...

This is a grave moment for humanity.

Netanyahu’s opponents in Israel are now accusing him of pushing for war with Iran to serve his own political interests. Their criticism echoes warnings in Washington that he helped draw the US into war with Tehran — an argument that brought accusations of anti-Semitism against critics including former US counterterrorism chief Joe Kent.

The twisted part here is that neoliberalism has stifled any criticism of Israel that isn’t rightwing and antisemitic (Why are people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens allowed to run free in the meadows of antisemitism without consequences? This is a choice we made as a culture and it had terrible consequences.), which sets up the rightwing antisemitic narrative to turn around and blame jews for stabbing us in the back and dragging the innocent US into this mess… which murderously ignores the complicity of the US, of all of us… which is genuinely one of the reasons I have tried to be so proactive in my criticism of Israel to pre-empt this reduction of a nuanced attrocity involving many necessary international actors to enable it down to a simple easy story of “the jews stabbed us in the back again!” that feels (in a way I see as extraordinarily dangerous) righteous and refreshingly simple compared to the bloody truth.

  • supersquirrel@lemmy.caOP
    8·
    1 day ago

    Except that according to all internationally verified and credible evidence with the Nuclear Deal that was established under Obama Iran was moving towards a peaceful engagement and integration with the rest of the world.

    There was no evidence and there is no evidence that Iran was moving towards a nuclear weapon in any meaningful way before the most recent attacks of Israel and the US on Iran and especially before the nuclear agreement was thrown out by Trump, the incentive structure did not make it rational and the leaders were not making political moves in that direction. Does that mean that there weren’t radical elements of Iran that were doing other things? No, but when speaking in terms of Iran conducting war on Israel you must include that context because the powerful in the world are desperately trying to make us forget it.

    The product of the Iran War (including specifically the targeted assassinations of Iranian leaders) that Israel and the US launched was to craft an Iran that could actually be credibly cast as a nuclear and non-nuclear threat to Israel and the US by extension. We can only hope that their strategic objective failed here and we can yet find a way towards peace, Iran is a diverse nation with many possible futures, we bring shame upon ourselves for charging so blindly into casting out that potential in favor of a simpler narrative about endless war.

    Most broadly, this escalation of violence and instability denies the region a vibrant future, large human populations in arid regions are dependent upon inherently vulnerable infrastructure like water desalination plants. We are all bulls in the China shop because of climate change now… and we must act accordingly.

    For the same reason the Palestinian Genocide must stop NOW if we are to have a peaceful future as well.

    If my words sound radical, note that I see a solution that is in the best interests of almost everyone but some of the leaders at the very top of some countries, my solution is Israel must stop the genocide and begin to treat Palestinians as humans. We must also stop the Iran War. This is for the safety of jews in Israel, jews all over the world, muslims, christians, atheists… and for people that like ships to be able to consistently navigate through the suez canal (all of us pretty much)… we all have the same human interest in a peaceful future and we must elevate that above any other aspect of this conversation lest we cast away our collective futures.

    • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
      3·
      1 day ago

      The IAEA reports clearly show that Iran was mass producing highly enriched uranium.

      Them building up enrichment facilities to do this is what lead Obama to first try and stall them with Stuxnet, the assassinations, and finally giving in to the blackmail to drop all sanctions in exchange for them to stall enrichment to 2031.

      They never “moved toward peaceful engagement and integration” in any way.

      • supersquirrel@lemmy.caOP
        9·
        1 day ago

        One of the main arguments used against the JCPOA was that it allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and move closer to nuclear capability while remaining technically in compliance. The JCPOA also contained so-called “sunset provisions” on various aspects of the deal such as lifting limits on centrifuges after 10 years or reduced enrichment beyond 3.67% only lasting for 15 years.

        In 2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Others involved in the deal, particularly its European partners, tried to keep the deal running without the United States, but in 2019 Iran accelerated its uranium enrichment, and the JCPOA further deteriorated. In February 2021, at the direction of its parliament, Iran suspended implementation of the Additional Protocol following almost three years of unilateral maximum pressure sanctions imposed by the United States.

        https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-iran-deal-then-and-now/

        That was the deal you fool, fine criticize the deal I guess but get your facts about what happened and in what order straight. There is a CLEAR cause and effect here you are obscuring with your framing.

        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/fact-checking-trumps-comments-that-a-2015-deal-gave-iran-the-right-to-nuclear-weapons

        Obama had campaigned on a promise to ensure that Iran did not obtain a nuclear weapon. The negotiated agreement was signed in 2015 by the United States and Iran as well as China, Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

        Under the deal, Iran agreed to refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons and to allow continuous monitoring of its compliance in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. Different parts of the agreement were scheduled to last between 10 and 25 years; some elements were to last indefinitely. Obama officials hoped for future renegotiations.

        Iran agreed to relinquish 97% of its enriched uranium stockpile and 70% of its centrifuges, which are machines used to enrich uranium. It also agreed to stop plutonium production and to dismantle a plutonium reactor. If Iran broke any of these pledges, the other signatories would be able to reimpose sanctions, a process known as a “snapback” provision.

        …

        Over the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations, aside from some minor infractions that were addressed.

        You are committing revisionist history.

        • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
          2·
          23 hours ago

          Can you point out where I’m “revising history”?

          You seem to start from the idea that them holding the world hostage with the threat of making nukes is somehow the natural baseline