Debate contribution: Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran

Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Kate Nicholl

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

16 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5449203

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak. There has been a lot of criticism recently about the Assembly focusing on international issues. Members know that we talk about many issues. It is important that we have those discussions. It is important for a number of reasons. The reality is that we cannot separate ourselves from global events that directly affect us. What happens across the world invariably reaches into our communities, and the war that is happening in the Middle East is a stark example. It is affecting our citizens who are living and travelling in the region. I know that many MLAs, including me, were in touch with people who were on holiday in Dubai. They were suddenly fearful and wondered how they were going to get back. We were also in touch with members of our community whose family members were there and had no idea what the future held. It was a scary time for them. The driving up of energy and fuel prices for households and businesses here is another example of why it is relevant. I also remind Members that members of those communities live here. They are our constituents, and they want us to speak up. There is another point that we do not focus on often. Often, the Galleries are filled with visitors from countries all over the world, such as Colombia and Palestine — places that are experiencing conflict. They come to learn from how we do politics here. They come to see how, since the Good Friday Agreement, we have learned, despite our diametrically opposed views on so many things, to work together. As a place that has benefited from the time and consideration of other countries, it is important that we speak with one voice about peace. We have a tendency to view conflict through the lens of our own understanding of it. That is a human instinct, but, as legislators, we should not do that. Everything that we do should be rooted in our common values of a shared desire for peace, democracy and respect for human rights and international law. That is what the Alliance Party amendment seeks to clarify: multiple things can be true at once. I have had the privilege of working with many Iranians in Northern Ireland. I went into the hotels many times; Gerry Carroll and I both did. I remember meeting an Iranian man who had been a prisoner for a number of years. I saw his medical records. What he went through was an example of the very worst of what people can do to one another. The Iranian regime is responsible for committing some of the worst atrocities on its people, particularly women. I have met Iranian women here. What they have been through is incomprehensible. You can condemn what has happened to Iranian people — you should — but, at the same time, you can condemn the US and Israel's attack on Iran. This is a Trump war. The ayatollah was an 86-year-old man. There had been planning for his succession for a long time. There are wars and human rights violations going on everywhere else in the world. Let us not kid ourselves: this is about power and oil, not saving the people of Iran. If it were about that, they would have had a plan in place. There was no plan. You just need to listen to Trump officials to hear six different rationales for the bombing of Iran. It is nonsensical.

Go ahead.

I have seen people celebrating across the world, and I understand why. When you have lived under an oppressive regime and have had family members murdered by that regime and you are given an ounce of hope, you will, of course, cling to that. Who has replaced him? His son. It will just be more and more of the same. I completely understand that point, and I believe that we should listen to people. How many times have I spoken here about the Palestinian people? Members have said, "What about Sudan?", so I organised an event with members of the Sudanese community, but no one came to it. I talk to people and listen to their lived experiences, and that is how I take my positions. I completely agree that the Iranian regime is guilty of some of the worst possible things, but what America has done is also awful. You can hold those two views at the same time, and we should. We should be able to condemn the US/Israeli strikes and the retaliatory strikes conducted by Iran across the region. That is what, we felt, was missing from the original motion, and we thought that it was important to include that. There is another point that I want to make clear, and we have included it in our amendment. It is about the lack of an international relations strategy. It is true that we have different views on things; we know that well. However, we have one Executive, and we need to speak with one voice. That is why Michelle O'Neill was not right to be out of that meeting. You cannot be a Minister for all and not be in the room. My constituents just wanted their Executive to speak with one voice and say, "Here is the information. This is what you need". We need to have a plan for how we talk about these things with one voice. That leadership is so important. We will have different opinions on different policies, but, when it comes to international relations, we really need a strategy for how we operate on the international stage. That would provide a solid basis for engagement on an ethical basis. I have already spoken about the need for a clear and unified approach and the fact that people want to see their political leaders working together for the common good, especially on significant international issues. We are contacted by constituents every day who want us to use our platform to speak out for human rights in whatever way we can. We support parts of the UUP amendment, including the importance of recognising human rights abuses in Iran and support for the armed forces. However, the removal of the call for an immediate end to the conflict indicates that the strikes are justified, and that means that we cannot support the amendment, particularly because it also removes the statement about the self-determination of the Iranian people. For us, that is incredibly important. I spoke about how I have been working with the Iranian community. They are our constituents, and we have responsibilities to engage with their concerns and advocate on their behalf. It is so important that the future of the Iranian people remains in the hands of the Iranian people. There is no long-term plan for what will happen next for Iran. The US does not seem to know what it will do tomorrow, never mind having a long-term plan for the peace and prosperity of the Iranian people. I do not know about you, but it feels as though we are on the edge of something now in the world and that, once we go beyond it, we may not come back very quickly. I feel scared about the state of the world and where we are, and the only way that we can come back from that is by having dialogue, adhering to international law, engaging in diplomacy and embedding our common humanity back into the centre of politics at all levels. We are all on this one planet together, you know? We all have our common humanity, but we lose sight of that so often, and, when we lose sight of our humanity, awful things happen.

Yes, go ahead.

I could not agree more with my colleague. I have two work experience students in my office, Oisin and Lewis. They were doing some work on my research today, and that was their point: if we step away from the rules-based order, we are very much at risk. We must stand for human rights, uphold international law and ensure that the voices of the Iranian people are central to any peaceful future.

1,372 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification