Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-Iran, with strong support for its nuclear ambitions and defiance against sanctions. Many commenters condemn Western hypocrisy, particularly from the U.S. and Israel, and advocate for Iran's right to develop its nuclear capabilities for defense. There's a sense of pride in Iran's resilience and a belief in shifting global power dynamics favoring countries like Iran in contrast to U.S.-led policies.

United States

Israel

European Union

Russia

China

The United Nations Security Council has failed to adopt the draft resolution that would give continued sanctions relief for Iran as per the JCPOA

This means that SnapBack has now been officially activated, and UN sanctions against Iran will take effect at 8pm on September 27th.

aWhiteWildLion

If China and Russia don’t respect the resolution (as they’ve suggested they’re not going to) then I’m not sure what this actually does. I guess it was “use it or lose it” situation. 

kindagoodatthis

Iran bots jumped on this thread immediately.

This actions shows that while the general population on the West might be confused, as least a critical mass of politicians still know what’s going on.

The real question is what kinds of measures, covert or otherwise, are being used to ensure compliance?

Honestly, I just pity the poor Iranians. Shia Muslims aren’t even a majority, and it must be maddening to see your government destroy your place in the world, and your own economy, by spending g tax dollars on nuclear facilities that will just get bombed in a few years. And I can’t say that if I lived there I’d have the courage to revolt. The violence that suppers the system is terrifying.

ADP_God

TheWolfofBinance

Nuclear non proliferation no longer makes sense. The greatest stabilizer to international relations is wmds. We should be criticizing Iran for a lot, such as human rights abuses, sponsoring terrorism, supporting Ukraine war off aggression etc. The list is long. I support sanctioning them for all sorts of reasons, but not for wanting to be a country. 

Any country who wants to be a country, who's conventional military is not the best in the world, and who has even one adversary, needs wmds. I want canada to have a chemical weapons program. Let's sanction them for an actual good reason, on an issue that they may budge on.

gooberfishie

Illegal snapback, invalid under UN law since the US quit JCPOA in 2018. They leave a deal and still trigger its rights. Besides, after 18th Oct, Resolution 2231 expires so only western unilateral sanctions remain, not UN law. Too bad, China and Russia will continue to do business with Iran as usual.

God bless Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, his wisdom and strength. If reformists like Zarif, Rafsanjani &amp; Rouhano got their way with a JCPOA 2, Iran would not even have any missiles today to respond to Israeli terrorism.

PracticalBook8901

Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

That’s pretty nice, but unfortunately sanctions really only punish the people, while the rulers continue to hoard and stock up on wealth.

Fruitcake6969

By Gabe Whisnant — Breaking News Editor |

Britain, France and Germany warned they are prepared to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran if the country fails to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and restore cooperation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog by the end of August.

The three nations — known collectively as the E3 — delivered the warning in a letter to the U.N., dated Friday, which French Foreign Minister Jean-Nöel Barrot posted Wednesday on X. Co-signed by Barrot and his counterparts from Germany and the United Kingdom, the letter said the countries were ready to trigger the "snapback" mechanism, a process that allows any of the Western parties to restore sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement.

"E3 have always committed to use all diplomatic tools at our disposal to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon," the letter stated. "We have made clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism."

Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-program-threat-nato-countries-iran-sanctions-2113137?utm\_source=reddit&amp;utm\_campaign=reddit\_main](https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-program-threat-nato-countries-iran-sanctions-2113137?utm_source=reddit&amp;utm_campaign=reddit_main)

newsweek

See, even Mother Nature has Iran on her shitlist by drying up their water reservoirs. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's just mocking them with a video message holding a pitcher of water and flexing on them by stating how Israel recycles 90% of its waste water and is the leader in desalination--technology which would be available to the Iranian people the moment the regime is gone.  

Get clapped, Ayatollahs.

ExiledYak

ykoech

We live in crazy times. I hope one day we all find peace.

LoveMyKush

Creepy-Fig929

Ohh well done nato. Now what about Isreal or maybe Russia or do they not count . NATO needs  to go or at minimum reformed

i-readit2

Thought we ended irans nuclear aspirations what gives

McGrawHell

[LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[deleted]

Israel: Commits genocide in Gaza, de facto annexes West Bank, invades Syria, invades Lebanon, openly threatens regime change in Iran, states “Greater Israel” is a goal.

Western countries: “Iran’s aggression must end.”

Aromatic-Session4501

Any idea when Israel's undeclared nukes are going to be a concern for 'the west'?

shugthedug3

Good. Just because Israel are cunts doesn't mean Iran are nice guys. They're a totalitarian rogue state that literally have a Gestapo-like 'Morality Police' that stone women to death for not wearing the right clothing or getting educated.

The politicians in both Israel and Iran can both get fucked.

Israel next please.

AnonymousTimewaster

It's a good thing to enforce the non-proliferation treaty on a country that voluntarily signed up to it.

Edit: Lol at all the downvoters who are pro-nuclear proliferation

Blackfryre

I agree with the author that purely from the standpoint of civilian nuclear, there’s little sense in Iran insisting on keeping enrichment capacity. The costs of their civilian nuclear program have been huge and the civilian benefit has been minimal.

But setting aside the civilian use, I don’t really understand the author’s argument on why Iran would agree to give up their latent nuclear deterrent. This paragraph in particular was hard for me to understand:

&gt; Israeli bombing of the sites that support weaponization has likely delayed Iran’s ability to produce nuclear warheads to be mated to missiles, although it is uncertain by how much. A few crude bombs could be built without further enrichment to 90 percent by using the less-effective 60 percent enriched material, if any of it survived the Israeli and American attacks. But Iran has had the capability to sprint to a few bombs, which could be employed in a one-time attack or as a terrorist weapon, for perhaps two decades. It hasn’t done so and likely will not now, especially since it is in the crosshairs of and virtually defenseless against Israeli and American air attacks and deeply infiltrated by Israel intelligence services. We believe Iran was hedging its nuclear bets all along to amass a sufficiently large stockpile of bomb-grade uranium for missile-deliverable nuclear warheads to serve as a deterrent against Israel. Such a nuclear deterrent has been set back by many years.

The author seems to be downplaying the value of Iran’s latent nuclear deterrent, but I’m confused by the assertion that the nuclear warhead deterrent has been set back by “many years” despite starting the paragraph by acknowledging that we don’t know how much the strikes have set them back in their ability to make warheads. 

The author also acknowledges elsewhere that Iran may have retained its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium. And — to his credit since so many authors don’t seem to understand this — he also discusses how the remaining steps to the bomb (enriching 60-&gt;90, uranium conversion, weaponization research) don’t require massive infrastructure like Fordow and Natanz, but can be done in small hidden facilities and workshops. 

So in what way have they been set back many years? Best I can tell, the author is taking it as a given that Iran won’t race for a bomb while it’s in a vulnerable state like it is now. I’m not sure why they are so confident in that. 

Yes, the US and Israeli can inflict a lot of pain on Iran if they rush towards a bomb, but we can’t stop them. Airstrikes are very effective against massive facilities like Natanz and Fordow with thousands of centrifuges bolted to the ground, but much less effective when the target is 10,000 scientists spread out in small workshops and classrooms across the entire country. 

Maybe being in a vulnerable state like Iran is now, with your enemies bragging about how dominant their forces are, is exactly the time that you become willing to endure a few years of pain to get a nuclear weapon. 

________

The biggest hurdle I see in getting Iran to agree to zero enrichment is establishing the trust that would require. Such a deal would inevitably also require destroying or moving all of its highly enriched uranium to a third country, stopping production of new centrifuges and basically dismantling any remaining enrichment infrastructure. What happens if the very next day after they do that, Donald Trump (again) unilaterally rips up the nuclear deal and says “get punk’d idiots, sanctions are back on until you agree to more conditions.” Iran will have set itself back years from a nuclear deterrent in exchange for something the US and Israel can reverse at a moment’s notice. 

Between the US withdrawal and the Israeli surprise attack 2 days before negotiations were set to take place, Iran has little reason to trust the US and Israel would act in good faith. Retaining the capacity to enrich (capped to 3.67%) seems essential to any deal they might agree to, simply as a protection against another US withdrawal from the agreement. 

_____

Last thing I wanted to say about this article is that I don’t think they make any argument for why the US should insist on zero-enrichment. The author seems to acknowledge that Iran has been very hesitant to actually go nuclear and has mainly used the nuclear program as a latent deterrent, so what’s the harm in letting them keep enrichment up to 3.67%, assuming we have strict monitoring in place like the IAEA’s additional protocol? This is what Iran opened negotiations with back in April when speaking to the US envoy.

oskanta

ttown2011

I really can't see why Iran would. The US and Israel don't seem to want to invade, I can't imagine that making a deal with the US seems credible... So you need a regime backstop which is a nuke, just need to test one.

Neowarcloud

If they want to maintain any semblance of sovereignty, they absolutely should not agree to that lol

dpavlicko

From a realpolitik pov, I don't know why they would do that. Trump randomly thrashed the prior deal that they were in compliance with. Russia and China won't shield them if Trump decides to do a regime change....They could have sold them a nuclear warhead ages ago for permanent deterrence as well. The fact that Kim Dynasty sits so comfortably and Ukraine/Iraq was invaded on lies doesn't really leave a good reason for them to recommit.

fuggitdude22

It's bizarre watching the internet argue that Iran should have nukes

DrippingPickle

They can enrich the 5% or whatever needed for civilian programmes. Enriching to 60% was just reckless. I'm not saying I endorse the attacks on Iran, but they were playing with fire and they knew it.

polemism

Writing at the *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists* website, Hoover Institution Research Fellow [Abbas Milani](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/abbas-milani) and Stanford emeritus professor of management science and engineering Siegfried S. Hecker argue that, “following the extensive Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear complex, supplemented by American attacks on the better-protected Iranian sites, the time has come for Iran’s leaders to reconsider their past intransigent, deceptive posture and instead pursue a nuclear power program that will benefit the Iranian people.” Milani, a leading authority on Iranian politics, and Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, review key historical moments that led to the current standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Turning to the role of US policy, the authors conclude, “It is now important for President Trump to get Israel to stop the bombing and follow through with Iran to consummate a deal that will benefit the people of Iran and take a big step toward peace in the region.”

HooverInstitution

There was a deal. Trump ended it. F off Maga loons.

Hertje73

There’s so much talk about the Iranian nuclear programme being delayed for x period of time. Guys. *Guys*. More time has elapsed since Trump backed out of the deal than it took to design and deploy two different nuclear weapon designs in WWII. If Iran genuinely wanted nukes as much as people claim, they’d have them. They already have the deployment mechanisms. 

It is absurdly clear they didn’t want to actually take that last step and create the bomb a couple months ago. That’s been the IC’s opinion for years, too. I’m old enough to remember the “Iraq has WMDs” talk in 2023; this is the exact same song and dance. The only real difference is the intended scale of involvement on the ground.

PausedForVolatility

Yes yes we are the most righteous people because we are in the Bible also yes we also have nuke because we are the chosen one - israel

If not for USA and aipac, Israel will be gone in no time. Also don't talk about Gaza, because there is no war in Gaza strip.

Every_West_3890

It’s too bad the citizens, the true Iranians, couldn’t use the Israeli strike to enact regime change. Hopefully in our lifetime there will be a free and prosperous Iran.

ChaLenCe

We're getting to the point where the international community has to ask whether the current Iranian regime should be allowed to have nuclear power in general.

Cultural-Flow7185

Religious fanatics and the IRGC are in control there will be no deal until they are gone.

MeatPiston

Iran signed the NPT, why hasn’t Israel?

Indiana-Irishman

i'd be pretty worried about building 8 reactors in my country that just failed to cause a single battle field casualty against an enemy airforce and has zero restraint

Healthy_Razzmatazz38

Iran faces renewed UN sanctions as tensions escalate over its nuclear program, leading to a suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran Nuclear Program and Sanctions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want