Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.
The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself.
“Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.
They pledged to “remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability.”
Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.
Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we’re commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what’s happening?
As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I’d much rather them be aligned with us but I can’t blame them when they’ve been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.
Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.
Now you may think it’s too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you’re calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…
You misunderstood. I said Europe does not agree with what is happening in Palestine, not Iran. Different scenarios. There is no genocide in Iran. Everyone’s in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes. Not everyone is in agreement whether there should be war about it. Currently it’s hardly a war.
Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists in no way equals to annihilation of a state my dude. Stop overreaching.
Europe has the obligation to stop any type of rrlation with a genocidal state comitting a genocide in gaza. Europe pretend to disagree with what ia happening in palestine
Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
Obviously I’m not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I’m saying that by manufacturing consent for the “war on terror” the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what’s happening in Ukraine)
So I’m arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
And if you’re claiming that “Everyone’s in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes.” but “Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists” is “hardly a war” - then you’re either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you’re saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
I feel we may not be understanding each other so I’ll present my argument and you present yours?
My point is: The G7’s hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.
The whole point of attacking iran from israeli side is to have free reign on oppresing palestinians. For american prespective is all about oil. Europe support is because iran is allied with russia
At no point did Palestine play into Iran nuclear talks. I still don’t quite understand why you keep bringing them into this conflict. It’s a seperate conflict that has been in the making for a long time now, and I’m almost 99% sure US is strongly behind it (which would explain the spike in weapon deliveries pre-strike) borderline using Israel as a puppet state.
Because not doing anything and chilling out when others are making major moves is sure a failproof strategy. Worked well for France in WW2. Not really advocating for these attacks, but you gotta understand that they do have a point. If west does nothing, they will get cornered. No one wants to be cornered. I’d rather be cornered by US than IRGC, you know, but obviously this is going to be a controversial and mixed opinion for obvious reasons, depending on who’s reading this.
Well, no one is stopping you from becoming the next Houthis shooting rockets at our valuables. The god isn’t watching. But “expect no repercussions”? Why do you think no one is attacking the big countries? There are always repercussions, this isn’t unique to G7 countries. Who tf is going to bully China? Not saying the world order is excellent, but it is what it is, and currently Iran doesn’t have the best cards and no one on the other side wants them to have nukes.
My point is, and I truly believe, if highly religious countries with record amount of human right violations and authoritarism would be the world’s hedgemony instead of United States who could get wiped out while idling, there is a very, very high chance my, and likely your life might be so much worse. US for all it’s shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran, so naturally western countries are interested in avoiding such a large future threats
As I said: “that’s an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…”
I’m just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it’s own weight.
Beats the alternative?