G7 leaders: ‘Iran can never have a nuclear weapon’
-
Elaborate..
For others who don't want the alternative history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–United_States_relations
Iranian explanations for the animosity with the United States include “the natural and unavoidable conflict between the Islamic system” and “such an oppressive power as the United States, which is trying to establish a global dictatorship and further its own interests by dominating other nations and trampling on their rights”, as well as the United States support for Israel ("the Zionist entity").[11][12] In the West, however, different explanations have been considered,[1] including the Iranian government's need for an external bogeyman to furnish a pretext for domestic repression against pro-democratic forces and to bind the government to its loyal constituency.[13] The United States attributes the worsening of relations to the 1979–81 Iran hostage crisis,[1] Iran's repeated human rights abuses since the Islamic Revolution, different restrictions on using spy methods on democratic revolutions by the US, its anti-Western ideology and its nuclear program.[14][15]
wrote on last edited by [email protected]We are going to ignore that the 1953 coup never happened?
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days
According to Stephen Kinzer, author of the book All the Shah's Men, Roosevelt quickly seized control of the Iranian press by buying them off with bribes and circulating anti-Mossadegh propaganda. He recruited allies among the Islamic clergy, and he convinced the shah that Mossadegh was a threat.
-
We are going to ignore that the 1953 coup never happened?
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days
According to Stephen Kinzer, author of the book All the Shah's Men, Roosevelt quickly seized control of the Iranian press by buying them off with bribes and circulating anti-Mossadegh propaganda. He recruited allies among the Islamic clergy, and he convinced the shah that Mossadegh was a threat.
The coup explains the current form of government, not why the government hates west, a west that is broader than just US
-
The coup explains the current form of government, not why the government hates west, a west that is broader than just US
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The west didn't abandon the idea of controlling Iran again for it's oils and for Israel to have free reign in controlling all Palestine and keep expending it's illegal settlements. I am all for a regime change but without foreign intervention for geopolitics reasons .
-
Don’t care if yanks go get blown up in the Middle East. It’s all in service of enriching Halliburton and the military industrial complex. Yawn. It is 2003 again?
The last time they did this, a million Iraqis died.
I know. Fuck the US. They can’t even come up with different propaganda.
-
Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.
The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel's right to defend itself.
"Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon," declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.
They pledged to "remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability."
Nobody should have nukes, you fucking hypocrites..
-
Ukraine gave up their nukes, look what happened to them. Libya gave their nuclear weapons program up, and look at them today. North Korea didn't, and they're still standing, for better or for worse. Iraq was accused of having nukes, but didn't have them, and got destroyed. Seems that if you want any semblance of sovereignty outside of NATO, you better have some nukes.
So for any nations reading along I'll summarize the basic conclusions:
- Get nukes
- If you have nukes, do not give them up
- If you're accused of having nukes, drop everything and get nukes asap
Do you think Israel would be bombing Iran if they had nukes?
Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?
-
Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?
MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.
India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven't fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.
-
Religious zealots can't be allowed to have nukes. You have to at least masquerade as a well-adjusted nation while you develop the nukes and slowly massage your zealots into positions of power over a few decades. Those are the rules.
The country founded on the idea that "God promised us this land" already has nukes.
-
The west didn't abandon the idea of controlling Iran again for it's oils and for Israel to have free reign in controlling all Palestine and keep expending it's illegal settlements. I am all for a regime change but without foreign intervention for geopolitics reasons .
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Again, you're doing something called US defaultism. The west is not in agreement about Palestine for example. Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that's currently happening. Neither did other parts of the west planned to control Iran's oil. I'll have to remind you that the initial topic/argument was why Iran/West are on bad terms, not Iran and US.
For me, a European, my hate towards them comes from their continious support towards Russia who's invading checks notes Europe.
-
MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.
India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven't fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.
What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?
-
The country founded on the idea that "God promised us this land" already has nukes.
God can't seem to get much done without the US Military
-
Israel is the criminal and everyone knows it.
Israel will face the long-term consequences of its reckless behavior. Just not today.
A disturbingly large group think that history started on October 7 2023 and prior to that it was all sunshine and rainbows in the region.
Those people didn't hear about 70ish years of Israeli bullshit on the nightly news so as far as they're concerned it didn't happen.
-
Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.
The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel's right to defend itself.
"Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon," declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.
They pledged to "remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability."
Well Pakistan will give them one if needed so they kind of already have one. Maybe stop pushing them to use it on Israel.
-
What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?
You're kinda making the point for them
-
Nobody should have nukes, you fucking hypocrites..
Except France and the UK of course.
-
You're kinda making the point for them
wrote on last edited by [email protected]But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"
Some are ready to watch the world burn
-
Ukraine had nukes and gave them up. They were invaded.
Iraq gave up their WMD program after the first Gulf War. They were invaded again.
Iran definitely had a nuclear program, but doesn't appear to be pursuing it anymore. They're getting attacked and quite possibly will get invaded.
South Africa had a nuclear program and gave it up. Left alone.
The Great Powers, particularly the United States but also Russia, have shown that your country should just keep going once you start. Chances are, you'll get invaded, anyway.
This is not the way towards anti-proliferation.
Sweden stopped its nuclear program.
But joined NATO which (in theory) is like having nukes.
-
But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"
Some are ready to watch the world burn
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Who decides which country is "crazy"?!
-
Iran pushes forth October 7 to reignite tensions, training Hamas operatives & such.
I love unfounded conspiracy theories
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Now that isn't a reply I expected considering how well established this particular narrative is in the mainstream.
But here you go, a well sourced academic article on the topic:
-
Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?
The world would be a safer place if not only every country had nukes, but also every adult citizen had a farm of combat drones.
I personally don't want to hear of NATO&allies lecturing everyone else morals. Tired of that. And I understand why in ex-USSR the perception of them like some global good guys was common - the reaction to very invasive and obnoxious and irritating Soviet propaganda.
I don't understand how people in the west can believe that.
Anyway, no intelligent person from the west I've talked to did, so ... kinda as it should be.
