Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[Ziggurat]

With the twelve-day war followed by this fiasco, Iran has two wars it can cite to justify its continued development of nuclear weapons.

What on earth makes you think they need to cite anything in order to develop nukes?

 

[Planigale]

What on earth makes you think they need to cite anything in order to develop nukes?

Because they have been twice declared haram in a fatwah, unislamic. To reverse the ruling would take a strong argument. As I posted above this is the equivalent to the US supreme court having declared nuclear weapons unconstitutional. Until the supreme court reverses the decision they would remain illegal. Such a reversal would need an argument to support it. This is not a position that can be easily reversed. (Not without a regime change; a new regime might not feel itself bound by the legal / religious ruling of the two previous grand ayatollahs.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Because they have been twice declared haram in a fatwah, unislamic.

So what? Iran was trying to develop them anyways.

To reverse the ruling would take a strong argument.

No, it doesn’t. Fatwas don’t mean what you seem to think they mean.

As I posted above this is the equivalent to the US supreme court having declared nuclear weapons unconstitutional.

No, it absolutely isn’t.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Some historical background might help here.

What on earth makes you think they need to cite anything in order to develop nukes?

Because they have been twice declared haram in a fatwah, unislamic. To reverse the ruling would take a strong argument. As I posted above this is the equivalent to the US supreme court having declared nuclear weapons unconstitutional. Until the supreme court reverses the decision they would remain illegal. Such a reversal would need an argument to support it. This is not a position that can be easily reversed. (Not without a regime change; a new regime might not feel itself bound by the legal / religious ruling of the two previous grand ayatollahs.)

From Wikipedia, suppressing footnotes:

A fatwa by Ali Khamenei, then supreme leader of Iran, against the development of nuclear weapons dates back to the mid-1990s. The first public announcement is reported to have occurred in October 2003, followed by an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Austria, in August 2005.

As an Istifta'at the policy is included on Khamenei's official website, and was referred to in remarks by both U.S. president Barack Obama and Khamenei himself. In 2021, acknowledging the fatwa, Iranian intelligence minister Esmaeil Khatib said that the country may nevertheless change their stance if "pushed in that direction" like a "cornered cat". During a February 2025 meeting between Khamenei and the IRGC, commanders pressured Khamenei to rescind his ban on nuclear weapons. In March 2025, Khamenei's advisor Ali Larijani said Iran would have no choice but to develop nuclear weapons if attacked by the United States or its allies.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some historical background might help here.

You can cite whatever sources you want to, but the fact remains, they had a nuclear weapons program despite the fatwa. The fatwa was never anything more than a PR move.

 

[Steve]

You can cite whatever sources you want to, but the fact remains, they had a nuclear weapons program despite the fatwa. The fatwa was never anything more than a PR move.

Your government has zero integrity and lies on an hourly basis therefore every other government.......

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You can cite whatever sources you want to, but the fact remains, they had a nuclear weapons program despite the fatwa. The fatwa was never anything more than a PR move.

you are deliberating conflating enriching uranium and designing WMDs.
They are not the same.

 

[Ziggurat]

you are deliberating conflating enriching uranium and designing WMDs.
They are not the same.

Sure, sure. Because Iran was enriching uranium to 60% because they needed that for power reactors.

 

[Flo]

And now for something completely different:

The US military says it “began setting conditions for clearing mines in the strait of Hormuz” in an update released on Saturday afternoon.

“Today, we began the process of establishing a new passage and we will share this safe pathway with the maritime industry soon to encourage the free flow of commerce,” said Adm Brad Cooper, commander of Centcom, in the statement.

Navy destroyers USS Frank E Petersen and USS Michael Murphy have transited the strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf, marking the start of a mission to clear the waterway of sea mines laid by the IRGC, according to the statement.

The operation aims to restore passage to the world’s most vital energy corridor, which has been effectively blocked for over six weeks, causing a global surge in oil prices and historic supply disruptions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump: “Whether we make a deal or not makes no difference to me because we’ve won”

Link

 

[Andy_Ross]

Reporter: Iran is not listening to your threats about opening the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump: How do you know that?

Reporter: Because it’s still blocked. Are they reopening it?

Trump: Why do you say that? You don’t know anything. Who are you with?

Reporter: NBC

Trump: That’s fake news. We win no matter what. 158 ships are underwater. All of their minesweepers. They call them minedroppers

Video in link

 

[Planigale]

You can cite whatever sources you want to, but the fact remains, they had a nuclear weapons program despite the fatwa. The fatwa was never anything more than a PR move.

This is the problem, you are thinking like an American politician (well Trump), that you can do anything you can get away with. that your word means nothing, you promise something one day and do the opposite the next. That so long as you keep things covert you don't have to obey the law. Within an Islamic state, where the Koran is the effective constitution, where Islamic law is the law, a fatwah isn't PR, it is a legal ruling, from the highest authority.

Iran wanted the ability to make a bomb if the situation changed, if it was directly attacked by a nuclear power. But until that happened the Fatwa remained in force. Having the ability to make a nuclear weapon (which many countries possess) is very different from making a nuclear weapon. Having UF₆ enriched to 60% is a long way from having a weapon. Though admittedly closer than having 20% enriched uranium. The direct attack by two nuclear powers has changed the case, the fatwah may now be re-thought. Certainly had there been regime change it would likey not have been enforced.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump: We will open up the strait even though we do not use it because we have a lot of other countries in the world that do use it that are either afraid, or a week, or cheap. We were not helped by NATO.

Link

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump responds to a reporter asking about the possibility of China sending weapons to Iran: If China does that, China is going to have BIG problems.

Link

 

[Ziggurat]

This is the problem, you are thinking like an American politician (well Trump), that you can do anything you can get away with.

You have that backwards. You are the one viewing this through an American lens. You compared the fatwa to the Constitution. But it's nothing like the Constitution. It does not have anything like that weight or that jurisdiction. Fatwas are more like opinions. They are not laws. They do not have the force of law. They do not bind people, even believers, like law. And different clerics can issue contradictory fatwas.

 

[theprestige]

And that's even before we get to taqqiyah, and legitimate deception in war as a core Islamic doctrine.

 

[The Atheist]

Because it never actually prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At best it would only slow them down.

OMG!! Not "the bomb"!

Thank god you slowed them down, then. Zarquon forbid a rogue state run by lunatic anti-democracy people should ever have a nucular weapon.

Like these ones:

USA
Russia
China
Israel
Pakistan

Edit: North Korea!

 

[The Atheist]

And that's even before we get to taqqiyah, and legitimate deception in war as a core Islamic doctrine.

Yeah, let's do that!

Or even better, use it as obfuscation of the fact that the world's biggest bully is enabling genocide because your moron fat ◊◊◊◊ leader and his Nazi pal are both sick men who are also 100% amoral.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, let's do that!

Or even better, use it as obfuscation of the fact that the world's biggest bully is enabling genocide because your moron fat ◊◊◊◊ leader and his Nazi pal are both sick men who are also 100% amoral.

You ok? You don't seem to be doing well.

 

[Planigale]

You have that backwards. You are the one viewing this through an American lens. You compared the fatwa to the Constitution. But it's nothing like the Constitution. It does not have anything like that weight or that jurisdiction. Fatwas are more like opinions. They are not laws. They do not have the force of law. They do not bind people, even believers, like law. And different clerics can issue contradictory fatwas.

That is exactly like legal rulings, because it is a legal ruling. In this case the fatwah was from the highest legal authority, the only way to overrule it is by a new fatwah based on new circumstances from a grand ayatollah.

Yes, rulings (opinions) from courts or appeal courts or the supreme court aren't laws, but they tell lower courts how to interpret the law. That is how a common law system works, and in a similar way how the sharia law system works. Islamic (sharia) law is more similar to common law systems than to roman law systems as found in continental europe.

ETA I compared the Quran to the constitution, fatwahs are like court rulings, a fatwah from a grand ayatollah is like a ruling from the supreme court, no it is not the constitution, but it tells lower courts how to interpret the constitution. Likewise a ruling from a grand ayatollah is the law of Iran until another grand ayatollah changes that interpretation. Unlike the US constitution there are going to be no amendments to the Quran.