290
G7 leaders: ‘Iran can never have a nuclear weapon’ (www.politico.eu)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 1 year ago (20 children)

“We will do anything to maintain the status quo, up to and including genocidal ethnosupremacy”!

I am honestly so revolted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (17 children)

    What status quo? They are complicit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    The status quo is Western dominance and power projection.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    Elaborate..

    For others who don't want the alternative history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_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]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    The coup explains the current form of government, not why the government hates west, a west that is broader than just US

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    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 .

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.

    Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that's currently happening.

    Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we're commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what's happening?

    As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I'd much rather them be aligned with us but I can't blame them when they've been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.

    Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.

    Now you may think it's too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you're calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what's happening?

    You misunderstood. I said Europe does not agree with what is happening in Palestine, not Iran. Different scenarios. There is no genocide in Iran. Everyone's in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes. Not everyone is in agreement whether there should be war about it. Currently it's hardly a war.

    but then you must also recognize that at that point you're calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes...

    Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists in no way equals to annihilation of a state my dude. Stop overreaching.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.

    Obviously I'm not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I'm saying that by manufacturing consent for the "war on terror" the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what's happening in Ukraine)

    So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.

    And if you're claiming that "Everyone's in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes." but "Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists" is "hardly a war" - then you're either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.

    I feel we may not be understanding each other so I'll present my argument and you present yours?

    My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.

    At no point did Palestine play into Iran nuclear talks. I still don't quite understand why you keep bringing them into this conflict. It's a seperate conflict that has been in the making for a long time now, and I'm almost 99% sure US is strongly behind it (which would explain the spike in weapon deliveries pre-strike) borderline using Israel as a puppet state.

    So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.

    Because not doing anything and chilling out when others are making major moves is sure a failproof strategy. Worked well for France in WW2. Not really advocating for these attacks, but you gotta understand that they do have a point. If west does nothing, they will get cornered. No one wants to be cornered. I'd rather be cornered by US than IRGC, you know, but obviously this is going to be a controversial and mixed opinion for obvious reasons, depending on who's reading this.

    or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.

    Well, no one is stopping you from becoming the next Houthis shooting rockets at our valuables. The god isn't watching. But "expect no repercussions"? Why do you think no one is attacking the big countries? There are always repercussions, this isn't unique to G7 countries. Who tf is going to bully China? Not saying the world order is excellent, but it is what it is, and currently Iran doesn't have the best cards and no one on the other side wants them to have nukes.

    My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.

    My point is, and I truly believe, if highly religious countries with record amount of human right violations and authoritarism would be the world's hedgemony instead of United States who could get wiped out while idling, there is a very, very high chance my, and likely your life might be so much worse. US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran, so naturally western countries are interested in avoiding such a large future threats

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran

    As I said: "that's an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes..."

    I'm just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it's own weight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Beats the alternative?

    EDIT: Gotta say, seeing sudden jump in downvotes on all my profile makes me feel good. I'm getting to your nerves, extremists. You know I'm right, and your brigading confirms that for me. The fact that you suddenly spend so much time trying to affect some imaginary points is just.. 1-0.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent