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.”
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?
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?
You’re kinda making the point for them
But then we’re back to “would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?”
Some are ready to watch the world burn
Who decides which country is “crazy”?!
The nations that decide that bombing anyone in the Middle East is lawful when they are doing it.
Also the nations that decide that Kosovo has to be independent, but this is not a precedent for anyone else.
Arabs and Turks ethnically cleansing Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Armenians is fine. But a few Slavic peoples murdering each other because of religion warrant an exceptional intervention. But Mustafa Kemal is a good guy.
Russians are to blame for their government’s actions and have to be banned from payment systems and visiting EU countries. But Russians who work in the government and their family members can live in EU countries half the time and more. That’s justified by “killing Russia’s economy for the war”, except Russia’s war is not funded by taxes from citizens paying and accepting payments for shit with MC and Visa. Russia’s war is funded by oil and gas trade. Or by “punishing Russians and making them change the regime”, which is very funny, because the people actually part of the regime are not “punished” this way, they are also the exact group that should be “punished” for good effect, and we the rest kinda see that and don’t have huge sympathies to the narratives of people doing such stuff.
Also about Russia - those nations would decide that Putin’s and Yeltsin’s regimes are nice and legitimate and democratic when they were limited to destroying Russia itself. Again, now every Russian is retroactively to blame for those years as well, except those they were dealing with.
And it’s the same everywhere, if there’s an authoritarian regime - then just like with businesses, it’s sort of a profitable endeavor. And the process making it profitable happens in the western countries. It’s one system in which their elites have that cozy spot of hypocritically accusing everyone other than themselves of the processes they create. A continuation of the colonial system, too continuous and similar to even use the “neo” prefix.
That they are mostly democracies is not real republicanism, at least not in the last 20 years. It’s a sign of luxury - look, we can afford such magnificent Colosseum shows that our populace is well controlled even under pretense of democracy. The countries higher in that hierarchy play democracy more, the countries lower in it - less.
Say, Iran’s regime is unfortunate, but calling it less democratic than UK would be preposterous. It has more crime and corruption, true. But maybe the fact that Iran’s appearance of democracy is above what it’s “allowed” is not a smaller reason for the violence against it, than any fears of it attaining a nuke.
… I’d rather listen to what DPRK, IRI, PRC, even Turkey’s leadership have to say on what’s civilized and what’s not. Everyone is better than NATO&EU. Russia’s … eh, I’ve met some people too close to that, they stink too much, quite westernized one can say.
Religion mostly
Removed by mod
Lmao Hamas would have launched them at Israel and we would be seeing world war 3 with nukes. The fact that you think Hamas would be more responsible with WMDs than US, which hasn’t used them since Japan, is bizzare
Act like the USA?
US is expanding? When was the last time US annexed a territory? Did you honestly just try to make US as a better example than Russia in this context?
There’s Afghanistan, Iraq, and these days there’s talk about a 51st state, rumblings about Greenland, Palestine
American aggression and coups in various countries… there’s so many examples going back to Vietnam and maybe before.
Basically after the British cocked up so many countries in the world, it passed the baton to America.
Iran is one example of a country whose problems are directly caused by American interventionism.
You wrote all that and failed to give me one example of annexation by US. Israel is annexing Palestine. Russia is annexing Ukraine. US didn’t annex Afghanistan or other countries. The states/countries live on, sometimes better than before. There is a huge difference.
I honestly believe trump is BS’ing about annexing Canada.
He didn’t say the world would be safer. But history kind of shows it is in each countries self interest to have nukes vs not having them.
Removed by mod
Why? Give it some thought and actually come up with a logical answer, because countries do not invade US because of nukes, but because they have the most advanced army in the world. Nukes for US changes nothing, they’re there only as an answer to other nukes.
Removed by mod
Give me one quote where US has threatened Palestine with nukes if they shoot back or whatever you’re hallucinating right now
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.
Imagine giving every potential madman (including school shooters and what not) destructive weapons thinking you’re making world a better place. Unhinged take honestly.
Removed by mod
School shooters usually use it as their last resort. Bullying of autistic kids is the main problem. Them finding such an exit is a secondary one.
No, school shooters aren’t using it as a last resort. They are physcopaths who feel slighted and can’t process emotions.
This is wrong. Psychopaths feel themselves just fine in the society and usually don’t become school shooters.
Shooting up bullies is a very crude solution, one that a psychopath usually doesn’t need.
In any case most of school shootings I’ve read about were connected to bullying, and bully lives don’t matter. Don’t bully, don’t get killed.
A psychopath usually plans their murders, so they’ll do just fine with a heavy sharp object or a reactive not intended for food getting into food. A psychopath will also be on the convenient side of any socially approved action.
I’ve recently fully realized that I’ve met a high quality psychopath once.
Well it’s definitely not autistics or a last resort like you claim…
Nobody should have nukes, you fucking hypocrites…
Except France and the UK of course.
People with nuclear weapons have forbidden you from having nuclear weapons?
Humans are a goofy lot.
Israel is the criminal and everyone knows it.
Israel will face the long-term consequences of its reckless behavior. Just not today.
Well Pakistan will give them one if needed so they kind of already have one. Maybe stop pushing them to use it on Israel.
NO ONE should have them. Dumb asses.
Yeah but until countries like the US, Russia, China and the rest give them up, they are the only true guarantee of sovereignty.
Israel is the principal source of regional instability and terror and everyone and his dog knows this.
The kowtowing to Trump and his Zionist sponsors by the client states of the US Empire is an insult to objective reality.
Seriously. We’re supposed to regard Iran as an existential threat that is worth any price to neutralize. Okay, boomers.
And not only that, Israel has nuclear weapons.
…and it’s supposed to be a secret because God forbid having to comply with international treaties on nukes. Well it’s not like they respect international law anyway right? But the ones on nukes they just bypass and no one bats an eye
Two things (countries) can be bad at the same time
Sounds like something a tankie would say about Ukraine and Russia
Nukes for me but not for thee
I believe ALL of the following;
- Iran should not have nuclear weapons
- Israel should not have nuclear weapons
- Iran should not weaponize Palestinian suffering or coax them into attacking Israel while Iran itself sees little repercussions
- Israel should not genocide
- Israel has committed genocide and should pay a hefty price
- Neither Iran nor Israel will really answer for their fuckery
- Palestinians will remain fucked…if they survive.
My heart breaks for the Palestinian people who suffer and die for others’ greed, ambition, and political squabbles.
Exactly. This is not a competition, we don’t have to cheer for either side. Horrible things are happening
My exact thoughts
This is the nature of modern day proxy conflicts. Both actors can continue easily but the “battlefield” like Gaza and South Lebanon are the ones that lose.
Damn, that’s the most reasonable take I’ve heard all year. Kudos
I agree with all of your past tense takes. The future remains to be determined. We might all be flattened at this rate.
Well that’s a nice enough list in a vacuum, but what does that actually mean she the real world? Israel already has nukes, Iran won’t survive without them, Palestinians are going to fight back against the fascists trying to exterminate them - with or without Irans prompting - and sympathetic countries like Iran are going to try and aid that struggle.
I’d add:
- Hamas needs to deleted from the face of earth
And all that basically describes the opinion of 90% of the population just that vocal minorities are very vocal.
90 percent of the western population. The rest of the world is more sympathetic to the militant struggle against imperial genocide.
Iran is answering for their fuckery
“We will do anything to maintain the status quo, up to and including genocidal ethnosupremacy”!
I am honestly so revolted.
Well, that’s been the litemotiv of the last century on the area, support a slightly less evil genocidal asshole against another genocidal asshole.
What status quo? They are complicit
The status quo is Western dominance and power projection.
Not exactly. West didn’t care too much about other non-western countries having nukes. Two nations who have nukes borderline almost started a war in Asia (Pakistan and India). Iran is a special case, just like North Korea is. Unlike others, the two I mentioned have essentially declared themselves as the enemies of the west, so naturally west wants to keep them away from such destructive weapons
EDIT: Third one would be Russia, but there was already conflicts and a long standoff. The Russia has made it clear they can invade everyone but no one can invade them. Coincidentally, same could be said for USA.
Just my two cents, from some philosophing east european slav here.
Iran is a special case. Unlike others, the two I mentioned have essentially declared themselves as the enemies of the west,
You reversed it. The west made itself the enemy of iran
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]
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
I’m curious to see what Iran would have become in the next 5 years had this shit not occurred. It had the potential of becoming another regime or possibly a democracy again. Hard to say where it was going.
Whatever.
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?
Whatever happened to: “tRuMp iS tHe PeAcE pReSIdEnT”.
I thought the US was trillions in debt. There’s always money for war.
Can’t wait to laugh at this smoothbrained crew of assclowns as they try to fight a foreign war. Good luck maintaining those supply chains for US war mongering when the whole world fucking hates you.
FFS. Anyway. Next.
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.
China, India, and Pakistan once again proving that having nukes does actually matter because you can’t be arbitrarily shoved around around by the only other nuclear powers.
Removed by mod
“Iran is two weeks away from nuclear capability” - Netanyahu: 2012, 2015, 2018, 2023, 2025
He started a lot earlier than 2012
But genocide against Palestinians is a-OK.
What does the “G” in G7 stand for? Gaslighting? Genocide? Grift? Maybe there are 7 Gs.
