Debate contribution: Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- 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 5449410
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The US and Israel are waging a war of choice on Iran, while Iran is engaged in reckless and random retaliation that risks destabilising the entire region. It is an illegal war that is being waged by Donald Trump with no clear goal, no clear exit strategy and no clear basis in international law. Frankly, I am surprised that Members older than me are not more reticent about supporting that illegal action, given its eerie resemblance to the war in Iraq. The war is not some distant abstraction; its consequences ripple far beyond Iran's borders, reaching into homes and communities across the world, including here, where working families face soaring energy costs as a direct result of the conflict and worry about loved ones who are stranded in the region. However, as with so many of our debates on international conflicts, the debate has descended into petty political point-scoring, overlaid with our own sectarianism and prejudice, at the expense of genuine humanitarian concern and any clear unity or agreement about the way to support families. I do not expect parties in the Chamber to be able to reach consensus on the morality of the conflict, but I expect them to be able to agree a way forward on the practicality of how we support our own citizens. I am convinced that the First Minister played it wrong. When families were crying out for information about how to get loved ones home, she chose ideology over standing up for them and representing their concerns. That was a failure of the people whom we represent. A local Iranian living in Belfast, Azadeh Sobout, told RTÉ:
"We are being sold this binary idea that we have to either choose between dictatorship or bombardment, between destruction or submission."
That is a choice that no Iranian should have to face. Beneath those binaries lies something deeper and far more dangerous: the steady erosion of international law, which is the very framework that was designed to protect civilians, restrain power and hold the powerful to account. The erosion of those protections often accompanies the erosion of civil liberties at home, as we have seen in the United States.
Look, there will be a rush to try to take sides, but it is entirely possible to abhor the human rights abuses, murders and oppression carried out by the Iranian regime, to condemn its support for global terrorism and to demand an end to its nuclear programme whilst recognising that the military action taken by the US and Israel is contrary to international law, just as Iran's retaliatory strikes across the Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean are. I ask the Member this: how will sprouts of peace grow from the rubble of a bombed primary school? How will the foundations for democracy be laid on the graves of dead innocent women and children? I agreed with parts of the Member's contribution, such as when he talked about the impact of sharia law and the human rights abuses that accompany it, but is he seriously claiming that we should just bomb every country that observes sharia law? That is not a credible position for any politician to take. It is vital that the Chamber stand firmly for the people of Iran, for democracy, for freedom and for human rights. I take issue with the proposer of the motion. Mr Kearney made a remark that there is "no alternative to political dialogue". I will be really clear: that is as true of this society, and it was as true in the '70s, '80s and '90s as it is today. There is an issue with consistency when it comes to Sinn Féin's association with despotic and barbaric regimes across the world and its willingness to condone human rights abuses closer to home. I ask the Member to reflect on that. The DUP feigned concern for the people of Iran, but, of course, it is the same party that howls, "Stop the boats", whenever Iranians arrive on our shores to seek sanctuary. It is always on the wrong side of history. It is happy to trumpet President Trump and to support his illegal war. It is always the party of illegal war and higher energy bills, traipsing over to the White House to praise the president's latest reckless action. We need to strike a balance in the debate. The Alliance amendment seeks to restore that balance and consistency. The motion does not sufficiently address the illegality of Iran's random response. To Gerry Carroll's point, countries have a right to self-defence but not to lash out indiscriminately at other countries in the region. The SDLP amendment does not adequately correct that, although I agree with much of what the SDLP has proposed. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the Ulster Unionists' amendment —.
I do not have time. I agree with the Ulster Unionist's condemnation of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism through Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran and the IRGC, and I share the concern, expressed in their amendment, for service personnel in the region, but it removes any criticism of Donald Trump or his disregard for international law and the UN charter, and I just cannot support that. If we believe in the rule of law, then it must be applied equally: to our allies, as much as to our adversaries. I hope that parties across the Chamber can get behind our proposed way forward and send a clear, principled message in defence of international law and the rights of the Iranian people.
921 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.37 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.68).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.58).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.13 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.44 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.37 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.16 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.58 |
| Adopts it | 0.25 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.50 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.26 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.23 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
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.