egg

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Japan are a "hop, skip and a jump" away from a nuke. 2. I'm not sure who's said they were pretending to build a nuke. Bizarre interpretation. They're enriching uranium, and could build a nuke once they have, but there's zero evidence that they were actually building one. What's your position re the other points please?

1. Google is your friend. 2. There is no evidence of either parties stance in the talks, save that the US were publicly saying no enriched uranium. Where's the evidence that until Trump blew up the deal in 2018 that Iran weren't playing the game? Assuming they were, why would they not retreat to their pre 2018 position? The leverage flows from that - Iran demonstrated that they had the ability.

Japan are widely known to be able to put together nukes at the click of a finger. Iran weren't that close it would seem. If Iran were willing to roll back their enrichment to pre 2018 levels, and facilitate access to inspection, what would be the issue?

Misguided leverage.

Yes. Many countries have it without nuclear weapons. Japan, South Africa, etc. This seems to come back to people being cool with Israel having a nuke but Iran not having any form of nuclear.

You're conflating the desire of some Iranians wish for change with other countries wish for change. Entirely different, and with different motivation. Iran were on the road to being a successful state. Until 1953 they had a democratic government. The UK and US engineered a coup. Iran then got the Shah, who ran the country with US "support". The Iranians didn't like the level of Western ism, and influence. They then had the revolution in 1979, leading to the "supreme leader", and we've seen what happened since. No doubt some Iranians want change. Moreover, the west want change. They want a malleable leader (again). This is all about regime change, and softening up the Iranian masses to want it and accept outside "support". Basically, Iran are being taken back to 1953.

France

Yep. Whatever your thoughts on the Israeli/US actions, the intelligence, weaponry and tech are frighteningly good.

Ok country, no, but the scourge of the middle east, no. They were parties to the JCPOA and there was no evidence that they breached their agreement, thus they were complying with their nuclear agreements and not building a nuke. There wouldn't be an Iran to oppose if Israeli action in the West Bank and Gaza hadn't been tolerated for so long, and the west hadn't undermined them leading to this regime. The west are dealing with western created problems in western ways, but, if there was enriched uranium way above energy levels, and no willingness to roll back to appropriate levels, then they were a problem. However, if it's the case (which it seems to be) that the US were insisting on no enrichment whatsoever, then it's hard to understand the US position and it appears that Iran were being set up to fail. I'd like to know what the true position was re the Iran/US stance on enrichment.

Nice to see these old timers are getting by. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLLIcFqNR5Y/?igsh=eW45cGR1bGw2dHFo

I suspect no less than you. Tell me what you know that I don't justifies what's just happened, and what makes you believe that Iran were actually building a nuke. However you cut it, there was no evidence that Iran were not complying with the JCPOA before Trump abrogated the agreement.

Sounds like someone who's been persuaded that Iran are the aggressor and that the west have played with a straight bat. Also known as an idiot.

Err, but Trump dropped the bombs mate. You do realise that enrichment doesn't = building a nuke and that having a nuke doesn't = using a nuke?

Ha! No denying what's happened though Benji. The west have always wanted a compliant Iran and that began in 1953. The Iranians didn't like that hence the revolution. Western meddling, as always, has caused all sorts of issues.

That debut was something else. Not sure I've witnessed a more inept performance. And that includes the infamous one.

How was the plum duff?

I saw this earlier and thought it was well written. My only comment to add relates to the language being used, and the trust it puts on the reality. Trumps words re Iran giving up - they've been attacked! "The American President Donald Trump has confirmed airstrikes on three locations inside Iran early in the morning today , following a week before Israeli attacks on Iran that killed Iranian scientists , officials, and their families, including women children . In response, Iran has retaliated an act that comes under UNO law of self-defense According to the UN Charter, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense (Article 51) or with UN Security Council authorisation. The U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran were neither defensive (in the legal sense) nor authorised, making them violations of international law. Iran, in contrast, may invoke its right to self-defense if attacked. Importantly, this is not the first time America has violated Iranian sovereignty. From the 1953 CIA-backed coup to the assassination of General Soleimani in 2020, Iran has faced decades of covert and overt aggression. This fits into a broader pattern of U.S. foreign policy: Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria, Afghanistan, and other cases where Washington used military force without UN approval often with devastating consequences there is a full list on which Western public and media becomes blind and purposely put under the carpet and hide the facts. Western mainstream media contributes to this double standard. It portrays the U.S. and Israeli military actions as defensive or strategic, while labelling similar actions by adversaries like Iran or Russia as aggressive and unlawful. This bias shapes public opinion and shields powerful countries from accountability. The hypocrisy is stark. The same nations that condemn Russia for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty routinely violate the sovereignty of others without legal justification. If international law is applied selectively, its legitimacy collapses. If can not uphold the rule of law by violating it whenever it suits one's interests. If Iran’s retaliation is proportional and in response to an armed attack, it falls within its legal rights under the UN Charter. To condemn it while excusing the illegal strikes that provoked it is not justice it’s moral and legal inconsistency. If the world truly desires peace and stability, it must commit to universal application of international law, uphold UN authority, and reject the use of force as a tool of convenience for powerful states. Without this, international order becomes little more than a tool of the strong against the weak. It is another black day of history ,humanity is suffering . In the last 80 years, America has attacked 26 countries, leaving behind a trail of destruction and millions of lives lost. And now, with its actions toward Iran, that number threatens to rise to 27. Despite this long and deadly history, Western media continues to paint Iran is a threat to thy world, while turning a blind eye to the far greater violence carried out by the U.S. and its ally, Israel alone committed genocide in Gaza, The hypocrisy is staggering. The double standards are not just unfair they are dangerous. How long will the world ignore who the real threat or aggressors are? I pray for the peace, justice, and stability in the world equally for everyone". Doubtless several on here will disagree with the above, but facts is facts.

Jeez. The mind boggles.

The little EU/Iran meeting was a proper waste of time. At least we can rely on our journalists to make us relevant.

Seemed utterly pointless at the time, and so it proved. Yes. Absolute class. Injury free, he'd have been a superstar.

An attempt to show that the UK can actually change something in the conflict?

Yep, now he's persuaded Gabbard to say what he wants her to say, he'll crack on. Enrichment has all of a sudden become bomb building.

In the camper somewhere in Wiltshire. On top of a hill. The breeze is making it quite pleasant. Thought you had storms up north?

The white collar makes it look crap imo. With a round collar on that, it'd look half decent.

I get that, but until the safeguards are nailed down and offer proper safeguards, I can't get behind this. I've watched people die slow painful deaths and I can understand the call for people in their positions to have the option to end their pain with dignity. The risks of people being talked into "choosing" to die before they actually want to is very real though, and I'd want to understand the detail as to how genuine consent is examined, and the extent to which any panel (it should be a Judge - we have the court of protection, the family court, and the health section of the HESC tribunal) can be satisfied that the consent is genuine, and that dying is in the best interests of the individual. It's a very tough subject, and I genuinely don't have any issue with people supporting it.