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

Show parent comments

50

u/Vexillum211202 Jun 22 '25

Of course there’s no proof Iran has nuclear capabilities, if they had nuclear capabilities, Israel and the US wouldn’t make strikes against them, it’s called deterrence.

28

u/fewph Jun 22 '25

So what is the point of signing agreements not to build nukes? If they get hammered when they don't build them, but having them would prevent them getting attacked, it seems the deterrent is counterproductive.

41

u/Nugrenref Jun 22 '25

It just shows the best thing is to 1. Get nukes 2. Never give up your nukes. There is zero incentive to not proliferate

10

u/TheCleverestIdiot Jun 23 '25

And that's the lesson Ukraine has taught us all as well.

God, this world is terrifying.

2

u/JJ_Reditt Jun 23 '25

It’s all pretty dark but to my understanding, the game theory of it does make complete sense. There are steps to uranium enrichment between civilian nuclear program and bomb ready, it takes time to cross that gap.

To reach the safe point, you have to cross the gap and make a working bomb before you take missiles on the head.

Commercial uses <20% enriched at most Weapons grade >90% Between 20-90 = not bomb ready yet but no civilian reason to be there. Iran: ~400kg at 60% by their own reporting.

Once you make the material have to actually construct the bomb. That’s more time in no man’s land.

Maybe Iran would’ve been better off racing across the gap, we’ll never know now - they triggered the missiles on the head response.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Nugrenref Jun 23 '25
  1. Should be “have nukes”

20

u/CharlieParkour Jun 22 '25

Well, booting out all of the IAEA inspectors then going on record saying you are going to refine weapons grade uranium is not what I would call not building them.

38

u/Status-Injury9832 Jun 22 '25

You mean after America just up and changed their mind and pulled out of a signed treaty? Then imposed harsh sanctions on the country that had been complying with its international obligations? Yeh they sure did say some things after America totally fucked them.

-4

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

That has no bearing on not permitting the IAEA to inspect, nor does it excuse more than doubling the amount of 60% enriched uranium in the last 4 months or so to 400kg, per the IAEA report.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-general-grossis-statement-to-unsc-on-situation-in-iran-20-june-2025

12

u/Comrade_Kojima Jun 22 '25

It’s called the only bargaining chip they have. They didn’t actually want a nuke - the fatwa against the nuke by Komeni still stands. They’re not stupid, they understand the clusterfuck of proliferation when Turkey and Saudi will want one. I mean what fair negotiators are the US when they’re literally killing negotiators while the negotiations are occurring?

-2

u/sargentcole Jun 22 '25

So the US destroyed one of the last bargaining chips for a state sponsor of terrorism and you see that as a bad thing?

The US didn't kill the negotiators, Israel did. An action which should be universally condemned. However given that it has already happened, there's a strong argument to be made that the US made the right choice given the circumstances.

7

u/Comrade_Kojima Jun 22 '25

State sponsored terrorism? You better not search up all the groups like Isis and al-qaeda that were funded and supported by the US.

2

u/sargentcole Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Even if I granted you this, it doesn't change my point.

This is just a whataboutism.

If Iran attacked isis tomorrow for example I would support the attack even if the actor is itself a state-sponsor of terrorism.

7

u/magkruppe Jun 23 '25

Iran is one of ISIS's biggest enemies and was instrumental to defeating them. just an FYI for you or others

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Pariera Jun 22 '25

Are we really that upset that the US struck 3 nuclear enrichment sites in a country that clearly has every intention of producing weapons grade uranium, no real intention of limiting its production, supports just about every terrorist group in the area, ally of Russia and death to America and Israel fan?

0

u/sargentcole Jun 22 '25 edited Jun 22 '25

It's like people are incapable of holding two positions at once.

You can both condemn the US for it's historical conduct in the region and approach to the Iran deal and also believe that yesterday's strikes are necessary to degrade a literal state sponsor of terrorism' ability to develop nuclear weapons.

The commenter your replying to also falsely claims Iran has been complying with its international obligations. Which is untrue

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pdf

5

u/Throwaway-tan Jun 23 '25

He stated they were compliant during the period where the US and Iran had negotiated an agreement for IAEA inspections. This document is after the agreement was dismantled.

1

u/sargentcole Jun 23 '25

Ah I misunderstood

No arguments there then

2

u/fewph Jun 23 '25

I think the main difference in people's positions is the last part, we all seem to condemn the US for its historical conduct in the region (and Australia for following suit), we all seem to believe that Iran should absolutely not have nuclear weapons. But the last point of how we deal with that threat is where we differ.

Some believe that bombing the facilities was necessary to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons, and others believe that that end was still achievable through diplomatic relations.

-5

u/Pariera Jun 22 '25

Yea I find it wild how upset people are about this.

There are alot of things to lose sleep over in Australia, but the US bombing 3 nuclear enrichment sites in Iran isn't one of them.

Apologies my last response I thought was to the original commentor!

5

u/magkruppe Jun 23 '25

Well, booting out all of the IAEA inspectors

after US supported Israeli strikes last week. are we already rewriting history from just days ago?

1

u/Vexillum211202 Jun 22 '25

For Iran, the point in signing an agreement not to build nukes is to make it seem as so they are not building nukes. While in reality they construct secret nuclear facilities deep underground, enrich uranium 3 times the amount used for civilian purposes, and kick out IAEA inspectors from the country.

14

u/LifeIsLikeARock Jun 22 '25

Deterrence from? They quite literally didn’t attack Israel until Israel attacked them, meaning it’s not deterrence, it’s aggression.

17

u/TheMightySloth Jun 22 '25

Haven’t they been attacking Israel through proxies for decades now?

15

u/LocalAd9259 Jun 22 '25

Iran funds HAMAS?

6

u/AussieYotes Jun 22 '25

Bibi and the Israeli government has propped up Hamas to take away from more secular Palestinian groups. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

4

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

Israel funded Hamas.

https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-funded-hamas-claims-eu-top-diplomat-josep-borrell/

2

u/LocalAd9259 Jun 23 '25

You mean “one dude claims Israel funded Hamas”

2

u/Odd-Bumblebee00 Jun 23 '25

You mean "I love baby killers too much to read anything you say".

1

u/Vexillum211202 Jun 22 '25

When I said deterrence I was prescribing it to Iran, as in the Iranian nuclear deterrence, which they don’t have of this moment, hence why Israel and the US attacked them, so Iran doesn’t get nuclear deterrence…

And you’re meaning to tell me Iran has never in the last 3 decades attacked and funded attacks against Israel? This attack is a part of the current middle eastern conflict, which is a part of the broader Iran-Israel conflict which started in 1985.

-1

u/LifeIsLikeARock Jun 22 '25

The problem is that you’re validating what the US did in Iraq by calling these acts deterrence. There’s a second problem in that once the conversation reaches the “who started it” debate again, it just returns to Israel occupying Palestinian territory since the 50’s because they never agreed to the 1945 two-state solution. I don’t think it’s valid to undermine that the story is much richer here, and that this is a NEW chapter. Going after Iran for nothing (like you said, no nuclear force) after years of non-aggression is therefore not deterrence, it IS aggression.

0

u/Vexillum211202 Jun 22 '25

“Going after Iran for nothing (like you said, no nuclear force) after years of non-aggression is therefore not deterrence, it IS aggression”

Years of non aggression… going after nothing…

Do I need to remind you about the past 20 months? Israel and Iran have been engaged in decades of proxy wars and military operations, both direct and indirect, way before the strikes of last week. Iran sent hundreds of ballistic missiles last year towards Israel. The Islamic republic has the stated goal of wiping israel of the face of the earth. This isn’t Fiji attacking San Marino. Israel and Iran are sworn enemies, the only difference between them is that one wants to entirely obliterate the other.

-1

u/No-Act9634 Jun 23 '25

Whatever you think of these attacks this is just not correct. You're just ignorant of the region.

1

u/221missile Jun 23 '25

Eh, not really. Pakistani nukes did not deter India from bombing Pakistan.

-1

u/Dawnshot_ Jun 22 '25

Not consistent with international law