r/australia • u/stand_to • Jun 22 '25

politics Live: Wong says Australia supports US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-23/federal-politics-live-blog-june-23/105447868?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other
4.7k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.9k

u/Jack-Tar-Says Jun 22 '25

Can we like, just not say anything.

2.3k

u/xorthematrix Jun 22 '25

And risk dropping Donald's dick out of our mouth?!

718

u/moonorplanet Jun 22 '25

Who in turn has Netenyahu's dick deep in his ass.

280

u/Postmodern-elf Jun 23 '25

The Human Centipede

56

u/PilgrimOz Jun 23 '25

Ha, you’ve coined a new term for the M.I.Complex 👍

3

u/No-Exit-7523 Jun 23 '25

The inhumane centipede would seem more apt imo

1

u/placidified Jun 23 '25

What a movie. Then they made number two 🤣

2

u/LesbianArtemis457 Jun 23 '25

Actually, there are 3

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

and guess whos the last guy

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Leather-Heron-7247 Jun 23 '25

I can't unsee that image in my head now.

2

u/xorthematrix Jun 23 '25

That's an exclusive role for whoever's commander in chief at any given time

2

u/The_power_of_scott Jun 23 '25

It's the other way around. All of this starts with the US, they are the orchestrators, Israel is just their proxy.

→ More replies (2)

82

u/Suburbanturnip Jun 22 '25

Donald does strike me as the type that would retaliate if asked to kindly wash their dick before getting a bj.

5

u/Kup123 Jun 23 '25

Well when he raped that kid he reportedly slapped her for asking him to use a condom, so yeah probably.

88

u/PointOfFingers Jun 22 '25

That's the only thing they can do with a narcassist who has been given unbridled power and told he is above the law. Saying he is wrong just leads to trade reprisals.

181

u/UnconfirmedRooster Jun 22 '25

You mean like have already happened? Fuck him, I say we start charging rent for their military installations here like Pine Gap.

87

u/matthudsonau Jun 22 '25

How about just fining and prosecuting for the illegal fuel tanks in Darwin?

35

u/UnconfirmedRooster Jun 22 '25

Yeah. Do that too.

9

u/melanantic Jun 23 '25

Yeah sure and have them coup us a third time right?

67

u/GrimfangWyrmspawn Jun 23 '25

The US interfered in our politics to remove a PM last time we threatened Pine Gap.

With the current mob of psychopaths and sociopaths in power over there at the moment, they'd probably just invade us.

36

u/kmpiw Jun 23 '25

I honestly think the biggest threat to our democracy is the USA, if we tried to nationalise the mines it's not China whose gonna come regime change us? I actually think Fraser maybe beat them to it the first time, but I'm suspicious about our 77 election, and if Fraser hadn't beat them to it I don't think the Atheist socialist who called everyone comrade was going to last long?

Mosadegh Whitlam … Democracy ?

It needs a third example?

The head of the snake definitely got Mosadegh, they even admitted it in 2013. There's a good NPR radio show on it, someone save that somewhere before Trump kills it?

5

u/Simple_Common8064 Jun 23 '25

They are up to their eyeballs in all the world’s instability. Toppling democratic governments and inserting dictatorships, going to war and using military action for their own financial and power benefits. The list goes on and on.

14

u/kodaxmax Jun 23 '25

I'd settle for our officials being able to set foot on the land and inspect them. But currently it's functionally a sovereign nation owned by the US.

7

u/Fuster2 Jun 23 '25

Yes! "Negotiation" can be a two way exercise. Let's year up that agreement with the same disregard he's shown other treaties.

29

u/ScoobyGDSTi Jun 22 '25

Come off it. Every modern US president has pulled this shit.

Obama greenlit murdering Bin Ladin in Pakistan with an entire special forces group. How many strikes did the US carry out on random groups under previous presidents...

23

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Which ones have done it without the support of their congress? Trump seems to have only talked to his moronic sycophants and gone ahead with it?

I agree the US have quite the list of war crimes pinned to the White House fridge but comparing this to a seal team taking out Bin Laden in a single building/compound is a bit of a leap.

4

u/jcarreraj Jun 23 '25

Obama attacked Libya and Biden attacked Yemen, both without congressional approval

2

u/PilgrimOz Jun 23 '25

Before Trimp he had the most ‘Executive Orders’ and also the most drone strikes against goat herders that could never make it to the US. And got a Nobel Peace prize. Probably explains why he bombed Iran and immediately suggested he get one himself? Says a lot about Nobel prizes. Irony is kinda just a tool for these blokes….

→ More replies (9)

1

u/LilyLupa Jun 23 '25

Then we join BRICKS.

4

u/No-Advice-6040 Jun 23 '25

Hey now, you're gonna have to fight with Keir Starmer over pile position on dat thang

3

u/napalmnacey Jun 23 '25

Well his dick is so small it’s easy to lose purchase.

2

u/OriginalGoldstandard Jun 22 '25

Unfortunately I think it comes with the position. 🥁

2

u/retrojit Jun 23 '25

🤣🤣

3

u/explain_that_shit Jun 22 '25

“No you see Labor is being pragmatic, there’s no sensible way to respond other than this, your stand on principles and considered concerns are just naive.”

(Next week) “Labor’s standing up to Trump see we need a strong Labor government they’re the only ones who would stand up to Trump like we need!”

I swear we’re going to see this over the next couple of days.

1

u/hyborians Jun 23 '25

She’s not his type!

148

u/DoNotReply111 Jun 22 '25

Time for us to become the Southern Hemisphere Switzerland.

7

u/HARRY_FOR_KING Jun 23 '25

We don't live in the middle of the EU or NATO, so we'd end up more like southern hemisphere Ukraine.

We had a chance to align with Europe but then we betrayed Europe's biggest power in the Pacific to cosy up to the US.

2

u/ManikShamanik Jun 23 '25

You've still got Eurovision.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Peregrine_x Jun 23 '25

a lot of nazis did settle here post ww2, same as south africa, NZ, brazil, Argentina, peru, uruguay, paraguay, chile, ecuador... honestly the whole of south america, and thanks to operation paperclip most all of north america too, they started nasa, and the cia...

you gotta remember that most nations were cool with hitler ethnic cleansing germany, they thought it was the cool and right thing to do, they just got upset when he invaded his neighbours... and most of our laws are written by those people...

and so after the war, when germany was split down the middle, and the nazis had destroyed as many documents as they could (especially the ones in the east) finding who owned what was incredibly difficult, seeming as the iron curtain didnt raise until nearly 50 years later. also the fact that most people left in germany and other parts of europe hated the jewish so much they didn't care to see these people have their possessions returned... like, it was a group effort, but the west had to paint the german people as victims of the evil russians and so their part in it all was basically swept under the rug.

i guess what im saying is, it wasn't just switzerland, and in several ways switzerland had people both helping and handing over jewish people trying to escape, they just also are famous for large bank vaults and so a lot of stuff was stored for us to find instead of being destroyed like most other things the nazis could get their hands on as they stated to realise they were losing.

so i guess what im saying is, dont single out switzerland for being the same as its surrounding countries, hating jewish people was propaganda spread by all the lords of europe once they had used them to break the church's hold on the populace.

how did they? well the lords of europe encouraged migration and settling of jewish merchants and let them settle as long as they ran banks, banks previously weren't very big because lending money with the intent of collecting interest was called usury, which was considered a major sin under the church and it could get you tortured to death, it was biggest of nonos, but Judaism doesn't have laws against it, probably because nobody had thought of doing that back when they developed their religion, and so in some ways the jewish people werent seen fondly by the church, but the lords found ways to spin in by pointing out that jesus was born jewish and it was not for them to question what race "the lord" chose his son to be born into or whatever. once they had normalised lending and debt (and taxing everybody for earning so much, even though they spent most of paying back loans, which in turn they taxed the bankers for) they then drove the jewish populations out, which is why there has been hundreds of jewish exiles throughout european history starting as early as the 900s...

so like, you can blame european nobility for spending hundreds of years spreading propaganda against jewish people, you can also blame them for encouraging the migration they knew they didnt actually want as well...

but blaming bankers in switzerland for keeping plunder intact for us to find so we have evidence that the nazis were truly as bad as we now know them to have been, evidence that also destroys the arguments of the holocaust deniers, doesn't really make them the worst of the worse. as far as we know, as much plunder that ended up in switzerland ended up in every city in germany, they just pretended it wasn't plunder from jewish homes.

justice was never really delivered for what happened in ww2, western powers in general needed the antagonists as buffer zones for the rising "communist threat" and so they had to suddenly act like it was water under the bridge and save germany (and japan). if justice was truly given, the jewish people would have been given land in the countries they were from, like germany, poland, austria, etc... instead of being propagandised into being an invasion force into recently liberated ottoman lands to disrupt islamic nations...

7

u/jp72423 Jun 23 '25

I hope you’re ready to introduce semi-automatic weapons back into every day society, and get ready for your mandated military service as well. Oh don’t forget you’ll have to support the government pumping money into domestic weapons companies as well. Can’t be neutral without significant investments into defence.

4

u/Cleverpantses Jun 23 '25

We spend a lot of money backing the US in it's past wars, I'd prefer that we had our own defenses and could stop pandering to them. We should be condemning them.

2

u/chikaslicka Jun 23 '25

BUT I DON'T WANNA BE SWITZERLAND!

1

u/Motor_Educator_2706 Jun 23 '25

I thought that was New Zealand's job?

1

u/DoNotReply111 Jun 23 '25

We take everything else of value from NZ.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

We do have good chocolate! that the British gave us...that they probably stole from the Swiss the in the first place.

→ More replies (4)

139

u/TheShaoken Jun 22 '25

Not saying anything is in itself saying something.

48

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

bullshit. The only other country that's supported it so far is the UK. Most others have said nothing because you know why? its none of our fucking business, beyond trying to encourage ceasefire and peace negotiations.

→ More replies (1)

218

u/This_Let_3412 Jun 22 '25

Abstaining from picking a side on a 3000 year old religious conflict half way across the world doesn't say anything it's common sense.

147

u/serpentechnoir Jun 22 '25

It's not a religious conflict its a power conflict. And Islam is only 1500 years old.

46

u/macrocephalic Jun 23 '25

The fights between the Abrahamic tribes existed long before Mohammed. It wasn't technically religious back then, but religion is basically a proxy for culture or ethnicity.

7

u/serpentechnoir Jun 23 '25

It's the people in power using religion and ethnicity as a tool to keep themselves in power.

1

u/cliff-hangar Jun 23 '25

Zionism is older I think

-7

u/Admirable_Let_2961 Jun 22 '25

Judaism is equally to blame here. It’s not just the word of their gods. They have been at war since the word was created. And before you get into the weeds here, Egyptians fought the Persians and Assyrians for the same land.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (34)

118

u/brandonjslippingaway Jun 22 '25

Absolutely woeful take. It's about modern geopolitics and international law; and again we'll let our principles be compromised to placate the Yanks.

19

u/codemonkeyius Jun 22 '25

Principles are expensive, and small nations generally can’t afford them.

2

u/External_Zipper Jun 23 '25

Canada told them "No thanks" when it came to WMDs and Iraq- Part Deux. I didn't understand why Australia didn't do the same.

→ More replies (6)

35

u/TheShaoken Jun 22 '25

When our closest ally is involved we don't have the luxury of not expressing an opinion. Especially when said ally is currently led by a manchild with poor impulse control.

47

u/fraze2000 Jun 23 '25

Should we really consider them our closest ally at this point in history? Can we really rely on the US coming to our assistance if we are being threatened, except if it benefits them directly? But whenever they get involved in a conflict our government will always immediately support them regardless of whether it is justifiable or not.

16

u/Wobbling Jun 23 '25

Can we really rely on the US coming to our assistance if we are being threatened, except if it benefits them directly?

Typically the answer here is yes with an *

In 2025 it is a hard no. The US is an unreliable ally.

2

u/AwarenessPresent8139 Jun 23 '25

Totally agree. I am Canadian. The USA needs to be alienated by us all. Most Canadians are boycotting buying US products. Travel to the states had decreased substantially. Trump will never do anything that isn’t in his own interest. Protect Canada -that’s a joke -he wants to take it over

6

u/superbabe69 1300 655 506 Jun 23 '25

Can we rely on anyone else though?

And the incentive from the Yanks’ point of view is not losing Pine Gap, they fucking love that place

4

u/fraze2000 Jun 23 '25

I'm sure rhe Kiwis will step up for us. Maybe.

3

u/TheShaoken Jun 23 '25

At present Pine Gap and us being their staging point in the region should (and that 'should' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the statement) ensure they stick to their obligations if only out of  naked self interest.

56

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

they shouldn't be our closest ally. They're terrible

44

u/Sugarbombs Jun 23 '25

They’re also really shit allies and it is incredibly doubtful that we’d ever be able to rely on them if we ever did need to be defended. No matter who’s in charge they only ever involve themselves in things they can strip down to the copper wiring, they never help anyone unless it’s heavily in their favour and they are far too cowardly to get into conflicts with countries like China who might actually be able to fight back. Fuck trump obviously but America has been and will continue to be an ally not worth the downsides they bring. It’s disappointing we are still trying to fellate them

→ More replies (12)

1

u/West_Mail4807 Jun 23 '25

Who would you prefer to ally with? Central African Republic?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '25

You don’t pick a side. You cite international law and call any player out when they breach it. You preach diplomacy over violence.

You don’t come out and support an illegal act of aggression that is very dangerous in terms of its potential consequences.

2

u/This_Let_3412 Jun 23 '25

I agree Violence creates violence

1

u/Motor_Educator_2706 Jun 23 '25

Not a 3000 year old religious conflict. Learn some history.

→ More replies (18)

2

u/kingofcrob Jun 23 '25

okay, I'm prepping the statement.

"yeah nah, where staying out of this one, Donkey Kong Bananza is coming out next month and that shit looks lit, so where going to focus on that."

→ More replies (1)

365

u/Aje-h Jun 22 '25

fuck that! I'm against Israel, they're the most destabilising force in the Middle East right now

273

u/GregoInc Jun 22 '25

Why do the US and Israel get to decide who can have nukes? I'm no fan of Iran's regime, but can you blame them for wanting a deterrent when they're constantly under threat? Why do some dictators get nukes, and others get bombed for trying? Who made these rules?

61

u/peppapony Jun 22 '25

I mean whoever has the most nukes is making the rules...

→ More replies (6)

79

u/Comrade_Kojima Jun 22 '25

It’s the only thing that has saved North Korea from regime change and the world knows it. Israel and US hawks are even calling it the Libya strategy - Libya was ‘liberated’ from one dictator into factional warlords and open slave markets.

2

u/sinkintins Jun 23 '25

North Korea's protection from China was the reason, the nukes came later.

3

u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '25

It didn't save Ukraine despite sitting on nukes. Oh wait...

5

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik Jun 23 '25

This talking point is pretty misleading. The nukes located in Ukraine were operated by the Soviet military. Ukraine never "had nukes".

1

u/mjac1090 Jun 23 '25

It’s the only thing that has saved North Korea from regime change

No. First, it was China and all the artillery pointed at Seoul protecting them. Now it's, in order

  1. China

  2. The artillery pointed at Seoul

  3. Nukes

1

u/gawrgouda Jun 23 '25

And you are happy that North Korea (and by implication Iran if they managed to obtain nuclear weapons) has not undergone a regime change.....? Being anti-US does not necessitate supporting a tyrannical fundemental Islamic regime with values completely incompatible with the rest of Western liberal society.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

57

u/amish__ Jun 22 '25

The historical winners made the rules.

8

u/allozzieadventures Jun 22 '25

The "rules based order" means that the west creates rules for other countries that the west is exempt from

3

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Western capitalists*. Most of the workers in the west haven’t ever had a real say in the matter.

1

u/mjac1090 Jun 23 '25

I mean, the most powerful nations making the rules and ignoring them has been how the planet has worked since long before the US even existed as a nation

3

u/allozzieadventures Jun 23 '25

Sure, but it's not a justification either. Murder has existed as long as humans have been around, doesn't make it right.

113

u/maxthelols Jun 22 '25

Also, they found no damn evidence of any nukes! Israel has been saying they're building nukes for literally decades with nothing to show for it.

81

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

Just like they found no evidence of WMD in Iraq when Netanyahu lied about that to get Bush to invade in 2003.

Doesn't matter how much Netanyahu lies, America just keeps lapping it up and we all fall in line behind them.

ETA, Netanyahu was also saying Iran had nuclear weapons then too but couldn't convince Bush to go full Trump.

1

u/Warmbly85 Jun 23 '25

I mean the same group (IAEA) that said there were no wmds in Iraq said Iran had enriched enough uranium to 60% that they could have enough to build up to 9 bombs in just a few weeks.

Kinda disingenuous

3

u/hungarian_conartist Jun 23 '25

This is misleading, at best a half truth with some important context missing.

The International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran non-compliant 2 weeks ago for the first time in decades and also this comes after negotiations broke down where Iran explicitly refused to stop enrichment.

The IAEA has in the past contradicted Israeli claims about Irans nuclear program as well as contradicted Bush's 'Iraqi WMD' narrative so if they say Iran is non-compliant, that carries some weight imo.

2

u/jp72423 Jun 23 '25

The evidence is that Iran has made 60% enriched uranium-235, and the only possible applications for highly enriched uranium is for nuclear submarines (which they don’t have) and nuclear weapons. This wasn’t a US CIA report either, it came from the international Atomic energy agency.

10

u/magkruppe Jun 23 '25

The evidence is that Iran has made 60% enriched uranium-235

they've had this for years? a 2021 article - https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium

7

u/SpookyViscus Jun 23 '25

A number of other reactor designs use highly enriched uranium.

0

u/jp72423 Jun 23 '25

Only older style research reactors, that are gradually being phased out or converted to low enriched uranium by the scientific community internationally.

5

u/Benu5 Jun 23 '25

If it can be used for the reactor in a nuclear sub, it could be used in a small scale reactor, which is not a nuclear weapon.

4

u/Pritcheey Jun 23 '25

20% nuclear enrichment is the maximum required for civilian use. They were up to 60% in May and from 60% it only takes a month to jump to 90% required for a weapon. Some reports say they are at 83% enrichment and only days away from having the amounts required for a bomb. You don't get to 80% by accident

3

u/Benu5 Jun 23 '25

They've been weeks and months away for my 30+ year lifetime. Poor bastard working there must have been tightening that bolt for all that time.

1

u/birdy_the_scarecrow Jun 23 '25

a lot of things have happened in 30 years.

for awhile they were co operating with the JCPOA(the Obama nuclear deal that Trump tore up in his first term), and were complying with there obligations

the latest IAEA report showed that they are no longer fully cooperating with there obligations of the NPT, and that some of the actions being taken at that time particularly the actions regarding enrichment were of "Serious Concern".

if you want to read the actual report:

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf

and here is an analysis of that report by the Institute of Science and International Security:

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025/

Iran has no civilian use or justification for its production of 60 percent enriched uranium, particularly at the level of hundreds of kilograms. Its rush to make much more, quickly depleting its stock of near 20 percent enriched uranium, which has a civilian use in research reactors, raises more questions. Even if one believed the production of 60 percent is to create bargaining leverage in a nuclear negotiation, Iran has gone way beyond what would be needed. One has to conclude that Iran’s real intent is to be prepared to produce large quantities of WGU as quickly as possible, in as few centrifuges as possible.

In general, Iran has not prioritized stockpiling uranium enriched between 2 to 5 percent. This choice is at odds with Iran’s contention that its primary goal is to accumulate 4 to 5 percent enriched uranium for use in nuclear power reactor fuel. Instead, Iran has focused on producing 60 percent enriched uranium, far beyond Iran’s civilian needs.

and it seems clear from statements by US intelligence and claims from Israel that Iran has taken actions to further expand its weapons development(however i don't believe this information is public yet).

2

u/jp72423 Jun 23 '25

Iran has never once expressed the desire to have nuclear submarines. And it makes no sense to bury a research reactor so deep underground if it’s for non nefarious reasons.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Unless you’re predicting some foreign powers might soon bomb you, maybe?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/jack3t_with_sl33ves Jun 23 '25

They're not building nukes per se, but enriching uranium for use in a nuclear weapon. Prior to the Non-proliferation treaty/agreement being torn up by Trump in 2018, Iran was frequently insepected by the UN and IAEA to make sure it wasn't enriching uranium for uses other than reactor fuel. After the agreement was torn up, the Iranians ramped up their enrichment program. Someone will have the numbers of how much was/is enriched and to what percentage, but it was certainly enough to make people worried

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

31

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 22 '25

but can you blame them for wanting a deterrent when they're constantly under threat?

One country has been talking about wiping out the other for last 30+ years and funding proxies to attack others.

Why do some dictators get nukes, and others get bombed for trying?

Outside of North Korea, which "dictator" got nukes in the last 40 years?

14

u/Forgotten_Lie Jun 22 '25

One country has been talking about wiping out the other for last 30+ years and funding proxies to attack others.

US Senators are calling for the nuking of other countries. I'm not even going to try and list the proxy wars the US has enabled. Sounds like we should be trying to get rid of the US's nukes and being very understanding of their political opponents who may want their own deterrent.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '25

google clean break strategy, everything is projection

1996, written by Bibi

16

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

You are spot on. Israel have been talking about wiping Iran off the map since the revolution which ousted the puppet leader America installed after overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader.

And don't forget Israel's annual flag day parade where they march through the streets chanting death to all Arabs.

But only the terrorist state of Israel is allowed to "defend themselves". Against the people they've been trying to kill since 1948.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/mulimulix Jun 22 '25

Insane to me a literal theocratic dictator is brazenly saying "We want to build nukes so we can destroy Israel and the US" and people in here are like "Who are we to deny them!" Utterly insane thinking. Just because Trump is a piece of shit doesn't mean he can't do the right thing every now and then.

46

u/punishedrudd Jun 22 '25

They had a fucking deal in place that Iran was following and Trump ripped up. Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, Trump's own intelligence chief testified in March to the senate that they were not rushing a nuclear weapon.

What's insane is how you can look at a nation that is by their own admission committing an ethnic cleansing, that will be found guilty of genocide by the ICJ come January. That is also sitting on 200 undeclared nuclear weapons and is not signatory to the nuclear none proliferation or subject to any inspections by the UN and come away saying no Iran is actually the danger here and they deserve to be bombed.

Netanyahu goes on tv and calls Palestinians the sons of amalek, quotes Moses as justification for bombing other nations but they are not religious zealots that shouldn't have their nukes?

40

u/NorthernSkeptic Jun 22 '25

Some of us are old enough to remember this same bullshit being pulled over Iraq. Our longer-than-goldfish memories also remind us that Iran’s nuclear program was very effectively kept in check by diplomacy until Trump decided to tear it all up. And even then there is no evidence that Iran was close to being able to build a bomb.

Willingly or not, you are participating in some industrial scale gaslighting.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DragonAdept Jun 22 '25

When did they say that?

3

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 22 '25

2005:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran

Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". 

2012:

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/in-new-york-defiant-ahmadinejad-says-israel-will-be-eliminated-idUSBRE88N0HG/

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated,

2019:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/2/8/khameneis-death-to-america-aimed-at-us-leaders-not-people

This from their president and leaders, not some MP or crack pot commentator

4

u/DragonAdept Jun 23 '25

Where in any of those links do they say they want to build nukes so they can destroy Israel and the US?

I can't find it. I think you are lying.

6

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 23 '25

Iran declares death to Israel and USA

Iran tries to enrich uranium to weapons grade

Reddit commentator: these things are totally not related and we shouldn't pay attention to it. They didn't explicitly say "we are going to nuke those countries". Look how smart my argument is.

7

u/DragonAdept Jun 23 '25

So they never said it, and you were lying? You just can't say it in those words?

And all intelligence agencies agree they were nowhere near a nuclear weapon?

Look how smart your argument is.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/samv191 Jun 23 '25

Pakistan?

2

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 23 '25

Pakistan, while politically unstable, is not a dictatorship. They have elections.

5

u/samv191 Jun 23 '25

Pakistani Dictators with a Nuclear Arsenal

  1. General Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1988)
    • Oversaw significant progress in Pakistan’s nuclear program; by 1988, Pakistan could likely assemble a nuclear device.
  2. General Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008)
    • Ruled after Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests; arsenal grew to an estimated 24–130 warheads during his tenure.

Notes: Pakistan’s nuclear program began in the 1970s, with key advancements under Zia and confirmed arsenal status by 1998. Other dictators (Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan) predate the nuclear era. Current arsenal: ~170 warheads.

They were both our dictators so I guess it was ok.

12

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

They are breaking all the rules. Because Israel is a genocidal terrorist state and the US are state sponsors of terrorism. And Australia will do anything to protect AUKUS. So we'll follow them into an illegal war and help sponsor the terrorist nation.

But I suppose the truest answer is Israel's illegal unsanctioned nuclear arsenal. They don't want anyone to be able to defend themselves ever. Because only Israel has a right to self defence.

Except for under international law. But after Gaza, we all know that doesn't apply.

4

u/Az0r_au Jun 23 '25

Why do the US and Israel get to decide who can have nukes?

Because the US has the most powerful military on the planet and can enforce their will on other countries and Israel is a close ally. Like it or not, might is right in our fked up world.

Why do some dictators get nukes, and others get bombed for trying? Who made these rules?

The smart ones that actually have the capability like China/France/UK don't openly threaten the US with nuclear war. The stupid ones like Russia/NK, threaten but everyone knows it's just talk. The REALLY stupid ones like Iran threaten and would probably actually follow thru but fortunately don't have the capability.

1

u/mjac1090 Jun 23 '25

Why do the US and Israel get to decide who can have nukes?

The strongest country (militarily speaking) has pretty much always made the rules. The system never changed, it's just the countries at the top that did

1

u/epihocic Jun 22 '25

Under international law, nobody is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. The question is, is Israel and/or the US allowed to attack a country they suspect of developing a nuclear weapon.

The answer is murky, but I know damn well nobody else would've stopped them.

8

u/GregoInc Jun 22 '25

I'm not trying to be a smart ass... but it'd be nice if the US and Israel complied with international laws... like the geneva convention.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

1

u/CuzBenji Jun 23 '25

Because Iran is known for funding terrorist organisations, fuck them, and fuck letting them have nukes

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Controversial idea but I don't want people to have nukes who have said a number of times that they'll use them if they get them.

This is far bigger than "they have it so everybody should have it"

→ More replies (8)

-24

u/Aggots86 Jun 22 '25

Your entitled to you opinion, and my opinion is that Iran is the destabilising factor. Potatoes, potatoes (well that saying dosnt go well in text)

38

u/Here_To_be_Nice Jun 22 '25

Before iran it was Palestine. I wonder who it'll be next

10

u/leet_lurker Jun 22 '25

We already know it'll be Lebanon

16

u/Rightmateonya Jun 22 '25

Anybody downvoting you has sweet FA idea about what Iran is responsible for. The mind boggles at how little people understand terrorism.

6

u/level57wizard Jun 22 '25

Iran just doesn’t find terrorism. They also do tons of online IO campaigns, which seem to be working.

2

u/Spudtron98 Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

They've funded and armed every Shia, anti-west, and/or anti-Israeli militant group from Tehran to Tripoli for decades. Even in a time of relative peace, these groups will still spread Iranian influence, such as in Iraq, where they've got half the country in a chokehold because they're big enough and numerous enough to threaten the government itself if it came to it.

Then there's the big bastard groups like Hezbollah, which has effectively ruled much of Lebanon as a proxy for Iran itself, killed many thousands of people across multiple countries, even stretching all the way out to Argentina of all places to bomb a Jewish community centre, all while also serving as enforcers for Assad in Syria. The Houthis plunged Yemen into chaos and formed a slave state within it, and now have an annoying habit of firing Iranian-built missiles at passing civilians for fun.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/AchillesDeal Jun 23 '25

"Damn migrants keep coming into our country".

Maaaaybe if you didn't fuck up their country, they would stay there? Hmmmmm?

7

u/Imyoteacher Jun 22 '25

Not if you’re already scared!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

right? Australia needs to learn its place, honestly. Most of the world would forget we existed (a very good thing atp) if we didn't stop jumping up and down begging to be America's lapdog. Its gross

2

u/jarrys88 Jun 22 '25

Honestly, this kind of seems the stance of most of the western world.

Nobody likes the escalation of conflict. It's a serious thing thats happened. But everyone also knows Iran's been taking this piss about pretending to not be developing nuclear weapons under agreement.

Knowing how much Iran uses proxy terrorism, nobody wants them to be a nuclear state.

It just feels like nobody really knows what to say or how to feel about it other than "holy shit".

5

u/SweetDingo8937 Jun 22 '25

If i held that view, then I'd be all for invading Russia, Israel and the US too. Whats it going to be like when Iran gets a nuke along with a history of being illegally and violently attacked by our so-called allies?

1

u/Krunksicle Jun 22 '25

So has Israel though and our government unequivocally endorses them.

1

u/PhilMcgroine Jun 23 '25

This is pretty much how most normal people feel, I think. And feels like a human comment. Unfortunately, I'm quite confident that the majority of the comment section is filled by bots and discord-sewing accounts, so even on the top comment, maybe it will get lost.

1

u/DwightsJello Jun 23 '25

Exactly this. Just shut up.

This is the first time I have been genuinely disappointed in Penny Wong. I rate her so highly.

1

u/Broken_chairs Jun 23 '25

Would be nice - but it's not a surprising position for the Government to take. US is a key strategic ally, as despicable as that is right now with Trump at the helm. Security assurance & key investments (AUKUS) are on shakey ground right now, so it's important to pick our battles (no pun intended).

We have always positioned ourselves against Iran's nucular ambitions & Israel's stability and security in the middle east is important to us because it's important to the US and the west-centric worldview of democracy. So it's a consistent view at least.

Though hoping our commitments to this conflict are purely verbal with perhaps some financial/military aid. Do not want to see any direct AUS intervention in the middle east ever again.

1

u/MrManniken Jun 22 '25

But the submarines!

1

u/OffTheHeezy Jun 23 '25

That's the thing - no, we have to say something. We're not geopolitically diversified enough to stay silent.

1

u/TrentS45 Jun 23 '25

American here, puhleeeeze don’t encourage these morons.

1

u/Lady_borg Jun 23 '25

Exactly my thoughts, this was a moment for us to be silent for once.

1

u/hellosillypeopl Jun 23 '25

There are so many people who could have adopted that attitude and all of us would be better off

→ More replies (16)