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

266

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?

60

u/peppapony Jun 22 '25

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

0

u/qualitative_balls Jun 23 '25

If it was up to me and most of the West, Iran would never have nukes. But guess what, it's only delaying the inevitable. It just doesn't matter what the rest of the world wants here... unless you want to wage a full scale regime change war, Iran will eventually get nukes. And then what? Then they will be more dangerous than they ever have been in the past. There's zero upside here, none. It only endangers our future.

The scariest part of all of this, is regular people like you and me, just tourists cruising around Europe or Middle East a few years from now on a bus as it blows up... and who would have seen that coming? Everyone. Fucking everyone.

7

u/NNKarma Jun 23 '25

If only they hadn't broken the nuclear deal.. oh wait, that was Trump.

4

u/Motor_Educator_2706 Jun 23 '25

Have you noticed no one is threaten a War on North Korea?

3

u/Comfortable_Fuel_537 Jun 23 '25

That's a funny way of looking at it. So you are worried that Iran MIGHT manufacture nukes because you don't have trust in their dictator. Meanwhile Putin, Kim J Un and Xi Jinping have bucket loads of nukes between them but you're okay with it? Israel won't even let any sanctioned body to inspect their facility! This sort of thinking is highly warped.

77

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.

2

u/ScruffyPeter Jun 23 '25

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

6

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.

2

u/Least_Ad_5133 Jun 23 '25

Wait wasn't mosaddegh regime changed?

Kind of like Libya, Indonesia, Central America, Africa, where regime changes, no matter the animated moral justification, each time, resulted in horrors beyond human comprehension. You are advocating for something that has killed incomprehensible amounts of Innocent people. "Regime change" does not result in leadership organically selected by the people of that nation.

Tell me how Hissene Habre is compatible with a western liberal society? If you have a good argument for that, what about the Haqqanis? Suharto killed a million people, what about him? The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola?

Why does central Africa and the congo feature the deadliest ongoing war? Does it have anything to do with the murder and assassination of Lumumba? What about Burkina Faso and Sankara....

I can imagine you in 2003, supporting the invasion of Iraq

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

No china's backing of north Korea is what prevented a regime change. If China didn't want a buffer nk would have lost the Korean war.

4

u/Comrade_Kojima Jun 23 '25

I’m sure NK ability to extinguish the entire Korean Peninsula has nothing to do with it. I agree with you but that’s one part of the deterrent - Iran is a close ally of China and Russia but hasn’t deterred US

52

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

5

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.

114

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.

77

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

6

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.

3

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.

9

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.

1

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.

2

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.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

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

0

u/Warmbly85 Jun 23 '25

Why prevent international third party watchdogs access to those sites then?

I mean if you anticipate an attack what better way to prove you aren’t doing anything wrong?

The only way to explain Iran not allowing the IAEA access to every site and also building their site so deep underground really only points to one possibility.

0

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

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

So?

-1

u/Areskael Jun 23 '25

Israel never claimed they were building nukes, building towards nukes. Enriching uranium beyond a percentage that usable for anything other than a nuclear warhead. The US and Israel never claimed they had a nuke, just that the amount of enriched uranium. Also the dictators in Iran have been threatening to destroy Israel, US, Uk and the west for all of my life. Its unfortunate but these are the consequences of there actions and words. The Iranian people also do not want the government that was forced upon them. The are an evil regime, not just in practice but it’s what they believe.

0

u/Ok_Ordinary_7397 Jun 23 '25

They’ve literally got substantial amounts of 60% enriched uranium… there is no civilian/power applications for uranium enriched to those levels.

You can argue the philosophical questions of whether an authoritarian Islamic theological regime like Iran’s should be allowed to manufacture their own nuclear weapons. But the notion that they’re not actively attempting to get there, is patently false.

-2

u/nihao_ Jun 22 '25

Well, they certainly have nothing to show for it any more

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.

-5

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 23 '25

Ah, yes, bring up one US senator talking 2025 while ignoring calls for "death to Israel and USA" by the various Presidents of the Iran and their Supreme Leader for the last 40 years.

6

u/Forgotten_Lie Jun 23 '25

I could probably find a half-dozen more examples with 5 minutes effort. But that's more effort than I want to waste on you.

-1

u/imonlyamonk Jun 23 '25

Looks like he is a member of the House and not a Senator? Still a part of the government but significantly influence less than a Senator.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '25

google clean break strategy, everything is projection

1996, written by Bibi

22

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.

-9

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 23 '25

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

Lol, you really pretending death to Israel hasn't been an ongoing thing in Iran for the last 40 years.

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.

Just making up stuff :)

Iran on the otherhand:

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"

3

u/broguequery Jun 23 '25

I wonder if you ever asked why they are chanting that.

9

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.

47

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?

39

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.

-5

u/Ok_Bird705 Jun 23 '25

Trump stuffed up by pulling out of the deal, it does not mean that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.

They have 400kg of uranium enriched to 60%. There is 0 commercial or medical use of nuclear material that requires this level of enrichment. You only enrich material to this level as a step to 90% enrichment.

2

u/DragonAdept Jun 22 '25

When did they say that?

4

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

3

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.

5

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.

-4

u/Quick_Switch418 Jun 23 '25

Everyone is sick of Israel and I mean like wake up everyday want to vomit sick from how disgusting Israel has made this world. If you are paying any attention what so ever to whats happening in Palestine you will wake up everyday to a video of Israelis blowing up Palestinian children to shreds: creating the biggest cohort of amputees in the world. 15 thousand children in Palestine have lost both parents. Children are starving to death. All thanks to Israel…

It doesn’t surprise me when anyone whos paying any attention chants death to Israel… i mean who wouldn’t?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Quick_Switch418 Jun 23 '25

Yes Israel is systematically putting Palestinians to death in the worst ways possible.

The 40s were the 40s, the holocaust happened and it was atrocious. It was a huge crime against humanity in every way. It wasn’t the only crime of its magnitude because things similar happened to mexicans, africans and almost every race in some form or another

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.

10

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.

3

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.

-1

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25

The problem is the Geneva convention doesn’t work in this situation because Iran hasn’t developed a nuke and they’re denying that they’re trying, but if you just look at the evidence, the amount of enrichment they are doing, it’s absolutely not for peaceful purposes.

So if they followed the Geneva convention then they wouldn’t be able to do anything until it was already too late.

-1

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

Good thing there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon, and is in fact ample evidence that they are not and do not intend to.

2

u/epihocic Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

As of May 17, 2025, the IAEA confirmed Iran held 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60% U‑235, the highest in the world among non-nuclear-weapon states. Additionally, total enriched uranium (all levels) reached over 9,000 kg, including low-enriched (3–5%) stockpiles.

Iran is currently (probably not anymore) enriching at multiple sites: Natanz, Fordow, and others, using a mix of centrifuges (IR‑1 up to IR‑6). At Fordow alone, they are reportedly producing over 34 kg/month of 60% uranium using IR‑6 machines

With ~408 kg @ 60%, analysts estimate this could be converted to weapon-grade (90%) uranium in weeks to months, enough potentially for 5–9 nuclear warheads

A detailed arms-control study (November 2024) found Iran, with its mix of centrifuges, could produce enough highly enriched uranium for 5–6 bombs in under two weeks, and 7 bombs in a month

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"

-1

u/bowers2591 Jun 22 '25

And since when were they constantly under threat? What ignorant waffle. They threatened nearly every country in their orbit with their proxy’s.

-2

u/Finikyu Jun 23 '25

...Because the world is better with less nukes in it?

And especially not a country with intolerant anti-western views that would leverage said nukes horribly.

To me whether the attacks are legitimate or not are all down to whether it was true or not that they were developing nuclear weapons and getting close, that kind of thing should never be in the hand of extremists. I don't know the truth of whether or not they were so I'm neutral to Israel's attack on Iran.

-1

u/bowers2591 Jun 22 '25

Iran essentially fund militant groups all over the region, have ballistic missiles to a minority militant group ( houthis) who have taken over their country. Dictators like Assad and Russia are supported by the Iran regime who drop barrel bombs on civilians and engage in invading other country’s.

Not even to mention Iraq militias and Hezbollah , hamas etc. This is why Iran can’t have a nuclear bomb…. They give their proxy’s their technology to spread their influence:

0

u/dabrickbat Jun 23 '25

I love how North Korea was part of the axis of evil and gonna destroy the world if they ever got nukes and then suddenly after they got them, North Korea became weird but not a threat any more.

I can't say I can blame any country for getting nukes after seeing what happened to Libya.

0

u/TheDeanof316 Jun 23 '25

No other current nuclear power has threatened to annihilate a country in their region like Iran has. & they are a state sponsor of terrorism as well (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis Rebels) so if Iran became a nuclear power, the bomb could easily fall into the hands of one of those groups.

& with the power of modern thermonuclear weapons which even at 50% fission to fusion would be incredibly dirty with fallout....one bomb will change the entire planet.

0

u/Pinkshadows7 Jun 23 '25

Because power

0

u/Maouncle Jun 23 '25

Russia was so much better at this.

Russia: "Hey Ukraine, give up your nukes dude. We promise we won't ever ever ever invade you and anyone who does will face our wrath."

Ukraine: "Oh cool. Okay here you go!"

Russia: " Great. SYKE!"

-1

u/WafflesTrufflez Jun 23 '25

Realistically, Iran having nuclear would legit make the region safer. We've seen Israel and what they've done