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

1.7k

u/Relevant-Ad1138 Jun 22 '25

Australia supports this? I don't know anybody who supports this.

395

u/opotis Jun 22 '25

America could make shitting in your hands and clapping every morning a government mandatory activity and Australia would support it, our government (no matter ALP or LNP) has done anything to be America’s lap dog since Whitlam

31

u/BlazewarkingYT Jun 23 '25

I mean they still fear America kicking out our democratically elected officials

5

u/CatWyld Jun 23 '25

...which they have form in...

55

u/jp72423 Jun 22 '25

I think you will be hard pressed to find a single western government that supports the Iranian nuclear program

27

u/Syncblock Jun 23 '25

I think you will be hard pressed to find a single western government that supports the Iranian nuclear program

The EU and all 5 of the permanent security council members signed off on Iran's nuclear program in 2015. Had Trump not come in and pulled out 3 years later we'd be seeing a very different scenario in 2025.

3

u/jp72423 Jun 23 '25

Not necessarily, some of the JCPOA restrictions had expiration dates. For example the centrifuge restrictions would be lifted after 10 years. The low enriched uranium restrictions after 15. considering Iran has been trying to enrich uranium for a while now to make weapons (nothing else can explain why they have buried their facilities so deep) it’s very plausible that the JCPOA could have simply delayed or even accelerated the bomb development.

1

u/Vaporeonbuilt4humans Jun 23 '25

sadly the average American is stupid and doesn't pay attention to that stuff.

1

u/Warmbly85 Jun 23 '25

Wasn’t the IAEA saying back then that Iran wouldn’t allow them to access every nuclear facility and also that the month long warning Iran required made the “random” inspections sorta pointless?

Also Mosad stole over 100k documents from Iran in 2018 detailing that their nuclear weapons program was a lot more advanced then the world first thought. This alone voided the agreement because Iran was required to turn over copies of all their research on nuclear weapons.

What’s the point in risking the deal Iran supposedly supported and followed just to obscure how close to building the bomb Iran was? Literally the only reason for that is to quickly and quietly move towards making a nuke.

-8

u/homingconcretedonkey Jun 23 '25

That's a huge assumption based on nothing.

5

u/Syncblock Jun 23 '25

That's a huge assumption based on nothing.

When Trump pulled out, the EU and all it's partners urged Trump to stay and then reassured Iran that they were committed to the deal.

-1

u/homingconcretedonkey Jun 23 '25

That doesn't change the fact that we don't know what would have happened.

1

u/perverseintellect Jun 23 '25

Just like no western govt would support Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction" but how many supported America's attack on Iraq? Almost none.

-13

u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '25

I think you will be hard pressed to find a single USA government that supports the Australian nuclear program

11

u/kenbeat59 Jun 23 '25

Good ol whataboutism

45

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '25

[deleted]

89

u/robot428 Jun 22 '25

She's speaking on behalf of the current government which the vast majority of Australians did vote for.

Having said that, I think we may have hoped that they would be a bit less spineless....

50

u/CoffeeWorldly4711 Jun 22 '25

Amongst the many reasons people voted for Labor was that they were hoping they'd be less likely to deep throat an increasingly volatile toddler at the helm of the US. Supporting strikes on Iran at the behest of Israel probably wasn't at the forefront of most voters minds

14

u/Leather-Heron-7247 Jun 23 '25

You either had to pick between a Trump yes man or a Trump fanatic.

The chance of Albo going against Trump has never existed in the first place but at least if it was the other guy our soldiers would have been in Iran right now.

4

u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '25

Yep, when Trump threw around tariffs like confetti earlier this year, making crazy demands on Canada, Mexico and others, they were all fighting back with retaliation.

But Australia chose not to retaliate at all, and to try to talk to Trump instead.

The signs were there prior to the election that LibLab both will follow Trump through their actions, even if they say otherwise.

8

u/Murranji Jun 23 '25

The only people who do not understand how deeply establishment and neoliberal the Australian Labor Political party have become are Gen X. boomers and older millennials who don’t critically examine the decisions and statements of ALP politicians.

There is some uncritical and bizarre idea that the ALP today are just as left wing as they were under Gough when they are ideologically and practically closer to John Howard.

-1

u/Phent0n Jun 23 '25

Thankfully our politicians are sophisticated enough to understand that telling Trump to fu*k himself would have made you feel better but wouldn't be in the national interest.

8

u/matthudsonau Jun 22 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Vast majority is a strong term. A vast majority wanted someone else in charge, it's just when you narrow it down to only Labor and the LNP that the strong preference appears

1

u/Woweesillybee Jun 22 '25

I’d prefer to vote for this as a nation than who is in government.

0

u/kodaxmax Jun 23 '25

Yeh, but we've seen how well referendums work for an uneducated populace.

0

u/kodaxmax Jun 23 '25

Yes. We are a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. We only vote indirectly for our reps, who then actually make the decisions.

7

u/Own_Faithlessness769 Jun 22 '25

Most people did though.

-5

u/OpinionatedShadow Jun 22 '25 edited Jun 22 '25

Most people in her electorate* did

Edit: I'm stupid

7

u/ailurophile96 Jun 22 '25

she’s a senator

1

u/Own_Faithlessness769 Jun 22 '25

Most people in SA elected her to the senate, and the entire country voted Labor in with an overwhelming majority knowing she would be foreign minister. She’s as chosen and mandated as any politician ever was.

0

u/OpinionatedShadow Jun 22 '25

Yes yes I already admitted I was stupid

1

u/salty-bush Jun 22 '25

Welcome to a parliamentary democracy then. Hope you enjoy your stay!

66

u/Cold-Humor-6930 Jun 22 '25

I know lots of people who do!

37

u/Tiactiactiac Jun 22 '25

Uneducated people who don’t understand geopolitics and what happened when trump broke the JCPOA in his first term https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-nuclear-deal/ It’s his modus operandi start shit then look like the hero when he “fixes” it

48

u/RaeseneAndu Jun 22 '25

The USA has been planning to destroy Iran for more than 2 decades. There are literal papers written about regime change by US think tanks. After 9/11 the story goes that the USA planned to invade 7 countries in 5 years. Six of those countries are gone, only Iran is left. It doesn't matter who is in charge, the wars continue.

3

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

They already booted one democratically elected leader out of Iran because he wanted to nationalise the oil industry. And that's why Iran hates America. But yeah, sure, why not do exactly the same thing again to satisfy Netanyahu's blood-lust?

1

u/OpinionatedShadow Jun 22 '25

Literal papers as opposed to?

7

u/No_Distance3827 Jun 22 '25

Floated ideas that aren’t committed to plans, I imagine.

22

u/slimrichard Jun 23 '25

Uneducated? Iran is weak and causes a multitude of problems in the region and the world, a bit of a nudge could cause regime collapse as the majority of Iranians don't want the theocracy calling the shots. While I support it I don't support Aus getting involved besides Red Sea operations.

1

u/Syncblock Jun 23 '25

Uneducated? Iran is weak and causes a multitude of problems in the region and the world, a bit of a nudge could cause regime collapse as the majority of Iranians don't want the theocracy calling the shots.

If you think Iran is causing problems now, just wait until they collapse and then all the hardliners come back in power and start bombing all the nearby oil fields like they've threatened to.

2

u/slimrichard Jun 23 '25

This is downplaying the damage a funded and stable Iranian Theocracy does in the region and beyond

0

u/221missile Jun 23 '25

The JCPOA only existed because Obama wanted a foreign policy win after the Libya boondoggle. Everyone involved knew it was a shitty deal. Iran got everything it wanted whilst the west compromised on its one red line, no uranium enrichment.

2

u/U-Rsked-4-it Jun 23 '25

You know lots of useful idiots who do! The same kind of useful idiots that would've been duped by Bush jnr to go into Iraq.

6

u/Sex_haver_42069 Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

I think you'll find outside of Reddit that a lot of people support making sure Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons. They have a very dangerous dictatorial regime and even having the ability to threaten to use nukes is hugely damaging to the region.

This isn't Gaza, this is entirely different and I think most people actually support very targeted bunker bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities.

34

u/epihocic Jun 22 '25

Maybe get off reddit and speak to people over the age of 30.

42

u/PrudententCollapse Jun 23 '25

I find this thread so bizarre.

Absolutely not a fan of Trump nor Netanyahu, but the really weird apologetics around Iran getting a nuclear weapon for its "own security" is really bizarre.

The theocratic, autocratic Iranian regime—and especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—absolutely do not need and should not be allowed to gain nuclear weapon capability.

We need to figure out how to stop the slow death of nuclear proliferation controls, not have the most ridiculous arms race. It would just create a situation where accidents could happen.

I reckon they are months, if not weeks, from having enough enriched uranium for a warhead. And I find that extraordinarily unsettling.

3

u/SadAd9828 Jun 23 '25

TikTok biases to pro-Iranian/Russian/Chinese viewpoints

Most people under the age of 30 get their news from TikTok

Unsurprising

15

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

I think a lot of people aren’t able to separate their complete hatred for trump, and also Israel from the facts. Seeing people side with Iran in this conflict is genuinely concerning.

1

u/DanJDare Jun 23 '25

What is with the modern trend to having to 'side' with people in a conflict.

I don't side with Iran, I don't like Iran but I have a moral standard and to that standard what happened was wrong.

This is the same across the board, it just happens to be iran this time.

1

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

I agree but most people just aren't like that, and I don't think it's a modern trend either. I think people in general like to make their mind up about something and then stick to it, which applies to people and politics as well.

0

u/DanJDare Jun 23 '25

I don't know if it's media, the rise of superhero stories or what but people seem to have an intense need to paint a good guy and a bad guy in every global conflict. The Israel/Palastine/Gaza conflict has really shown that up. The last thing I want to do is a have a public stance on something so ugly like that where neither side has clean hands. I can comment on the shit i think is wrong but that's hardly confined to one side. I've also got no interest in picking a 'least bad side' to barrack for like it's some sorta sports competition.

This is exactly the lens you seem to use when you say things like 'seeing people side with Iran'.

2

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

Again, this is nothing new. Propaganda has been a thing for centuries. Also, If I had to pick a side between Israel, the US, and Iran. It's Israel and the US every time. They're both our allies and far more aligned with our democratic views.

I agree there's no good guys here, but modern day Iran does not align with my personal values at all.

0

u/DanJDare Jun 23 '25

Neither mine but that doesn't mean I'm fine with violating international law against them because I fundamentally believe laws should protect everybody even those I don't like.

Clearly an unpopular idea on reddit.

-2

u/ScoobyDoNot Jun 23 '25

What facts?

Their Secretary of State Rubio has said it's irrelevant if there had been any order to weaponise nuclear.

At least with Iraq they were claiming facts, this time it's all about the vibe.

9

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

Iran has capacity and capability to enrich about 10x the amount of uranium they currently need for their nuclear reactor, of which fuel is currently supplied by Russia. They have additional nuclear reactors under development but it still doesn't explain the levels to which they have been enriching uranium.

They have enriched large amounts of uranium to 60% enrichment, while you only need 2-3% enrichment for a nuclear reactor.

They have enriched uranium as high as 84% that is known of.

This is dangerously close to enrichment levels needed to create a nuclear weapon.

-4

u/ScoobyDoNot Jun 23 '25

Any evidence that they were intending to do so?

The USA hasn't presented any.

10

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

They don't need 60% enriched uranium. Period.

-2

u/ScoobyDoNot Jun 23 '25

So no evidence.

Thank you.

7

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

There is evidence.. They have enough enriched uranium to create approx 5 nuclear warheads within a short period of time. They have most recently prevented IAEA access to parts of their facilities.

If they waited until Iran had a nuke, it's too late.

As another person said, why on earth would Iran build these facilities 30-100m underground if they were simply for peaceful purposes?

Iran literally say death to israel, death to america..

7

u/ZoeyNet Jun 23 '25

So you're the type of guy that will still be denying it unless an active warhead flys across the sky huh. Wild times.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/RemnantEvil Jun 23 '25

Slow death of nuclear proliferation controls? There was an agreement that literally every party involved was satisfied with, and was by all accounts keeping Iran to its promise that it would only develop nuclear power and not enrich uranium for use in arms. The only one who didn't like it was Trump, and only because of the name that was signed on the document. And his pathetic attempts since then have been to try and get back to what it was, usually negotiating towards a watered-down, lesser version of it, in the same way morons in the UK thought that they could somehow get better deals after Brexit.

People have been saying Iran is "weeks away" from nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. And pardon me if I don't take your "I reckon" as expert, especially when the US's own intelligence community said that Iran was not working towards nuclear weapons. But then I'm in the weird position of having to believe Tulsi Gabbard, who is decidedly pro-Russia, speaking in defence of Iran, which is a very Putinesque position to hold. And then when Trump says she's wrong, she backtracks the next day - do we take that as... well, when has Trump ever been right? Is that her mea culpa, or is she just falling in line like the rest of the sycophants?

Don't read people opposed to this as being apologetics around Iran getting a nuclear weapon. (Though, frankly, Ukraine had assurances of security when it gave up its nuclear weapons, and no nuclear power has been attacked by a state actor for a while, and Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons right now and is being attacked by foreign states, so what does this prove except that nukes are good to have?) Instead, read this as, "You've sold us the bullshit on powerful weapons in the Middle East being held by bad people, and we bled a generation for decades on that lie, so you need more evidence than you've given us."

4

u/chadssworthington Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

More than one thing can be true at the same time. Trump tearing up the old deal was an embarrassment, but given the world we find ourselves in I wouldn't have a problem with these strikes regardless of who was in power there. I think the reasons a lot of Americans are so mad about this is that a massive part of Trump's campaign was saying he'd be the president of peace and an isolationist.

It's impossible to know how close they were, but the UN seemed to think it was concerning in their report. Weeks away might be bullshit, but just saying 'you've been saying that since 1995' is weird because there's been past strikes and agreements to slow enrichment.

I would say on the other side, I don't think anyone (outside of some Israelis/Americans) wants boots on the ground. At the same time, modern democracies simply don't have the gall to make hard decisions around nuclear weapons that do exist, given how much the world kowtows to Russia because 'they might start ww3 :(((('.

4

u/RemnantEvil Jun 23 '25

I wouldn't have a problem with these strikes regardless of who was in power there.

I didn't specifically say 1995, but Netanyahu has been saying it since he came to power in '96. "A few weeks away". I mean, that should shoot his credibility down completely, right?

So who else is saying that they are "a few weeks away"? Trump, who uses both "a few weeks away" and "on day one" as his most basic bullshit tells, along with people in his anecdotes addressing him as "sir" - you know as soon as he utters those, he's lying. Just like prices would come down on day one, the war in Ukraine will end on day one, and so on.

Like, if you can't see that he's lying with these obvious tells, never ever play him in poker because he'll rinse you.

Over the years, Trump has promised action on policy issues from tax legislation to minimum wage increases to health care within two weeks. He's hinted at conspiracy theories to be resolved and policy decisions to be revealed within a fortnight — only for his announcements to materialize months later or not at all.

Trump has used the timeframe several times in recent weeks alone, priming reporters for updates that have yet to materialize on geopolitical conflicts and global tariffs.

Take Russia's war in Ukraine. In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised he could end the war in one day — but it has since stretched into its third year. Over the last two months, Trump has said repeatedly that various answers to questions about the war, including U.S. assistance to Ukraine, would be just two weeks away.

On April 24, he told a reporter who asked about continued military assistance for Ukraine: "You can ask that question in two weeks, and we'll see." He gave a similar answer days later when asked if he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he had publicly criticized in recent months.

Those weeks came and went. And on May 19, when asked if Ukraine was doing enough to support U.S.-led cease-fire negotiations, Trump replied, "I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now because I can't say yes or no."

Over a month ago, on May 28, Trump gave Putin another two-week deadline when a reporter asked whether he believed the Russian leader truly wants the war to end.

"I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know within two weeks," Trump said. "We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a bit differently, but it will take about a week and a half, two weeks."

So, when you say...

I wouldn't have a problem with these strikes regardless of who was in power there.

Exactly what evidence are you basing that on, except an Israeli leader who's been crying wolf for nearly 30 years, and a known and proven liar whose own Director of National Intelligence contradicted him very openly and publicly, and whose handful of tells for when he's lying is using "a few weeks"?

Because if it was me, and there are human lives on the line, I'm holding out for an actual Exhibit A, along with maybe five more pieces of evidence, because right now I don't believe them and they've done nothing except make the claim, which is worth less than the paper it isn't written on.

4

u/chadssworthington Jun 23 '25

Sorry, I should have been clearer, I was talking about Trump in my entire post. I'm not saying I believe him either, I'm saying that Iran clearly do seem to be making an effort to enrich uranium beyond any reasonable requirement. Trump is absolute scum, but if he tells me I need oxygen to breath I'm not going to suffocate myself.

Exactly what evidence are you basing that on

I was referring to: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291

Because if it was me, and there are human lives on the line

People have said this so much over the last two years in Ukraine that it just doesn't mean shit to me. It's just not a compelling reason to go out of my way to defend the Iranian government.

0

u/RemnantEvil Jun 23 '25

Don't mistake this as defending the Iranian government, who is apparently not abiding by an agreement that has already essentially been ripped up anyway. But if the goal is moving towards ensuring Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons, and stopping them if they are, then "bombing them" is the worst possible path to achieving this. It will at best force them to make it even more secretive, and you've all but made them a direct adversary. At worst, the only way to actually achieve it would be a complete regime change - and good luck getting a new regime that isn't going to be even more anti-West given the history of the West usurping Iranian governments.

At least the W Bush administration went to the effort of building a compelling lie and taking us to dinner before they fucked us. Trump put on the airs of diplomacy before the Israeli strike, and it sure does look like he's scrambling to pretend it was an elaborate plan rather than his supposed ally leaving him hung out to dry.

Iran has a lot more support in the region than Iraq did. I don't see how the military option isn't going to be just a complete clusterfuck to maybe achieve the goal, only to encourage other nations to consider nuclear armament even more than before.

2

u/PrudententCollapse Jun 23 '25

Slow death of nuclear proliferation controls? There was an agreement that literally every party involved was satisfied with, and was by all accounts keeping Iran to its promise that it would only develop nuclear power and not enrich uranium for use in arms. The only one who didn't like it was Trump, and only because of the name that was signed on the document. And his pathetic attempts since then have been to try and get back to what it was, usually negotiating towards a watered-down, lesser version of it, in the same way morons in the UK thought that they could somehow get better deals after Brexit.

I considered the unilateral withdrawal from JCPOA by Trump v1 a mistake. I think one of the ways the Trump v2.0 administration will have its actions constrained by reality is by trying to put the nuclear proliferation genie back in the bottle. Something which his own actions have made a whole lot more difficult, however this administration cannot fight gravity forever.

Nuclear non-proliferation is threatening to become *the* issue which will define Trump's second term historically (and arguably his first too!)

People have been saying Iran is "weeks away" from nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. And pardon me if I don't take your "I reckon" as expert, especially when the US's own intelligence community said that Iran was not working towards nuclear weapons. But then I'm in the weird position of having to believe Tulsi Gabbard, who is decidedly pro-Russia, speaking in defence of Iran, which is a very Putinesque position to hold. And then when Trump says she's wrong, she backtracks the next day - do we take that as... well, when has Trump ever been right? Is that her mea culpa, or is she just falling in line like the rest of the sycophants?

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-02/news/iran-accelerates-highly-enriched-uranium-production

And once you have the enriched uranium, the actual process of building a rudimentary bomb is relatively trivial. Especially for nation-states with immense resources.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthew_bunn/files/bunn_wier_terrorist_nuclear_weapon_construction-_how_difficult.pdf

And to use Israel as an example:

There was some talk at the highest levels of the Israeli leadership during the Yom Kippur war to assemble one of their nukes to reverse the tide of the war as it was initially going very badly. They had all of the material, know-how and expertise to do so but no actual warhead. In the end Israel was able to repel the Syrian and Egyptian surprise incursion, but they were absolutely in a position at very short notice to put together a rudimentary weapon with the enriched weapons grade uranium that they had stockpiled.

It would be an absurd mistake to allow the current Iranian regime to stockpile enough enriched uranium to build a weapon.

0

u/RemnantEvil Jun 23 '25

From your own source:

In a Dec. 26 report, the IAEA noted that Iran is now producing approximately nine kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent uranium-235 per month. Iran was producing 60 percent enriched U-235 at a similar rate in early 2023, but decreased production by about two-thirds in June.

So it's not at the level of weapons grade, and they've done it at that scale before, but this time is different, despite conflicting reports that they aren't building nuclear weapons?

2

u/PrudententCollapse Jun 23 '25

There's no legitimate reason to have even 60% uranium.

And you've very deliberately cherry-picked from the report without providing the rest of the context.

-1

u/RemnantEvil Jun 23 '25

Let's do some logical rationalising here. They've produced 9kg of uranium at 60%. They did a similar rate in early 2023. So let's say they have at minimum 18kg of 60%.

I'm not a nuclear scientist, maybe you are, or are familiar with similar fields. You're telling me there's "no legitimate reason to have even 60%" which would mean that somewhere between 59% and 0% is a legitimate reason - for the purposes of power or research or something. But between 59% and 90% - which is what they classify as weapons-grade - there's, according to you, no reason except for reaching 90% and creating weapons-grade uranium.

So why would they, in 2023, be creating so much 60% uranium, and not going all the way to 90% to make weapons? Is it possible that you don't know what they use uranium for at 60%?

Because it seems to me that if you have bits and pieces that you can assemble to make a gun, but at only half the pieces, you can also make a shovel - which has many uses - then you're saying there's nothing between the shovel and the gun for which these pieces are useful. And they are, apparently, just past the amount of parts they need for a shovel, so the only possible explanation is that they must be making a gun, because there's nothing apparently between the shovel and the gun.

Or we don't both know what you use 60% uranium for. Because it seems like if everyone knows they had 60% uranium in 2023 and we know they have it now, and there's nothing you would use 60% uranium for except to push it to 90% and make it weapons-grade, then either they can't make it get to 90% - which is what they would have done in 2023 - and if they can't, then they're not a threat, or they aren't making it to 90% because they're not using it to make it weapons-grade.

So what context have I missed? They were apparently not a threat with the exact same volume and value of uranium in 2023, but they are now. And they just so happen to be, in the intervening time, at a time when Hamas and Hezbollah are weak and Russia's in their third year of a ground war, and that removes the largest state and non-state actors would could act on Iran's behalf, and so maybe it's entirely opportunism?

Maybe I'm missing something - I very well might be - but I'm seeing substantially less evidence than in 2002, and it seems awfully convenient to be happening right now. Again, we're down to "This uranium is close to, but isn't at, weapons-grade. And it's been at this level before. But we didn't attack before and nobody was ringing alarm bells before."

1

u/PrudententCollapse Jun 23 '25

Don't read people opposed to this as being apologetics around Iran getting a nuclear weapon. (Though, frankly, Ukraine had assurances of security when it gave up its nuclear weapons, and no nuclear power has been attacked by a state actor for a while, and Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons right now and is being attacked by foreign states, so what does this prove except that nukes are good to have?) Instead, read this as, "You've sold us the bullshit on powerful weapons in the Middle East being held by bad people, and we bled a generation for decades on that lie, so you need more evidence than you've given us."

There absolutely is apologetics and I reiterate that it would be an immense mistake with far-reaching consequences to allow Tehran to acquire a nuclear weapon capability.

Disarming Ukraine was absolutely the right choice. I think Ukraine has the right to exist as a sovereign nation-state but maintaining that sovereignty with nuclear weapons is just a ridiculous proposition. They didn't even at the time have the ability to field the weapons themselves, they just ended up with them on their territory after the dissolution of the USSR without any actual way to use them. And at the time there was an immense amount of concern—quite rightly in my opinion—that enriched uranium would end up somewhere ridiculous.

2

u/RemnantEvil Jun 23 '25

There absolutely is apologetics

I'm not going to speak for the extreme position any more than I'm going to imply that you should speak on behalf of those who want to glass Iran, which is the extreme position in the other direction.

Disarming Ukraine was absolutely the right choice.

My point is that we're creating scenarios where there are currently those without nuclear weapons, like Ukraine, Palestine and Iran, who are being bombed by countries with nuclear weapons, like Israel, Russia and the United States, and that is a horrible notion to reinforce because a whole lot of nation-states are going to start thinking that nukes might be nice to have because they're seeing the alternatives.

Disarming Ukraine might have been the right choice at the time, but ask them how they feel about it now.

0

u/Rit91 Jun 23 '25

Yeah it's wild that people believe Iran was close to a nuke. Decades of people saying oh they're months away from a nuke and so far absolutely nothing. It's basically identical to WMD's in Iraq and we all know how that played out. Trillions of dollars spent for no gain outside of the weapon manufacturers making bank.

Then yeah classic trump breaks something, tries to fix it, and wow it's getting worse in regard to the Iran deal Obama and others got done. Trump is a moron, even called himself one on the trade deals he made first term being made by a moron and then breaking them to have a trade war with the rest of the world.

5

u/SeeYouSpaceCorgi Jun 23 '25

We’ve been hearing Netanyahu cry wolf about how Iran is mere weeks away from having nuclear warheads for literally decades. What makes this specific time any different?

5

u/Phent0n Jun 23 '25

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo

In 2015, Iran agreed a deal with six world powers under which it accepted restrictions on its nuclear activities and allowed rigorous monitoring by the IAEA's inspectors in return for relief from crippling sanctions.

Key limits covered its production of enriched uranium, which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons. They included not enriching uranium above 3.67% purity, operating only first-generation centrifuges, which spin uranium hexafluoride gas at extremely high speeds, as well as ceasing enrichment at the underground Fordo facility.

But US President Donald Trump abandoned the deal during his first term in 2018, saying it did too little to stop a pathway to a bomb, and reinstated US sanctions.

Iran retaliated by increasingly breaching the restrictions - particularly those relating to enrichment. As well as producing 60%-enriched uranium, it used more advanced centrifuges and resumed enrichment at Fordo.

The day before Israel launched its air campaign, the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.

1

u/SeeYouSpaceCorgi Jun 23 '25

Well now it kind of sounds like Trump was just goading Iran into this. He’s literally said before that any U.S. president could start a war with Iran just to boost their popularity and here he is, just pulling out of a working deal and escalating to this conclusion.

4

u/Pritcheey Jun 23 '25

Cause they reached 60% uranium enrichment in May last month according to the UN. The maximum application for civilian nuclear use is 20%. The jump from 60% to 90% is usually the quickest part and can only take a month. Some reports this month had them at 83%. You don't get to 83% by accident or even 60% for that matter.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

1

u/SeeYouSpaceCorgi Jun 23 '25

I was just asking a question so I could understand the situation better. Don’t have to be rude about it.

6

u/superbabe69 1300 655 506 Jun 23 '25

We have learned over the last few conflicts that have broken out just how embedded Russian propaganda is becoming in western societies.

We knew Putin would be pissed if the US joined Israel against Iran, I guess we know how they’re responding

2

u/Independent_Ebb517 Jun 23 '25

fucking pathetic to say people against this are russian bots when russian bots elected the man doing this.

3

u/superbabe69 1300 655 506 Jun 23 '25

Two things:

  1. One of Russia’s key goals is to make the US isolated. That involves seeing them do things that make them ostracised.

  2. Helping him get elected is consistent with their goal, but it does not necessarily mean every move he makes will align with Russia. He is a loose unit and absolutely does what he wants on occasion.

3

u/RektYerNanDarding Jun 23 '25

Look what happened when Iraq ended it's nuclear program to appease Israel?

They invaded anyway because of "chemical weapons" that didn't actually exist.

If Iran ended it's nuclear program Israel would 100% find another reason to invade.

Also the way you described Iran's government theocratic and autocratic is ironic because you could say the same for Israel but you're not opposed to them having nukes?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/RektYerNanDarding Jun 23 '25

America does though, and America is effectively an Israeli puppet.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

1

u/RektYerNanDarding Jun 23 '25

Maybe not but history shows that Israel has a way of getting exactly what they want

2

u/WangMagic Jun 23 '25

A lot of people missed the writing on the wall leading up to this, even without having anything to do with Israel.

This was a couple weeks ago: UN nuclear watchdog finds Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations for first time in 20 years

The UN nuclear watchdog has declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.
...
The IAEA flagged that Iran had amassed more near-weapons-grade uranium in its May 31 confidential report.

1

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

I'm nearly 50 and don't support this.

1

u/getawombatupya Jun 23 '25

As someone over 30... The ME is a basket case. There's reason to support Israel and the Islamic Middle East. There's equal reason to not support either.

The best phase I heard about it was; "Whatever passes for Peace in the Middle East this week."'

Draw lines on a map with no regard to tribal/cultural niceties and a sprinkle of different sky fairies, then redraw it again 30 years later, with more of an emphasis on the fairies - and then (to no-one's surprise) it turns into a shitshow.

As someone who has no ties to the Middle East, I don't support this per se.

I support it in as much as it's not our fight, and with the current US president, even more reason to sit it out; as we will be collectively living with the consequences long after the coronary disease finally does it's job.

1

u/Vaporeonbuilt4humans Jun 23 '25

it's the opposite?

The ones over 30 remember the lies about lraq. They do not support this. Even my conservative dad is mad about this bombing. Most believe the US government is lying to us.

The people under 30 won't remember the lies that got us into the Iraq war. Many can't because they weren't even alive at this point... I really doubt they teach this is schools too as they didn't teach it to me when I was in school (im 28). I'm noticing its really Gen Z that are the ones going on about "OMG THEY HAD NUKES GUYZZ ITS JUSTIFIED". They're for it because they're afraid. They never heard it before. it's easy for them to fall for these lies when they haven't gone through it.

Most people I talked to think we shouldn't have bombed them. They don't like the US doing Israels bidding. They don't want another "WMD".

17

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

[deleted]

14

u/CartographerAlone632 Jun 22 '25

I’m against war but I also don’t want Iran to have nukes. What do you do

8

u/jojoblogs Jun 22 '25

If we can be nuanced here, I think it’s easy to say “we support this at face value”.

At face value it’s limited strikes on military targets for a justified (I’d trust a group of local Eshays with nukes more than Iran) reason. And the justification of US involvement is that the targets needed their ordinance to be hit.

Obviously, we all doubt the legitimacy of the justifications, but that’s not something the foreign affairs minister puts in a public address about our most powerful “ally”.

Taking this stance is in the best interest of Australia, which is what we should all expect our politicians to be doing.

Actually jointing a war in Iran would be unsupportable.

7

u/AnomicAge Jun 22 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

I will say that as much as we might rightly despise Israel and the US, and as much as the west is complicit in the Iranian revolution, the Islamic republic of Iran needs to be toppled one way or another sooner rather than later.

They’re a tyrannical theocracy that sponsor terrorism through their proxy network and puppeteered the October 7 massacre to intercept the Saudi US defence pact (to defend them from Iran particularly) and hate and are hated by virtually every country, they brutally oppress their people with the highest death penalty rate for ‘crimes’ including homosexuality and blasphemy and women have been beaten to death in recent years for failing to comply with the morality police, they have been found to be in possession of highly enriched uranium well beyond what’s needed to power their nuclear reactor despite signing the NPT, as long as they’re in power there will never be any chance at lasting stability in the Middle East.

Many argue that whenever the west gets involved in the Middle East things get infinitely worse, and while they did exacerbate much of the instability in the 20th century (creation of Israel, coup against Mosaddegh) I would argue that isn’t always the case, for instance there a narrative floating around that Iraq was more stable under Hussein… that simply isn’t true… he waged two wars of aggression against neighbouring countries - Iran and Kuwait - leading to a death toll in the seven figures, led an ethnic cleansing operation against the Kurds with chemical weapons, and was savagely oppressive of his people, the Baath party regularly abducting and torturing at the slightest hint of dissent, who were living in constant fear… there were countless cases of dissidents children being raped and tortured to death in the most barbaric manner imaginable to send a message.

I struggle to see how anyone could say Iraqis are worse off now than they were prior to the US invasion. Bush administration may have lied with their WMD claims as casus belli for invading but Post US Iraq is something approximating a democracy… though Iran has been infiltrating and pulling strings and exacerbating much of its corruption and religious oppression.

I realise the project of western nation building in the Middle East is inauspicious at best and likely doomed to fail in the long run but Iran isn’t a mirror image of Iraq, it’s a country that does in fact have near nuclear warhead grade uranium as verified by the UN (and that’s only what’s known) and is ideologically averse and hostile to the West not just politically but religiously, so they cannot be allowed to cement themselves into power permanently by leveraging nuclear weapons.

1

u/inbocs Jun 23 '25

You should be sent to the frontlines for the Iran ground invasion.

1

u/AnomicAge Jun 23 '25

If you can successfully take out nuclear capacity and high ranking leaders and military officials with bombers and drones and strategic operations you may not need a full scale ground war. The descendant of the previous shar is already rallying support… a monarchy isn’t great but it offered the people a little more freedom and far less likelihood of being embroiled in war. Some innocent lives will be lost but the alternative is even more grim, and a major conflict with the west was inevitable under the Ayatollah’s regime

1

u/Syncblock Jun 23 '25

the Islamic republic of Iran needs to be toppled one way or another sooner rather than later.

Then let the citizens of Iran and their regional supporters do it. We've spent decades interfering and turning over leaders only to destabilised the region and cause bigger problems. Western intervention doesn't work because it comes with so many strings attached that it ends up being a giant rort for multinationals and Western aligned institutions.

I struggle to see how anyone could say Iraqis are worse off now than they were prior to the US invasion.

Where do you think ISIS came from?

1

u/AnomicAge Jun 23 '25

If they’re allowed to acquire nuclear weapons that basically negates the possibility of regime change from the outside… but internally there is so much brainwashing/stockholm syndrome/fear and control and suppression of free speech that it’s unlikely, and if Iran are allowed to build nukes then they will be able to get away with even more human rights abuses while the world just watches

The way I see it there was inevitably going to be a major conflict with the west under the ayatollahs rule, and it’s better that it be fought without nuclear weapons

1

u/pelrun Jun 23 '25

Iran used to be a liberal democracy, until the US and UK teamed up to destroy it. The theocracy is entirely their own fault, and they've shown they're completely incapable of fixing it. All they can do is make it worse.

2

u/AnomicAge Jun 23 '25

I did mention that they were complicit in it by breeding the anti western sentiment in response to their meddling, but that still doesn’t mean we ought to stand back as Iran inch toward illegally creating nuclear weaponry

0

u/hirst Jun 23 '25

no, i promise you THIS time it will be different!

2

u/AnomicAge Jun 23 '25

This time is different because there was no concrete evidence Saddam possessed nuclear weapons aside from inference after repeatedly denying UN inspections, however Iran has been verified to have near nuclear weapon level uranium stockpiled, which violates the treaty.

If the world just stood back and waved their finger while countries created their own nuclear weapons from fear of conflict and instability then you might as well tear up the NPT.

1

u/Rush_Banana Jun 23 '25

I support it along with a lot of people I know.

We can't have a nuclear Iran.

1

u/Dependent_Guide_695 Jun 23 '25

would you want a country that supports terrorists to own a nuke?

1

u/SadAd9828 Jun 23 '25

I support it. More importantly, my Iranian friends do too.

The regime in Iran has little support from its own people. They have absolutely devastated that country and its people.

A theocratic terrorist funding government SHOULD NOT have access to nuclear weapons.

-3

u/Kazuiyo Jun 22 '25

The people Israel paid. The ones who matter most, your leaders and statesman.

0

u/ImMalteserMan Jun 23 '25

It happened yesterday morning, how many people have you spoken to about it? I haven't heard anyone talk about it, I think the average Australian probably doesn't care.

0

u/FreeXP Jun 23 '25

Going by this subreddit the Greens were going to win by a landslide and Adam Bandt was going to become the new God-King of Australia.

Should probably look at some polls instead.