Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.

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.”

  • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
    310·
    1 day ago

    Not exactly. West didn’t care too much about other non-western countries having nukes. Two nations who have nukes borderline almost started a war in Asia (Pakistan and India). Iran is a special case, just like North Korea is. Unlike others, the two I mentioned have essentially declared themselves as the enemies of the west, so naturally west wants to keep them away from such destructive weapons

    EDIT: Third one would be Russia, but there was already conflicts and a long standoff. The Russia has made it clear they can invade everyone but no one can invade them. Coincidentally, same could be said for USA.

    Just my two cents, from some philosophing east european slav here.

    • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldEnglish
      53·
      1 day ago

      Iran is a special case. Unlike others, the two I mentioned have essentially declared themselves as the enemies of the west,

      You reversed it. The west made itself the enemy of iran

      • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
        28·
        21 hours ago

        Elaborate…

        For others who don’t want the alternative history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–United_States_relations

        Iranian explanations for the animosity with the United States include “the natural and unavoidable conflict between the Islamic system” and “such an oppressive power as the United States, which is trying to establish a global dictatorship and further its own interests by dominating other nations and trampling on their rights”, as well as the United States support for Israel (“the Zionist entity”).[11][12] In the West, however, different explanations have been considered,[1] including the Iranian government’s need for an external bogeyman to furnish a pretext for domestic repression against pro-democratic forces and to bind the government to its loyal constituency.[13] The United States attributes the worsening of relations to the 1979–81 Iran hostage crisis,[1] Iran’s repeated human rights abuses since the Islamic Revolution, different restrictions on using spy methods on democratic revolutions by the US, its anti-Western ideology and its nuclear program.[14][15]

        • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldEnglish
          1·
          20 hours ago

          We are going to ignore that the 1953 coup never happened?

          https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days

          According to Stephen Kinzer, author of the book All the Shah’s Men, Roosevelt quickly seized control of the Iranian press by buying them off with bribes and circulating anti-Mossadegh propaganda. He recruited allies among the Islamic clergy, and he convinced the shah that Mossadegh was a threat.

          • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
            27·
            20 hours ago

            The coup explains the current form of government, not why the government hates west, a west that is broader than just US

            • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldEnglish
              1·
              20 hours ago

              The west didn’t abandon the idea of controlling Iran again for it’s oils and for Israel to have free reign in controlling all Palestine and keep expending it’s illegal settlements. I am all for a regime change but without foreign intervention for geopolitics reasons .

              • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
                18·
                18 hours ago

                Again, you’re doing something called US defaultism. The west is not in agreement about Palestine for example. Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that’s currently happening. Neither did other parts of the west planned to control Iran’s oil. I’ll have to remind you that the initial topic/argument was why Iran/West are on bad terms, not Iran and US.

                For me, a European, my hate towards them comes from their continious support towards Russia who’s invading checks notes Europe.

                • zeezee@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  2·
                  15 hours ago

                  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.

                  Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that’s currently happening.

                  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…

                  • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
                    18·
                    14 hours ago

                    which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what’s happening?

                    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.

                    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…

                    Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists in no way equals to annihilation of a state my dude. Stop overreaching.