Best Of

So, having listened to various experts who know far more than me about Iran, the consensus seems to be that Mojtaba Khamenei is like his dad without the fluffy, soft bits. He seems to have complete control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and indeed the country. The complete fantasy that the loon in the White House would have some sort of say about who this country of 90m was going to choose after he murdered their leader has been shown to be just that.

This is honestly making the second Gulf War and its aftermath look like a clever, focused, planned operation. The US and Israel can keep killing and destroying as an alternative to having a plan for a while yet. Netanyahu doesn't exactly get embarrassed about a few thousand dead civilians but sooner or later they will run out of even vaguely credible targets and the Regime is going to stand unmoved but vowing revenge.

And the price of all of this is oil over $100 a barrel, a spike in inflation, gas shortages, aluminium shortages, a drop in growth potentially large enough to bring us into recession (I think we will just scrape by that) and an ever more lawless world. I thought Trump 2 would be a disaster but I was out by an order of magnitude. The next 2.5 years are going to be seriously tough.

You've made a series of stupid remarks recently, this is another. It is far too soon to say if Iran War 1.0 will be a disaster. On the one hand, yes, it is causing a lot of damage and instability (wars do that), on the other hand it has toppled an evil tyrant, killed a load of evil mullahs, and seriously discombobulated an evil regime, to the extent that they do not seem to have control over their own armed forces, and openly contradict each other on social media - which may be a sign of absolute disintegration. Also many Iranians seem openly delighted that America has killed the Iranian leadership

I agree the precedents for western involvement in the MENA are generally terrible, but then the precedents for widescale European wars in the 1930s were fucking terrible, but we still had to fight World War 2, in Europe, and we won, and thank God we did fight it, and thank God we won

How will it pan out? We just don't know. There are way too many imponderables. But, morally, there is a very good argument to say this is a war worth doing, not just to free the Iranian people, but to set back global Islamism by decades, and maybe put it into reverse forever

Here's just one example of where you may be practically wrong, as well as morally wrong. You say that the Iranians have now elevated an even worse leader. That may be true. But what if Trump and Bibi slot him as well? What if he is killed in a few days? Then the guy after him? Then the next? Then the one after that? What if they literally keep killing Iranian leaders until, finally, the Iranians decide to nominate someone quite liberal, and willing to compromise, as that is the only way an Iranian leader can survive past the weekend

If I ever need a lawyer, I won't be calling you. Perhaps retirement beckons, old boy

The worst thing now would be a wounded theocratic Iran rising from the ashes, set on revenge.

So, I think we have to see this through now to their utter and total defeat.

Which probably requires troops on the ground. The build-up alone to allow that will take months. The casualties will be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Iraq and Afghanistan show how good we are with dealing with the next stage!

None of that necessarily follows, and nor does the past provide any guide to the future.

What this boils down to is you don't want to do anything and hope the problem will go away by itself.

I don't know what will happen, but the precedent suggests bombing alone rarely defeats regimes. What would you suggest we do, in detail, when you say we have to see this through now to their utter and total defeat? I'm open to alternate predictions.

Bombing alone rarely defeats regimes, but the possibility of success is vastly more than compared to not bombing them.

The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia involved no bombs, and the same is true of many other eastern European countries coming out from communist rule (Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania...). Spain in the late '70s got rid of Franco's fascist regime, with no bombing. South Africa and Ghana moved to democracies without aerial bombardment. There are plenty of successes without bombing.

Indeed every country bar one in South America is now a democracy despite being unbombed. The exception is Venezuela, which was bombed.

There may even be an inverse relationship between being bombed and regime change to democracy.

Labour down in YouGov.

Link please

Don't be silly. It was a projection, and you know it!

Oi. Give BigG the link. He needs cheering up.

He needs an FoN poll with Reform, Green and Tory all duking it out on 25% each.

For that matter don't we all?

Whilst YouGov methodology it’s said is very much good for Labour.

It could be in the Populist Right 1# v Populist Right 2# v ProgBloc, where UK Psephology is now, Labour could fall, whilst ProgBloc increases, in a very dramatic looking poll.

There has to be something behind these rumours everywhere, about Labour shockingly collapsing in a poll, as yougov picks up a lot more Greens and Lib/dems in its methodology, in this Anti Trump War electorate out there.

It wouldn’t be a shock to me a pro ProgBloc methodology finds voters preferring LibDems and Greens war position to Labours, during a week narrative dominated by war and anti Trump anger. So Labour could easily drop 5, 6, 7% in a poll from YouGov and sit in last place, even as ProgBloc increases!

My explanation won’t be the one Sky News gives though. They will have a big skip brimful of shit, and will hold Starmer face down in it by his ankles 😆 Sky News are too bent in the market place rat race for headlines, to deliver the news and polling intelligently and fair to us, they’ve more than demonstrated this.

So, having listened to various experts who know far more than me about Iran, the consensus seems to be that Mojtaba Khamenei is like his dad without the fluffy, soft bits. He seems to have complete control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and indeed the country. The complete fantasy that the loon in the White House would have some sort of say about who this country of 90m was going to choose after he murdered their leader has been shown to be just that.

This is honestly making the second Gulf War and its aftermath look like a clever, focused, planned operation. The US and Israel can keep killing and destroying as an alternative to having a plan for a while yet. Netanyahu doesn't exactly get embarrassed about a few thousand dead civilians but sooner or later they will run out of even vaguely credible targets and the Regime is going to stand unmoved but vowing revenge.

And the price of all of this is oil over $100 a barrel, a spike in inflation, gas shortages, aluminium shortages, a drop in growth potentially large enough to bring us into recession (I think we will just scrape by that) and an ever more lawless world. I thought Trump 2 would be a disaster but I was out by an order of magnitude. The next 2.5 years are going to be seriously tough.

You've made a series of stupid remarks recently, this is another. It is far too soon to say if Iran War 1.0 will be a disaster. On the one hand, yes, it is causing a lot of damage and instability (wars do that), on the other hand it has toppled an evil tyrant, killed a load of evil mullahs, and seriously discombobulated an evil regime, to the extent that they do not seem to have control over their own armed forces, and openly contradict each other on social media - which may be a sign of absolute disintegration. Also many Iranians seem openly delighted that America has killed the Iranian leadership

I agree the precedents for western involvement in the MENA are generally terrible, but then the precedents for widescale European wars in the 1930s were fucking terrible, but we still had to fight World War 2, in Europe, and we won, and thank God we did fight it, and thank God we won

How will it pan out? We just don't know. There are way too many imponderables. But, morally, there is a very good argument to say this is a war worth doing, not just to free the Iranian people, but to set back global Islamism by decades, and maybe put it into reverse forever

Here's just one example of where you may be practically wrong, as well as morally wrong. You say that the Iranians have now elevated an even worse leader. That may be true. But what if Trump and Bibi slot him as well? What if he is killed in a few days? Then the guy after him? Then the next? Then the one after that? What if they literally keep killing Iranian leaders until, finally, the Iranians decide to nominate someone quite liberal, and willing to compromise, as that is the only way an Iranian leader can survive past the weekend

If I ever need a lawyer, I won't be calling you. Perhaps retirement beckons, old boy

The worst thing now would be a wounded theocratic Iran rising from the ashes, set on revenge.

So, I think we have to see this through now to their utter and total defeat.

Which probably requires troops on the ground. The build-up alone to allow that will take months. The casualties will be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Iraq and Afghanistan show how good we are with dealing with the next stage!

None of that necessarily follows, and nor does the past provide any guide to the future.

What this boils down to is you don't want to do anything and hope the problem will go away by itself.

I don't know what will happen, but the precedent suggests bombing alone rarely defeats regimes. What would you suggest we do, in detail, when you say we have to see this through now to their utter and total defeat? I'm open to alternate predictions.

Bombing alone rarely defeats regimes, but the possibility of success is vastly more than compared to not bombing them.

The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia involved no bombs, and the same is true of many other eastern European countries coming out from communist rule (Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania...). Spain in the late '70s got rid of Franco's fascist regime, with no bombing. South Africa and Ghana moved to democracies without aerial bombardment. There are plenty of successes without bombing.

NEW: GB voting intention

The Green Party overtakes the Liberal Democrats, powered by university graduates

REF 27% (-4)
CON 20% (+1)
LAB 20% (-3)
GRN 14% (+5)
LDEM 12% (-)
OTH 8% (+2)

Fieldwork: 2-5 March, 2,573 GB adults

JL Partners

Reform lose another 30 plus. Now they are at 30 with Techne, Ipsos and Freshwater only on pollsters reporting this year, Ipsos last reported in January

That doesn't fit the narrative

The media seem determined to tell us all that Reform are a government in waiting !

The Tories need to sit tight and wait for Reform to implode .

We'll know Reform are done for when Leon gets bored with them.

Do you think he will go back to voting for Labour/Starmer like he did in 2024?

So, having listened to various experts who know far more than me about Iran, the consensus seems to be that Mojtaba Khamenei is like his dad without the fluffy, soft bits. He seems to have complete control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and indeed the country. The complete fantasy that the loon in the White House would have some sort of say about who this country of 90m was going to choose after he murdered their leader has been shown to be just that.

This is honestly making the second Gulf War and its aftermath look like a clever, focused, planned operation. The US and Israel can keep killing and destroying as an alternative to having a plan for a while yet. Netanyahu doesn't exactly get embarrassed about a few thousand dead civilians but sooner or later they will run out of even vaguely credible targets and the Regime is going to stand unmoved but vowing revenge.

And the price of all of this is oil over $100 a barrel, a spike in inflation, gas shortages, aluminium shortages, a drop in growth potentially large enough to bring us into recession (I think we will just scrape by that) and an ever more lawless world. I thought Trump 2 would be a disaster but I was out by an order of magnitude. The next 2.5 years are going to be seriously tough.

You've made a series of stupid remarks recently, this is another. It is far too soon to say if Iran War 1.0 will be a disaster. On the one hand, yes, it is causing a lot of damage and instability (wars do that), on the other hand it has toppled an evil tyrant, killed a load of evil mullahs, and seriously discombobulated an evil regime, to the extent that they do not seem to have control over their own armed forces, and openly contradict each other on social media - which may be a sign of absolute disintegration. Also many Iranians seem openly delighted that America has killed the Iranian leadership

I agree the precedents for western involvement in the MENA are generally terrible, but then the precedents for widescale European wars in the 1930s were fucking terrible, but we still had to fight World War 2, in Europe, and we won, and thank God we did fight it, and thank God we won

How will it pan out? We just don't know. There are way too many imponderables. But, morally, there is a very good argument to say this is a war worth doing, not just to free the Iranian people, but to set back global Islamism by decades, and maybe put it into reverse forever

Here's just one example of where you may be practically wrong, as well as morally wrong. You say that the Iranians have now elevated an even worse leader. That may be true. But what if Trump and Bibi slot him as well? What if he is killed in a few days? Then the guy after him? Then the next? Then the one after that? What if they literally keep killing Iranian leaders until, finally, the Iranians decide to nominate someone quite liberal, and willing to compromise, as that is the only way an Iranian leader can survive past the weekend

If I ever need a lawyer, I won't be calling you. Perhaps retirement beckons, old boy

The worst thing now would be a wounded theocratic Iran rising from the ashes, set on revenge.

So, I think we have to see this through now to their utter and total defeat.

Which probably requires troops on the ground. The build-up alone to allow that will take months. The casualties will be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Iraq and Afghanistan show how good we are with dealing with the next stage!

None of that necessarily follows, and nor does the past provide any guide to the future.

What this boils down to is you don't want to do anything and hope the problem will go away by itself.

I don't know what will happen, but the precedent suggests bombing alone rarely defeats regimes. What would you suggest we do, in detail, when you say we have to see this through now to their utter and total defeat? I'm open to alternate predictions.

So, having listened to various experts who know far more than me about Iran, the consensus seems to be that Mojtaba Khamenei is like his dad without the fluffy, soft bits. He seems to have complete control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and indeed the country. The complete fantasy that the loon in the White House would have some sort of say about who this country of 90m was going to choose after he murdered their leader has been shown to be just that.

This is honestly making the second Gulf War and its aftermath look like a clever, focused, planned operation. The US and Israel can keep killing and destroying as an alternative to having a plan for a while yet. Netanyahu doesn't exactly get embarrassed about a few thousand dead civilians but sooner or later they will run out of even vaguely credible targets and the Regime is going to stand unmoved but vowing revenge.

And the price of all of this is oil over $100 a barrel, a spike in inflation, gas shortages, aluminium shortages, a drop in growth potentially large enough to bring us into recession (I think we will just scrape by that) and an ever more lawless world. I thought Trump 2 would be a disaster but I was out by an order of magnitude. The next 2.5 years are going to be seriously tough.

The comments I saw on Mojtaba Khamenei were interesting - that he has no religious standing, and hasn't published any religious opinions that would normally be used to test his suitability in the theocratic setting. That he had been working very quietly, attempting to control access to his father. A behind the scenes guys, with no background.

I'm curious if daddy Khamenei even wanted his son to succeed him - perhaps at least in that element he genuinely believed Iran should not turn back into a de facto monarchy.

One of the experts on the BBC discussion last night made that point - that the theological structure of the Revolution was explicitly against the hereditary inheritance of power. And that by doing this, the IRGC had broken a fundamental tenant of the system.

It wasn't hereditary, it was as chosen by the group of elders. If it was hereditary then it would have been automatic and instant.

The point he made was, that by appointing an apparently unqualified (by the practises and standards of the regime) son of the former leader, it was defacto hereditary.

The chap in question was an Iranian who specialised in studying the Iranian regime as an academic, IIRC