European Commission President days Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Israel has right to defend itself

First paragraph does not surprise me one bit.

I follow loads of Iranians on twitter who are furious at all the pro-iranian campaigns in the west. They pretty much want to see the fall of the regime and are pretty pissed off that people are acting like they speak for the Iranian people instead of propping up the regime.

have been saying that Israels warnings have been effective as far as their families are concerned but the regime keeps telling people to stay in place every time a warning comes through. Very similar to what Hamas did. Also they moved rocket launchers into residential areas.

Interestingly targeting a heavy water facility was a major factor in slowing down anyone else getting the bomb last time.

This is interesting.

If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general's concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict "unless our personnel are targeted".

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-attorney-general-has-concerns-over-iran-israel-war-13385688

From the same source: Some context:

The Arak heavy water reactor was a focus of the 2015 nuclear deal with the US and other powers, because heavy water (or deuterium oxide) can be used to produce plutonium – providing Iran with a second pathway to a potential nuclear bomb, beyond enriched uranium.

Under the deal, Iran was required to redesign Arak into a peaceful research facility which could no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium. However, in the years since and following the US withdrawal, Iran has breached some aspects of the deal and no longer allows UN inspectors to monitor its production or stocks of heavy water.

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-conflict-06-19-25-intl-hnk

Israel attacks Iran's Arak nuclear facility, no major damage reported

Israel attacked Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor, a nuclear facility about 155 miles (250 kilometers) southwest of Tehran, according to Iranian state media and the Israeli military.

Two projectiles were fired at the facility around 6 a.m. local time, state-run news agency IRIB said. The facility has not been seriously damaged and there is no radiation, it reported.

An Israeli military official confirmed its fighter jets struck the facility, during a series of overnight raids across the country.

“The attack was carried out against the component intended for producing plutonium, thus preventing its ability to be reused to produce nuclear weapons,” the spokesperson added.

Earlier Thursday, the IDF issued an evacuation warning to residents near the Arak facility, saying: “Your presence in this area puts your life at risk.”

edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-conflict-06-19-25-intl-hnk

Can you also articulate "why" beyond a one liner?

I am not arguing on moral terms at all (which is not at all the same thing as claiming that I do not have personal moral stances [I do] or political opinions [only about one gazillion].

I am trying to convey that ... "but we are right, though, and the good guys" is not a serious strategic position. Also, that the people "we" posit are the bad guys think of "us" as equally as evil.

You can get away with pretending all your interventions are driven by morals - if and when you happen to be a unipolar hegemony.

This has largely been the case for the USA (and its hangers on - that includes us, by the way!) since the end of the USSR.

And it just no longer is. The relative power of the US is shrinking. We are multipolar now. Or about to be. And "America will always have our back" is no longer a reliable framework in a world where Donald Trump refuses to exclude military power to "get" Greenland.

What I am saying is not "the good guys should win" or "the bad guys must never win" but "this is just fundamentally not how geopolitics works".

What you are arguing for is, more or less, "offensive realism as per Mearsheimer et al. - but do let us gaslight ourselves into believing we do it on moral grounds".

What I am arguing for is essentially: "do let us attempt liberal IR because ... liberal IR sucks at analysis but is a lot less scary than realism if put into practice"

@SomeWomanSomewhere I don’t believe/agree with cultural relativism. I know this doesn’t sit well with some - but I do believe- yes - that western values have allowed me to voice my opinion, life my life freely, have an education, raise my daughter to believe she has equal opportunity and has choice over her sexuality and religion. I support our right to defend ourselves and this includes Israel’s.

And hiding them deep deep underground. No one goes to the bother of enriching Uranium to that level unless for developing a nuclear weapon.It’s a completely incomparable situation to the 2003 Iraq one.

Talking about non existence WMD...

Nuclear watchdog says Iran was not trying to build weapon
The nuclear watchdog does not believe Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon, its chief tells Sky News.
"We came to the conclusion we could not affirm there is any systematic effort in Iran at the moment to manufacture a nuclear weapon," says Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
He tells lead world news presenter Yalda Hakim the IAEA's report, which has been widely cited by Israel, found Iran is enriching 60% uranium, the only country in the world doing that, so "there were elements for concern".
"But as to saying they are building and manufacturing a nuclear weapon - no, we didn't say that."

I never said you were advocating for BN to be assassinated. You made it abundantly clear that you thought he - your phrasing - "will not be" but also: my initial critique was me (admittedly: wrongly as per your later posts) assuming you would be upset if someone called for it. You said you would not take issue. That is consistent and I respect said consistency. While also maintaining that, on the grounds of not only but primarily systemic ramifications, I remain firmly "anti assassination as policy".

@tramtracks, yes, yes, I know: UK good, USA good. Israel good. Iran bad. China bad.

But this is PRECISELY what I am trying to argue here the whole time: Do you think that, somewhere in Beijing, chairman Xi is currently going "MWAHAHAHAHA ... today I shall do more evil!!!"?

Obviously not! They think WE are the baddies!

And Europe - even as a block, even the EU, never mind good old Blighty post Brexit is at best a middling power.

These "fine if we do it - but noone else" type policies assume we are still junior partners, or stakeholders, in a global hegemony. We are not! And it would be the sane and wise thing to do what is in the actual strategic interest of middling powers: advocate for universal standards - because these literally protect us all.

There has been many attempts of carrying out a citizens arrest on Blair, not just in the UK either.

You would often here people shouting and calling him a war criminal when he made public appearances.

I think you are being disingenuous with your response to me @SomeWomanSomewhere because you specifically singled out Netanyahu as the world leader you assumed I would "be screaming blue murder" about if someone posted they hoped would get assassinated.

I'm not advocating for Netanyahu to get assassinated. As I said above, I expect that he will be removed from power at the next democratic election in Israel rather than being assassinated. But neither would I be screaming blue murder if someone suggested he should be.

Yes. I remember. I was trying to understand the poster’s position on BN and whether it extended to other world leaders or just BN.

She also mentioned China - which imo has the worst human rights records of all. TBH / I can’t think of a world leader of any populous country who might not come under attack for some decisions. It just feels on social media - that somehow BN and Israel are held to a much much higher bar of accountability than others. He certainly seems to attract a lot more viceral hate.

Same 😬

Can confirm! I signed that one ...

Are you British? There was very fierce backlash by the British public against Blair both during and after the invasion. Many considered him a war criminal. The marches and protests at the time were huge.

😆 🤣

I think a fair few were aghast he was knighted instead.

There was a petition at the time.

Personally? Yes! Absolutely!

Realistically? There obviously needs to be evidence that makes this feasible. I would absolutely welcome an investigation by the ICC into whether he could personally tied to something that is a specific violation. And, yes, the ICC, not "we investigate ourselves".

Netanyahu made it easy because he insists on bragging about his crimes. If I were his lawyer I suspect I'd be in constant hypertensive crisis.

Blair doesn't - but there is good reason to believe that, e.g. he must have been aware of the "dodgy" in the dossier. So ... yes, please! Investigate him and, if possible: indicted and try him! It's been two decades so I don't remember all the details.

How would that not obviously be my position?

I wasn't on mumsnet at the time, i don't even know if mumsnet was around then but there were many people who thought he should have been trialled for war crimes after the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, I think he should have been. I even remember watching on the news how someone attempted a citizens arrest on him for war crimes 😅

👏 👏