no physical sign, for example,

no measuring of radiation,

I don't know.

There was another report saying, for example, if

such a volume inside had been destroyed

and collapsed,

we should have seen some changes, for example,

in the mountain structures.

Bunker-buster weapons...

At these depths they are talking about,

we can't really conclude

that it doesn't work.

From Hamas tunnels to Hezbollah tunnels,

to Yemen's tunnels, to Iran's tunnels,

we almost

have no

accurate and

positive report that these...

Do you mean deep tunnels?

Because otherwise, well, I claim...

They can hit minus two.

Minus 30... My mother's house parking is minus two.

It's a very basic thing,

It's not even bomb-proof.

It goes down two floors.

No problem, it can hit that.

But as for deep tunnels,

for example, in Gaza,

the Israelis had 100% control

and unlimited time

at their disposal,

and they much preferred,

instead of, for example, I don't know,

sending robots in there, to send people,

which, you remember, we covered in the past,

that they would go in.

They would hire mercenaries

because of the very high risk involved.

For the Israelis, it was easy

to hit it with a bomb.

No, they couldn't hit it.

They had found the tunnel,

they even had full control over its entrance,

but they couldn't go inside.

It doesn't penetrate deep. This bunker is built much deeper than Fordow, under granite rocks.

We really have doubts about Fordow, with this efficiency and performance that I see.

Regarding the tunnel and the bunker buster, if I had to—God forbid—make a bet,

though betting is not a good thing, but I would bet that it hasn't been hit.

Well, now Trump turns around and says, "Mashallah..."

This "not being hit" means two things. I'll explain, it has technical details.

For those who visited, I must say this, since we haven't seen it.

For the overall impressions, one is the damage that might have been caused,

and the other is whether it destroyed some facilities; these are two different things.

Sir, this was in the Natanz facilities that were on the ground,

those, sir, they bombed them.

Even in that, there are still some parts left that are usable,

let alone a place that is under the mountain and Plummer.

Let's separate these two so this statement isn't misunderstood.

Again, it's this shaft that is pointing to this,

because it has become very public now, and its news has been reported.

And it says, I must say, this doesn't go into the mountain.

We said there is a hole that goes directly,

and with this, you dig from there and it goes through.

He says he also wanted to publish a report...

Sir, however you calculate it, it's a mountain.

Because we already said this, it's like a mountain that is like this.

For example, if you go ten meters inside from this starting point,

you just need to go horizontally inside this,

and above your head, the mountain keeps going higher.

So when you reach a certain point, there might be a height of 500 meters above you.

Regardless of the mountain itself, or whether it is soil, rock, or what kind of rock it is,

you say, "I am at a depth of, say, 500 meters,"

while you have dug a horizontal tunnel.

This is also what others say, that it's deeper than Fordow, part of it refers to this.

Meaning, we don't need to go down.

We just need to move straight ahead.

Now, if there wasn't such a shaft in this place, for example,

or if the shaft wasn't a straight path, for example,

it could have been that

all those reports were actually correct.

Now, he is making a claim, this point is important,

where he says that this Kolang Mountain too

has some ways that can be breached.

Now, let me explain...

Just like we said about Fordow...

We said about Fordow...

Of course, about Fordow he's right, there really was a way.

Now, whether it's the same here or not,

what gives us hope

is what Nima also said many times,

that the Agency inspectors

haven't been to Kolang Mountain,

and because of this, they probably

didn't have many of the details they had about Fordow.