Israel / Palestine

[First Aspect]

My rundimentary understanding of international law is that it doesn't really exist. It is just a loose framework of international conventions that if breached, a country can generally just leave. E.g. the US does this routinely.

 

[Psamathe]

My rundimentary understanding of international law is that it doesn't really exist. It is just a loose framework of international conventions that if breached, a country can generally just leave. E.g. the US does this routinely.

Article 51 of the UN Charter

Ian

 

[First Aspect]

Sure, but any country can ultimately decide to say screw you guys I'm going home, and leave the UN. Breaches of UN resolutions tends to result in sanctions and a reduction in vacation options for world leaders in question. Iran has little to lose on that front and Israel seems to operate in a consequence free zone under the umbrella of the US.

 

[Psamathe]

Sure, but any country can ultimately decide to say screw you guys I'm going home, and leave the UN. Breaches of UN resolutions tends to result in sanctions and a reduction in vacation options for world leaders in question. Iran has little to lose on that front and Israel seems to operate in a consequence free zone under the umbrella of the US.

I agree they can but my understanding only for their country eg Israel can't force Palestine or Iran to leave the UN Charter and if they go into those countries they make themselves covered by these laws.

I suppose also, if a country departs such international agreements it will affect how their "allies" treat them eg are they a "reliable partner", etc. though how other countries regard them doesn't seem to worry Israeli Government much these days.

Just as Israel has not signed the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty.

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

Tulsi Gabbard (Trump's appointment) from March 2025:

On March 25, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard delivered the U.S. Intelligence Community’s (IC) collective conclusions covering a broad swath of national security issues and geographic areas — including the threat posed by Iran and its possible development of a nuclear weapon.

“The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,” she told the committee bluntly. Gabbard was echoing an assessment that U.S. intelligence agencies have been making since 2007.
(from https://responsiblestatecraft.org/tulsi-iran-bomb/)

So how are they now accepting Israel's story when they and everybody else assess no nuclear weapons.

Ian

 

[Pblakeney]

Tulsi Gabbard (Trump's appointment) from March 2025:

So how are they now accepting Israel's story when they and everybody else assess no nuclear weapons.

Ian

It is simply a premise and an excuse on a par with WMD.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

So how are they now accepting Israel's story when they and everybody else assess no nuclear weapons.

That's not an accurate reading, the last IEAE visit clearly said they saw clear indicators of Iran moving past peaceful energy creation and into creating an nuclear bomb, they just hadn't had an working one yet.
This is not disputed by experts, where experts disagree about is how close they are to having a nuclear weapon.

 

[First Aspect]

I keep hearing 60% enrichment. Civil use required under 5%.

Are we being fed propaganda, or does the intelligence actually say that Iran is yet to figure out how to make an actual bomb work?

i.e. There might be some truth both in Israel's stated reasons (omitting the elephant in the room that it's a good time to attack a comparatively weak and isolated Iran) and the US I telligence reports, with the difference being expected timescales.

 

[Psamathe]

Tulsi Gabbard (Trump's appointment) from March 2025:

So how are they now accepting Israel's story when they and everybody else assess no nuclear weapons.

Ian

That's not an accurate reading, the last IEAE visit clearly said they saw clear indicators of Iran moving past peaceful energy creation and into creating an nuclear bomb, they just hadn't had an working one yet.
This is not disputed by experts, where experts disagree about is how close they are to having a nuclear weapon.

I didn't say thery were not developing a nuclear weapon. The widespread view is that they don't have one and are some time away from being able to build one.

From their perspective, Israel has nuclear weapons so why shouldn't they have them? Of course I don't want then (or anybody) to have nuclear weapons but from Iran's Government's perspective it could be viewed as hypocritical for countries that have them to be lecturing others about how they can't have them.

Ian

 

[Pblakeney]

Are we being fed propaganda, or does the intelligence actually say that Iran is yet to figure out how to make an actual bomb work?

With Tulsi Gabbard saying what she did as posted above then you have to assume propaganda.
Unless she was pushing the propaganda then as Trump wants to be a peacemaker. To be yet another of his failures.

 

[First Aspect]

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium

This is interesting from 2021. Casts some doubt in my mind about the imminency of the next step, that Israel is claiming.

Seems, at least in 2021, to have been mostly done as a fück you, with the material being down cycled back to civilian grade afterwards.

So on the one hand it is possibly a case of don't poke the bear, on the other hand it is a massive and prolonged exercise in missing the opportunity to de-escalate on the part of the US and Israel.

I am also increasingly of the view that Israeli government output is about as factual as the Kremlin's.

 

[Psamathe]

I am also increasingly of the view that Israeli government output is about as factual as the Kremlin's.

Although in the case of Russia/Ukraine at least reporters are allowed in to independently see and report what is really happening.

Ian

 

[PurplePenguin]

The US/UK don't really have a great history with Iran. Supported the coup in 1953, opposed the next coup in 1979, supported Iraq in its use of chemical weapons whilst invading Iran in the 80s and then sanctioned Iran for opposing this. The late 90s was the perfect opportunity to remove the sanctions and normalise relations given that Iran did quite a lot of useful stuff without being a threat, but instead there were more sanctions. Then Iran started to enrich uranium which led to yet more sanctions.

 

[C R]

The US/UK don't really have a great history with Iran. Supported the coup in 1953, opposed the next coup in 1979, supported Iraq in its use of chemical weapons whilst invading Iran in the 80s and then sanctioned Iran for opposing this. The late 90s was the perfect opportunity to remove the sanctions and normalise relations given that Iran did quite a lot of useful stuff without being a threat, but instead there were more sanctions. Then Iran started to enrich uranium which led to yet more sanctions.

After September 11th Iran brokered the deal between the afghan Northern Alliance and the US which led to the fall of the Taliban. Around that time, Khatami, then president of Iran, said in an interview that it was up to the Palestinians and Israel to come to an agreement, which was a significant shift in the Iranian position regarding Israel. As thanks GW Bush added Iran to the infamous Axis of Evil bollöcks. The value of the US word in international relations is seen as very low in Iran, as you can imagine.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/JeremyKamali/status/1935083634228388060?t=7p3xT8fgdy6HvfrzARTHIg&s=19