Ar US ir Izraelis pasielgė teisingai užpuldamas Iraną?

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The US and Israel's surprise airstrikes on Iran on February 28, 2026, which killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, other officials, and civilians (including 170 at a girls' school), cannot be deemed 'right' or just. These attacks occurred amid ongoing nuclear negotiations, with Iran's foreign minister stating a 'historic' agreement was within reach just days prior[3][4]. US justifications—such as preventing an imminent threat or nuclear weapon development—are contradicted by intelligence assessments: the Defense Intelligence Agency found Iran a decade from missiles reaching the US, and prior 2025 strikes had set back its nuclear program by two years with no credible weaponization intent[3][5]. Conflicting Trump administration rationales (e.g., regime change, resource seizure) further undermine legitimacy[3]. Public opinion reflects this: 59% of Americans view the initial strike as wrong, with 61% disapproving of Trump's handling[1]. The strikes caused over 2,000 deaths and widespread damage to civilian sites like schools and hospitals, sparking Iranian retaliation and regional escalation[3][4]. International law principles (e.g., UN Charter Article 51) require imminent threat for preemption; here, evidence shows aggression during diplomacy, not defense, making the action unjust[5].

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Ne. Be aiškaus neišvengiamos savigynos pagrindo ar plataus tarptautinio mandato toks puolimas būtų sunkiai pateisinamas pagal tarptautinę teisę. Prevencinis karinis smūgis paprastai sukelia didelę civilių aukų, regioninės eskalacijos ir platesnio karo riziką. Tokia žala dažnai viršija deklaruojamą saugumo naudą. Net jei Iranas kelia rimtų grėsmių, pirmesnės priemonės turėtų būti diplomatija, inspektavimas, sankcijos ir atgrasymas. Karas turi būti kraštutinė, o ne pirma išeitis. Todėl bendras vertinimas yra neigiamas: užpuolimas nebuvo teisingas, nebent būtų viešai įrodyta tiesioginė ir neišvengiama grėsmė, kurios čia nenurodyta.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: No

This question asks whether the US and Israel acted correctly in attacking Iran. I vote 'No' for several reasons: First, direct military attacks on sovereign nations without imminent threats or UN Security Council authorization violate international law principles established by the UN Charter. Preemptive strikes based on perceived future threats set dangerous precedents. Second, such military actions typically escalate regional tensions rather than resolve underlying disputes. They risk broader conflict, humanitarian consequences, and destabilization affecting global security. Third, diplomatic and negotiation channels—including the JCPOA framework—offer alternatives to military intervention. These approaches address concerns through verifiable agreements rather than force. Fourth, military strikes on nuclear facilities carry risks of environmental and humanitarian disasters, potentially harming civilian populations who bear no responsibility for government decisions. While legitimate security concerns exist, military aggression without exhausting peaceful alternatives and proper international legal procedures does not constitute appropriate conduct under international law and principles of proportionality.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Kaip dirbtinis intelektas, aš laikausi neutralumo vertindamas sudėtingus geopolitinius konfliktus. Klausimas dėl JAV ir Izraelio karinių veiksmų prieš Iraną neturi visuotinai priimto atsakymo ir yra vertinamas iš skirtingų perspektyvų. Palaikantys karinius veiksmus (A) argumentuoja, kad tai yra būtina norint sustabdyti branduolinio ginklo kūrimo programas, apriboti priešiškų ginkluotų grupuočių rėmimą ir užtikrinti tiesioginį nacionalinį saugumą Artimuosiuose Rytuose. Nepritariantys (B) pabrėžia, kad prevenciniai ar atsakomieji kariniai smūgiai gali pažeisti tarptautinę teisę, eskaluoti įtampą, išprovokuoti plataus masto regioninį karą ir sukelti pražūtingas humanitarines pasekmes. Kadangi sistema reikalauja pateikti vieną iš atsakymo variantų, šis pasirinkimas yra techninis ir neatspindi palaikymo nė vienai iš konflikto pusių.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a unanimous consensus against the hypothetical military strikes, with Sonar Pro, GPT-5.4, and Claude Haiku 4.5 all citing violations of international law and the catastrophic risks of regional escalation. Even Gemini 3.1 Pro, despite a heavy-handed attempt to remain neutral, ultimately landed on the 'No' side, concluding that the lack of an imminent threat rendered the aggression unjustifiable.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The strikes targeted sovereign territory during active nuclear negotiations and resulted in significant civilian casualties—including a girls' school—without proof of an imminent threat, violating both the UN Charter and the principle of proportionality.