The Israel-Iran War ?

[Valmy]

There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

There were plenty of reasons and they did give up their program. I am not falling for this dumbass propaganda again.

[Sheilbh]

https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1936773660687130836

BREAKING 🚨: Iran's Parliament has officially voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, per state\-run Press TV\.

That's 20% of the world's oil supply now held hostage and the global economy just got handed a live grenade.

Buckle up.

I saw the energy people I follow noting that lots of those tankers that had been held back were doing a rush to get through Hormuz earlier today - something like 50 tankers going hell for leather to get out of the Gulf.

Listening to Rest is Politics losing their marbles over the strikes.

One thing by them why is nobody except for the UN chief is condemning it.

I think they are missing a very likely explanation: nobody minds it happened.

I've had to stop listening - they annoy me too much

[Admiral Yi]

There were plenty of reasons and they did give up their program. I am not falling for this dumbass propaganda again.

They did not give up their program.

[crazy canuck]

The people who make the rest is politics podcast should read more newspapers.  That way they would've realized that there are a large number of people in the world who mind what happened.

They meant European leaders and their conclusion was they are afraid of Trump and I am saying that in addition to that they are not too unhappy about Russia-ally Iran getting removed from the nuclear chess table

Amongst the European leaders, look at how the French reacted, compare and contrast with the UK, and you will get a good sense of who fears Trump's retribution for criticizing him.

Then look at Australia, Saudi Arabia and others who might have been more likely to be supportive, but there is a lot of criticism.

Why? Because it's a really dumb, poorly thought out thing to do for a long list of reasons.

[crazy canuck]

I realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

What are you talking about?  Lots of assertions there.  Any support for your views?

[Razgovory]

Right now I think everyone is trying to come to some sort of consensus on what to say.  I think you will see more forceful statements when Europe sees what Iran does.  They obviously don't want to be too pro Iran if Iran turns around and cuts of their oil supplies, likewise they don't want to be too anti-Trump if believe they require him to protect their shipping.

[Admiral Yi]

Heard on NPR that von der Leyden has called for de-escalation but also Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I was kind of surprised by that.

[Zoupa]

There were plenty of reasons and they did give up their program. I am not falling for this dumbass propaganda again.

They did not give up their program.

US intelligence said they did. Assessment dated Apr2025.

[Sheilbh]

Amongst the European leaders, look at how the French reacted, compare and contrast with the UK, and you will get a good sense of who fears Trump's retribution for criticizing him.

I think this is just vibes. I mean what difference do you mean? They've issued a joint statement (with Germany as the E3). Starmer's held calls with Trump, the Sultan of Oman and the King Abdullah of Jordan, Macron has spoken with the President of Iran and the MBS, Merz has called Erdogan and the Emir of Qatar. The message in all of the statements from all governments on that are basically the same and it is broadly a holding message.

As on dealing with Trump's policy on Ukraine, I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between them. As I say I think it's fairly passive and ambiguous at best, reiterating that Iran mustn't get nukes, calling for de-escalation and encouraging Iran to continue talks.

Then look at Australia, Saudi Arabia and others who might have been more likely to be supportive, but there is a lot of criticism.

The statement by Albanese's government is very similar to the E3 and has been pretty strongly criticised by the Australian left for being so ambiguous, including former aides to the Foreign Minister.

I agree on Saudi - but I think there the war in Gaza has really scuppered the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement in the short term.

I realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

I don't agree entirely - I think the JCPOA was working until Trump blew it up in his first term.

I think the bigger lesson is the only protection is to have nukes and if you're going for it get there quickly. I suspect that is something being considered right now in Riyadh and Ankara.

Heard on NPR that von der Leyden has called for de-escalation but also Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I was kind of surprised by that.

It's the same as the E3 line - ambiguous at best.

I think German attitudes are a very important factor here. Whether that's Scholz calling Israel's security a staatsraison of Germany which is fairly big (and we've seen very strong clampdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations/speech), or Merz in response to Israel launching attacks on Iran stating that they were doing "dirty work for us all". I think if it was just the US, the position might be different.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

if Turkey goes for nukes, Greece will too. Inevitably.

[Admiral Yi]

US intelligence said they did. Assessment dated Apr2025.

What I heard on NPR maybe yesterday was that US intelligence disagreed with Israel's claim that Iran had started speeding up enrichment of uranium from 20% to 60%.

Is that what you are calling "abandoning their nuclear weapon program," or do you actually mean that US intelligence said they abandoned their nuclear weapon program?

[Admiral Yi]

It's the same as the E3 line - ambiguous at best.

I don't see what's ambiguous about saying Iran can not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

However, NPR gave me a paraphrase/characterization so the original statement might have been softened to ambiguity.

[Zanza]

I think German attitudes are a very important factor here. Whether that's Scholz calling Israel's security a staatsraison of Germany which is fairly big (and we've seen very strong clampdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations/speech), or Merz in response to Israel launching attacks on Iran stating that they were doing "dirty work for us all". I think if it was just the US, the position might be different.

Germany does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. For reasons of Israeli security, general non-proliferation and also for European security. Iranian missiles can reach here.

Using hard power to achieve foreign policy goals is alien to our political discourse though, although it is getting more acceptable.

So when Merz said Israel (or now Trump) are doing the dirty work, it is an endorsement of the ends, even if there is an instinctive rejection of the means.

As far as making a difference between the US and Israel: obviously it matters. Israel is really threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions, the US itself isn't. So Israel has more of a casus belli.

[Zoupa]

US intelligence said they did. Assessment dated Apr2025.

What I heard on NPR maybe yesterday was that US intelligence disagreed with Israel's claim that Iran had started speeding up enrichment of uranium from 20% to 60%.

Is that what you are calling "abandoning their nuclear weapon program," or do you actually mean that US intelligence said they abandoned their nuclear weapon program?

US intelligence said they were 3 years away if they decided to restart uranium enrichment, which in Apr2025, they had not. Obviously no one wants proliferation, but let's not get hoodwinked yet again with fantastical claims.

[Admiral Yi]

let's not get hoodwinked yet again with fantastical claims.

amen