3 ms·
Not the parent, but the IAEA did find Iran to be non-compliant just before the Israeli strike: https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-finds-ira
by nickff 1y ago
Not the parent, but the IAEA did find Iran to be non-compliant just before the Israeli strike: https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-finds-iran-in-non-compliance-with-nuclear-obligations https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-find...
- NomDePlum 1y agoSure, that's true and reasonably serious. However, the non-compliance was the first time in 20 years and based on not providing timely co-operation. So largely procedural and not close to being an indication that a verified weapons programme was being undertaken. Certainly it did not merit the Israeli strikes at all as that more than anything sets back the oversight of Iran.
- nickff 1y agoI am not sure what would 'merit' military action; that's a difficult political question, especially when one party suspects that their counter-party is lying.
- NomDePlum 1y agoPre-emptive strikes are illegal under international law except for in very narrow circumstances. The circumstances in this case where nowhere close to that. So I wouldn't agree it's a difficult political question. Israel and the US are parties to those laws and clearly broke them. It's unclear why, it does appear politically motivated rather than actually about any actual threat or particular intelligence.
- nickff 1y agoIn your view, would the USA, Japan, or South Korea have been justified in striking North Korea’s nuclear program at any point before or after their development of nuclear weapons? If so, when? Note that North Korea has repeatedly threatened to re-unify the country by force.
- NomDePlum 1y agoI'm not really aware of the circumstances of that so hard to say. I'm more aware of Iran because of recent events. I'd doubt it would have been legal and if that was the case I would not see it as justified. I'm not aware of any illegal wars this century that I do see as justified. I personally don't believe any country should have nuclear weapons.
- nickff 1y agoI think it makes sense to be against military action in general, though it’s a much more persuasive position in a safe western country than Israel, South Korea, or Ukraine. I also think you’d be well-served to learn a bit more about the history of nuclear proliferation if you wish to argue your points effectively.
- NomDePlum 1y agoWhen it comes to nuclear weapons I'm located within 50 miles of a nuclear military base so it is something I am keenly aware of. I don't see Israel making itself or others safer by pursuing illegal wars. The reverse is Ukraine which is the recipient of an illegal war. There are very few actions that make the world less safe than this sort of reckless and unjustified action. It just reinforces to me why they are illegal. More knowledge and context always help of course, but I do see a lot of rhetoric being put forward on this subject. My replies may be imperfect but I do think they help with balance. Is there a particular point you believe I should be considering?