Well I'll be go'ed to hell; looks like hazelnuts grow in Iran too! Â Or, this is a fake vid.
I was going to suggest that for every GBU-57A/B the U.S. 'supplies to Israel', Russia matches with an Oreshnik. Â No need. Â Indeed, seems possible that the flow is reversed and Iran supplies them to Russia? Â A practical advantage of the Oreshik is that one need not supply a $1,000,000,000 strategic bomber along with the bomb. Â Handy.
Â
Iran launched new ballistic missiles towards Israel Â
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7uTfA1aGFCvXEdit: More first-hand observations. Around the 12:00 mark:
Â
Iran's Missiles RAIN HELL on Tel Aviv, US War IMMINENT w/ Mohammad Marandi, Lowkey & AliÂ
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WtvlmbHPE1feSounds like Oreshnik, or what we (who pay attention to the Zionazi operations in former Ukraine...aka, 'new Israel'?) know as Oreshnik.
Does it really go at mach 10.5? Why doesn't it use nukes?
Some folks say that the nukes used in Japan were really TNT or the like. Maybe nukes are useless, and it is only the propaganda threat of nukes that make them dangerous.

Of course BA, the wilder the theory the better.
Ballistic missiles usually exceed Macth 10 - this is technology from the 40s and 50s, but there are two reasons why Iran cannot use nukes in their missiles:
a) The most obvious, they do not have the required fissile material - thus they do not have nukes yet.
b) If you bothered to read the thread, the technology to use a nuke in a missile is not that trivial. The "gun" detonator cannot be used and there are quite a few technical "details" to find out about.
Anyway, the nuclear programme would not be that difficult if Ruzzia really wanted Iran to have nukes. My guess is that they don't, nor does anyone else tbh.