U.S. President Donald Trump said on social media Monday that Israel and Iran have agreed to a “complete and total ceasefire” to be phased in over 24 hours.
ah yes, the completely civilian nuclear program that for last month+ was busy using up 5% enriched uranium (on upper range of enrichment in normal reactors) and 20% (usual in research reactors) to get 60% enriched uranium (no civilian applications)
Iran was attacked here. No amount of “what about the WMD’s” makes the attacks on them by the US and Israel legal under international law.
Iran had a deal that allowed other countries to control their nuclear sector. The US left that deal. Iran was taking part in negotiations about a new deal. The US bombed them. What has been done to Iran here is a terrible violation of international law, and a terrible violation of their sovereignty.
they were still a party to NPT the entire time, and they didn’t meet obligations of that treaty for over 20 years. NPT also includes inspections by IAEA
say what you want, they can’t unbomb Fordow so any discussions about future iranian nuclear program are pointless
This is where you’re dead wrong. A country amassing weapons is not a justification for preemptively attacking them. Much less so when there’s not even consensus that they’re amassing the weapons you say they are.
This is just absurd to claim. It’s like saying russia was justified in attacking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It’s like saying that you’re justified in shooting someone because you think they are going to buy a gun. Just ask yourself: When was the last time Iran launched “preemptive” strikes on Israel, or conducted “preemptive” assassinations on Israeli soil?
If anything, these strikes prove to Iran that unless they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be able to deter Israel and the US from conducting “preemptive” strikes and assassinations on their soil. I can completely understand the Iranian regime for reasoning that “Whelp, we had a deal, and the US withdrew from it. Then we were actively holding negotiations and they bombed us. It looks like the only way we can ensure they leave us alone is acquiring MAD capabilities.”
Okay, well let me clarify. I think they were justified in doing so. I don’t want them or their proxies obtaining nukes because unlike Russia or even North Korea, they’re actually suicidal enough to use them.
Fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’ll also agree that Iran definitely should not have nuclear weapons, especially when keeping in mind that they’ve openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map (implicitly saying it could or should be done in a violent way).
However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If “we” want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just “right of the strongest”, we can’t accept these kind of violations of international law.
However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If “we” want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just “right of the strongest”, we can’t accept these kind of violations of international law.
Legally speaking, I agree. I’m speaking strictly from a strategic or game-theoretical standpoint. I see this as a binary situation: either we physically stop them from building a nuke, or they will build one. I’d much rather we strike preemptively now - so long as it actually stops them - than have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future, especially given their history of threatening violence, using violence, and funding violence.
Nukes never should’ve been invented in the first place. But we can’t put that genie back in the bottle, so this is the best we can do given the current situation. They don’t have to pursue one - they’re choosing to, knowing full well the potential (now actual) consequences. I’d argue that the tragedy of a nuclear detonation in a major city far-outweighs, by orders of magnitude, the human and geopolitical cost of preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I’d be against it too if the facility were in Sweden or Finland - but it’s not.
ah yes, the completely civilian nuclear program that for last month+ was busy using up 5% enriched uranium (on upper range of enrichment in normal reactors) and 20% (usual in research reactors) to get 60% enriched uranium (no civilian applications)
Iran was attacked here. No amount of “what about the WMD’s” makes the attacks on them by the US and Israel legal under international law.
Iran had a deal that allowed other countries to control their nuclear sector. The US left that deal. Iran was taking part in negotiations about a new deal. The US bombed them. What has been done to Iran here is a terrible violation of international law, and a terrible violation of their sovereignty.
they were still a party to NPT the entire time, and they didn’t meet obligations of that treaty for over 20 years. NPT also includes inspections by IAEA
say what you want, they can’t unbomb Fordow so any discussions about future iranian nuclear program are pointless
And how many treaties have the us violated ?
Daily.
Many. Yet they’re still justified in striking a nuclear bomb-making facility in a nation that has more or less said it plans to use it.
This is where you’re dead wrong. A country amassing weapons is not a justification for preemptively attacking them. Much less so when there’s not even consensus that they’re amassing the weapons you say they are.
This is just absurd to claim. It’s like saying russia was justified in attacking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It’s like saying that you’re justified in shooting someone because you think they are going to buy a gun. Just ask yourself: When was the last time Iran launched “preemptive” strikes on Israel, or conducted “preemptive” assassinations on Israeli soil?
If anything, these strikes prove to Iran that unless they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be able to deter Israel and the US from conducting “preemptive” strikes and assassinations on their soil. I can completely understand the Iranian regime for reasoning that “Whelp, we had a deal, and the US withdrew from it. Then we were actively holding negotiations and they bombed us. It looks like the only way we can ensure they leave us alone is acquiring MAD capabilities.”
Okay, well let me clarify. I think they were justified in doing so. I don’t want them or their proxies obtaining nukes because unlike Russia or even North Korea, they’re actually suicidal enough to use them.
Fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’ll also agree that Iran definitely should not have nuclear weapons, especially when keeping in mind that they’ve openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map (implicitly saying it could or should be done in a violent way).
However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If “we” want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just “right of the strongest”, we can’t accept these kind of violations of international law.
Legally speaking, I agree. I’m speaking strictly from a strategic or game-theoretical standpoint. I see this as a binary situation: either we physically stop them from building a nuke, or they will build one. I’d much rather we strike preemptively now - so long as it actually stops them - than have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future, especially given their history of threatening violence, using violence, and funding violence.
Nukes never should’ve been invented in the first place. But we can’t put that genie back in the bottle, so this is the best we can do given the current situation. They don’t have to pursue one - they’re choosing to, knowing full well the potential (now actual) consequences. I’d argue that the tragedy of a nuclear detonation in a major city far-outweighs, by orders of magnitude, the human and geopolitical cost of preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I’d be against it too if the facility were in Sweden or Finland - but it’s not.
And which nation is the only one that actually has used them? (On civilians, no less)
deleted by creator