What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
Between half a million and a million dead and a quarter of a century later and you have your win. Sadam was a complete bastard but his bastardy kept disparate factions from killing each other. Something that passed Blair by. Remove Sadam by all means but have a post match plan in place first. Do you think we have one today?
It's telling that for all the calls for regime change essentially nobody seems to be pointing to or naming who will likely next run Iran. To my mind that suggests that this war has gone off half-cocked. Never mind the US justifying this war on the basis that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, when even as recently as January this year the US were still saying that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was completely destroyed. Even Bush with the Iraq War was better prepared for.
Frankly F*ck off. The Lib Dems are not pro Mullah, and your bullshit does not change that.
Anyone being isolationist and opposing action against the Mullahs is precisely that, being pro Mullah.
The Lib Dems were never always isolationist contrarians. Used to have leaders of principle who supported taking action rather than cowering behind international law and saying "not my problem".
Who said this, it suits today: "I have never felt more depressed or, I am bound to say, ashamed this morning that now I have to wake up and see children burning on the television sets - as they were last night - and say that the answer from my country is 'nothing to do with me'
Encouraging people to rise up against a well armed regime without any intention of properly supporting them is worse than doing nothing. I hope I'm wrong and that Trump has more of plan than just airstrikes but I'm not confident.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
This is the year of regime change: Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and Russia.
If the Putin regime falls you'll need a job.
After the RT English language service came off air after the invasion of Ukraine, Kevin Owen came back to Blighty. He's a customer service manager for Network Rail in Devon now, so don't expect the same level of respect and remuneration after Putin falls as you experience now.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
I think the country has seen exactly what Keir really is, and what he's about.
What he really is is a hypocritical sanctimonious prig, and what he's about is remaining prime minister at all costs, despite having no idea what he wants to do with the job.
Initially I thought this was an ‘all in’. Dead Americans does not play well in the US. American hostages even less so. This will be a Box Set. Episode upon episode of bombing until Trump feels he is safe from further scrutiny.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
So we should support them.
Trump is doing so. Carney is doing so. Albanese is doing so. Even Netanyahu is doing so.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Well said. The ignorance on here is unfathomable. If you spoke to a 15 year old waiter in any downtown cafe in Beirut they would laugh at the complete vacuity of commentary on here.
They should be in school at that age
And it is not ignorant to want a murderous regime killing its own people to survive to be taken out
Trump has every right to eliminate threats from the ayatollahs, the IRGC, and Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. This mission is completely justifiable and necessary. The regime must fall, and the opposition needs the support of the West.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Iraq has turned out rather better than Afghanistan did, a new elected government replaced Saddam whereas the Taliban are back in power in the latter and even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan
Israeli or US jets hitting targets just outside Baghdad today, so perhaps not an unalloyed success for the regime changers..
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
You are making a lot of old nonsense up this afternoon.
I'd be only too happy for the Mullahs to fall. I am nonetheless nervous about the planning attached to a a "will I, won't I?" vanity war. I am also nervous as to whether this has been thought through on a potential outcome to outcome basis. There were smarter people than Hegseth wargaming Iraq and that didn't turn out too well. On the other hand they may simply be lucky this time around.
'Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was just live on NBC News as the internet remains down for the majority in Iran.
Araghchi says that Iran “may have lost one or two commanders”. He also says that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is “alive” as far as he is aware.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5ge95q6y7t
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
It’s perfectly possible to argue for “something” to be done and at the same time question whether what is happening is the right “something”. If all that happens is a few Mullahs and IRGC commanders get killed, that may slow the regime marginally and temporarily but you and I both know it won’t end the repression.
History also tells us for all the 1989s in Eastern Europe, where regime change was affected internally with little bloodshed (except in Romania and many would rightly argue the Ceaucescus got what they deserved), in other countries it has been a prelude to internal anarchy and violence.
I’d like to hope those who are determined to see the removal of the mullahs have given some thought as to what follows and can appreciate the concerns of those who see the dangers to the Iranian people of a protracted period of anarchy if there is to be no security and stability provided by a force on the ground.
Trump has every right to eliminate threats from the ayatollahs, the IRGC, and Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. This mission is completely justifiable and necessary. The regime must fall, and the opposition needs the support of the West.
He was sacked by Trump 1.0 for telling him precisely this.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
I think the country has seen exactly what Keir really is, and what he's about.
What he really is is a hypocritical sanctimonious prig, and what he's about is remaining prime minister at all costs, despite having no idea what he wants to do with the job.
That's why everyone wants him gone!
He’s starting to sound like Gavin Newsom, seemingly interested in nothing except being in power, not believing in anything in particular except wanting to be in charge.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Fine you support boots on the ground and are willing to accept Brit casualties . I appreciate your straightforwardness on this .
The history of recent interventions in the MENA is not great. It usually leads to anarchy or Islamists or both
However, Iran is different. It is a great ancient non-Arab nation with a profound pre-Islamic identity to fall back on. A civilisation, almost. There is ample evidence that mosque-going has collapsed. The Iranian people have had enough of the imams. The Iranian people are brave, smart and desperate for change
There is reason to believe that this time might really be different to the previous disasters. Or… it might not. Nothing is certain
But the alternative is letting the ayatollahs get a nuclear bomb
Trump is doing the right thing. We should support it
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
I think the country has seen exactly what Keir really is, and what he's about.
What he really is is a hypocritical sanctimonious prig, and what he's about is remaining prime minister at all costs, despite having no idea what he wants to do with the job.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Well said. The ignorance on here is unfathomable. If you spoke to a 15 year old waiter in any downtown cafe in Beirut they would laugh at the complete vacuity of commentary on here.
They should be in school at that age
And it is not ignorant to want a murderous regime killing its own people to survive to be taken out
Dunno, the IDF might bomb the school, can’t be too careful.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
It’s perfectly possible to argue for “something” to be done and at the same time question whether what is happening is the right “something”. If all that happens is a few Mullahs and IRGC commanders get killed, that may slow the regime marginally and temporarily but you and I both know it won’t end the repression.
History also tells us for all the 1989s in Eastern Europe, where regime change was affected internally with little bloodshed (except in Romania and many would rightly argue the Ceaucescus got what they deserved), in other countries it has been a prelude to internal anarchy and violence.
I’d like to hope those who are determined to see the removal of the mullahs have given some thought as to what follows and can appreciate the concerns of those who see the dangers to the Iranian people of a protracted period of anarchy if there is to be no security and stability provided by a force on the ground.
Anarchy is better than oppression.
Anarchy gives a chance, however slim, of fighting for freedom.
Oppression is a boot stomping on the face of humanity - forever.
If the choice is the regime or anarchy, then bring on anarchy.
Though there are alternative potential leaders in waiting, like Pahlavi.
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
I think the country has seen exactly what Keir really is, and what he's about.
What he really is is a hypocritical sanctimonious prig, and what he's about is remaining prime minister at all costs, despite having no idea what he wants to do with the job.
That's why everyone wants him gone!
Spot on
Thank god we have someone with some common sense who wants to abide by the law.
We aren't under attack. If he unequivocally supports israel have no doubt we will be.
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
I think the country has seen exactly what Keir really is, and what he's about.
What he really is is a hypocritical sanctimonious prig, and what he's about is remaining prime minister at all costs, despite having no idea what he wants to do with the job.
That's why everyone wants him gone!
Spot on
Thank god we have someone with some common sense who wants to abide by the law.
We aren't under attack. If he unequivocally supports israel have no doubt we will be.
So just to be clear an unambiguous, you want to say "not my problem" to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians doing nothing other than protesting for freedom?
Will you come out and say it? I have come out and said unambiguously I would support British action including boots on the ground. Will you come out and say you want inaction and want us to do nothing as protestors are slauhtered?
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
It’s perfectly possible to argue for “something” to be done and at the same time question whether what is happening is the right “something”. If all that happens is a few Mullahs and IRGC commanders get killed, that may slow the regime marginally and temporarily but you and I both know it won’t end the repression.
History also tells us for all the 1989s in Eastern Europe, where regime change was affected internally with little bloodshed (except in Romania and many would rightly argue the Ceaucescus got what they deserved), in other countries it has been a prelude to internal anarchy and violence.
I’d like to hope those who are determined to see the removal of the mullahs have given some thought as to what follows and can appreciate the concerns of those who see the dangers to the Iranian people of a protracted period of anarchy if there is to be no security and stability provided by a force on the ground.
Anarchy is better than oppression.
Anarchy gives a chance, however slim, of fighting for freedom.
Oppression is a boot stomping on the face of humanity - forever.
If the choice is the regime or anarchy, then bring on anarchy.
Though there are alternative potential leaders in waiting, like Pahlavi.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
It’s perfectly possible to argue for “something” to be done and at the same time question whether what is happening is the right “something”. If all that happens is a few Mullahs and IRGC commanders get killed, that may slow the regime marginally and temporarily but you and I both know it won’t end the repression.
History also tells us for all the 1989s in Eastern Europe, where regime change was affected internally with little bloodshed (except in Romania and many would rightly argue the Ceaucescus got what they deserved), in other countries it has been a prelude to internal anarchy and violence.
I’d like to hope those who are determined to see the removal of the mullahs have given some thought as to what follows and can appreciate the concerns of those who see the dangers to the Iranian people of a protracted period of anarchy if there is to be no security and stability provided by a force on the ground.
Anarchy is better than oppression.
Anarchy gives a chance, however slim, of fighting for freedom.
Oppression is a boot stomping on the face of humanity - forever.
If the choice is the regime or anarchy, then bring on anarchy.
Though there are alternative potential leaders in waiting, like Pahlavi.
Frankly F*ck off. The Lib Dems are not pro Mullah, and your bullshit does not change that.
They’re pro leaving the Mullahs in power.
Of course they are not. You just make stuff up.
Either you want to remove them from power.
Or you want to leave them in power.
There is no third way.
It's entirely possible that the US and Israel will bomb a lot of stuff, get bored and/or run out of missiles, the regime survives dented but bruised, and nothing changes.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
It’s perfectly possible to argue for “something” to be done and at the same time question whether what is happening is the right “something”. If all that happens is a few Mullahs and IRGC commanders get killed, that may slow the regime marginally and temporarily but you and I both know it won’t end the repression.
History also tells us for all the 1989s in Eastern Europe, where regime change was affected internally with little bloodshed (except in Romania and many would rightly argue the Ceaucescus got what they deserved), in other countries it has been a prelude to internal anarchy and violence.
I’d like to hope those who are determined to see the removal of the mullahs have given some thought as to what follows and can appreciate the concerns of those who see the dangers to the Iranian people of a protracted period of anarchy if there is to be no security and stability provided by a force on the ground.
Anarchy is better than oppression.
Anarchy gives a chance, however slim, of fighting for freedom.
Oppression is a boot stomping on the face of humanity - forever.
If the choice is the regime or anarchy, then bring on anarchy.
Though there are alternative potential leaders in waiting, like Pahlavi.
First, we don’t really know how much support Pahlavi has on the ground. I’m sure there is some but as Iraq showed, the political undercurrents may not be visible from the outside.
As to your other point, we should seek to mitigate the anarchy via a short term presence to provide security and stability while, as a priority, recreating a Police force to maintain the new laws of the post Islamic Republic. Those laws will be for the Iranian people to decide but the first stage to any new order is order and that means controlling petty violence and criminality which would have been controlled by the repressive regime.
I would never welcome or support anarchy - we have to move quickly to a new security once the theocracy has been swept away. My concern about today is that has been forgotten in the desire to see the mullahs removed.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
This is not 1867.
No, it is 2026 and these bastards are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their own people who demand freedom, are exporting terror globally and shipping drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
Because it’s Trump. It’s disgusting, if it was Biden they’d lap it up. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed but, like we saw with that Lib Dem twat Davey, because it’s Trump they have to oppose
It’s disgusting if you goad protesters to go out onto the streets and then do fxck all to support them.
As our self appointed resident expert on the Middle East please come back with further updates.
You’re happy to support this action but seem reluctant to go all in and support boots on the ground ! If people want regime change then that’s the best chance . You seem quite chilled that protesters might go out with the hope that the USA might support them and if they get slaughtered so be it !
I for one have said I would support sending boots into Tehran if it were to prove necessary, though hopefully it will not.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
Out of interest, and it’s a fair set of questions, how old are you? How fit are you? How do you think you could mentally and physically stand up to fighting in war, how would your children feel about you having to go off and fight?
I ask because it’s very easy to call for “boots on the ground” when you think it’s not your boots but history shows us that it starts with professional soldiers and events can conspire to lead the average man on the street, maybe you, having their lives turned upside down and having to go and do the shooting and being the targets.
Now it might be that you are prepped mentally and physically. You are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and that’s fine, I have personally tried to joint the Militia/TA here and am just too old, I have no children, am fit and am a really good shot (although that is no guarantee of survival) but have you really thought about whether you are actually that keen for boots on the ground if suddenly you get drafted?
I genuinely would love to have an honest response from you but to think it’s ok because it won’t be you is a dangerous position.
In the cricket world (t20) cup Pakistan were 176 off 15.4 overs before the first wicket fell. Ended on 212-8, with the openers making 100 and 84 and no-one else getting double figures!
The history of recent interventions in the MENA is not great. It usually leads to anarchy or Islamists or both
However, Iran is different. It is a great ancient non-Arab nation with a profound pre-Islamic identity to fall back on. A civilisation, almost. There is ample evidence that mosque-going has collapsed. The Iranian people have had enough of the imams. The Iranian people are brave, smart and desperate for change
There is reason to believe that this time might really be different to the previous disasters. Or… it might not. Nothing is certain
But the alternative is letting the ayatollahs get a nuclear bomb
Trump is doing the right thing. We should support it
And they do have a democratic system. My biggest concern in the unlikely event that Pahlavi (who's an unknown quantity) came to power is that there would be enormous attempts by neighbouring states to undermine it.
A return to Kemalism in Turkey might be the more likely opportunity.
Frankly F*ck off. The Lib Dems are not pro Mullah, and your bullshit does not change that.
They’re pro leaving the Mullahs in power.
Of course they are not. You just make stuff up.
Either you want to remove them from power.
Or you want to leave them in power.
There is no third way.
If we end up with Iran, Israel and the US in better humanitarian hands great
We cannot and should not be involved other than to protect our sovereign territory and bases and where possible British people.
I will accept no apology for wanting Netanyahu wiped off the face of the earth given his indiscriminate bombing of innocent people including UK nurses doctors, aid staff and passport holders.
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Come on HY. You are not as mad as some of PB's rampant war mongers like, er Barty, and you are smart enough to put the partisanship in your back pocket until the view becomes clearer.
This is not black and white particularly with Bibi running the show. The collateral damage both inside and outside Iran could escalate.
Notwithstanding Starmer being a useless Prime Minister I opine that so far he has not put a foot wrong today. Compare and contrast with Blair nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Frankly F*ck off. The Lib Dems are not pro Mullah, and your bullshit does not change that.
They’re pro leaving the Mullahs in power.
Of course they are not. You just make stuff up.
Either you want to remove them from power.
Or you want to leave them in power.
There is no third way.
It's entirely possible that the US and Israel will bomb a lot of stuff, get bored and/or run out of missiles, the regime survives dented but bruised, and nothing changes.
That's a risk and I would oppose that.
Hopefully sensible leaders like Carney and Albanese getting in behind this action would be cautioning against such half measures.
Which is precisely what our Government should be doing too. Not hiding behind a "not my problem" attitude.
The Gulf states getting hit makes regime change in Iran existential for them, otherwise it will kill their business model.
An astute point. Dubai could have literally negative tax rates but no one will live there if there’s permanent risk of an Iranian bomb killing your nanny - or worse - every day
Trump has every right to eliminate threats from the ayatollahs, the IRGC, and Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. This mission is completely justifiable and necessary. The regime must fall, and the opposition needs the support of the West.
Mandy Rice Davis applies there though doesn't it? That man becomes tumescent whenever missiles start firing.
The Gulf states getting hit makes regime change in Iran existential for them, otherwise it will kill their business model.
An astute point. Dubai could have literally negative tax rates but no one will live there if there’s permanent risk of an Iranian bomb killing your nanny - or worse - every day
What could be worse than your nanny getting blown up. Who takes the kids to school?
I have always been surprised that Islamic terrorists never rocked up on Dubai beaches by boat like in Tunisia and hit tourists/expats. I guess that Dubai monitor the approaches microscopically but would be a big target.
The history of recent interventions in the MENA is not great. It usually leads to anarchy or Islamists or both
However, Iran is different. It is a great ancient non-Arab nation with a profound pre-Islamic identity to fall back on. A civilisation, almost. There is ample evidence that mosque-going has collapsed. The Iranian people have had enough of the imams. The Iranian people are brave, smart and desperate for change
There is reason to believe that this time might really be different to the previous disasters. Or… it might not. Nothing is certain
But the alternative is letting the ayatollahs get a nuclear bomb
Trump is doing the right thing. We should support it
And they do have a democratic system. My biggest concern in the unlikely event that Pahlavi (who's an unknown quantity) came to power is that there would be enormous attempts by neighbouring states to undermine it.
A return to Kemalism in Turkey might be the more likely opportunity.
Who knows. There is no good option. Israel will nuke Iran before it gets the bomb under the present Tehran regime. That’s just a fact
So America has no choice but to go in and, hopefully, engineer a better result for the world
The Gulf states getting hit makes regime change in Iran existential for them, otherwise it will kill their business model.
An astute point. Dubai could have literally negative tax rates but no one will live there if there’s permanent risk of an Iranian bomb killing your nanny - or worse - every day
What could be worse than your nanny getting blown up. Who takes the kids to school?
I have always been surprised that Islamic terrorists never rocked up on Dubai beaches by boat like in Tunisia and hit tourists/expats. I guess that Dubai monitor the approaches microscopically but would be a big target.
I was trying to be sensitive - yes I know, unlike me - to the PBers who actually live in the sandpit right now. It can’t be fun esp if you have kids
Starmer has condemned in the strongest possible terms Iran bombing US bases in the region.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
He hasn't even openly supported the US and Israeli action but apparently you now want the UK PM to back Iran's bombing of US bases?
Come on HY. You are not as mad as some of PB's rampant war mongers like, er Barty, and you are smart enough to put the partisanship in your back pocket until the view becomes clearer.
This is not black and white particularly with Bibi running the show. The collateral damage both inside and outside Iran could escalate.
Notwithstanding Starmer being a useless Prime Minister I opine that so far he has not put a foot wrong today. Compare and contrast with Blair nearly a quarter of a century ago.
I think Starmer's fear of Muslim voters has probably done us something of a favour - or we would absolutely be in this up to our necks. It reminds me a bit of when Cameron refused to take any of the migrant queues - we had the forthcoming Brexit referendum to thank for that.
As I said, I'm not against the bases being used, but no contribution apart from that.
Happily, Starmer is deluded enough to think he still has a chance of winning something. If he read the room a little better, he might realise that there's really very little point in appeasing any voter groups at this point.
Can we stop the propaganda style posts that suggest anyone having reservations over suddenly declaring war on Iran means they support the Mullahs?
There's lots of governments that are abhorrent, and obviously Iran's are amongst them. That doesn't necessitate people to support declaring war on them or else be regime supporters.
There's clearly pros and cons of this attack. And, to be honest, without a clear idea of the intelligence and plan it's hard to say if it's a good idea or not. It could be a success or end up a disaster at this point.
Comments
So what do you want to do about it? Nothing?
https://x.com/nathalieloiseau/status/2027694363292074029
Once again Ursula Von Der Leyen, this is NOT your business. Enough is enough.
After the RT English language service came off air after the invasion of Ukraine, Kevin Owen came back to Blighty. He's a customer service manager for Network Rail in Devon now, so don't expect the same level of respect and remuneration after Putin falls as you experience now.
What he really is is a hypocritical sanctimonious prig, and what he's about is remaining prime minister at all costs, despite having no idea what he wants to do with the job.
That's why everyone wants him gone!
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-two-schools-in-iran-killing-more-than-50-people
Trump is doing so. Carney is doing so. Albanese is doing so. Even Netanyahu is doing so.
What are we doing?
And it is not ignorant to want a murderous regime killing its own people to survive to be taken out
https://x.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/2027753154872545365
Trump has every right to eliminate threats from the ayatollahs, the IRGC, and Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. This mission is completely justifiable and necessary. The regime must fall, and the opposition needs the support of the West.
I'd be only too happy for the Mullahs to fall. I am nonetheless nervous about the planning attached to a a "will I, won't I?" vanity war. I am also nervous as to whether this has been thought through on a potential outcome to outcome basis. There were smarter people than Hegseth wargaming Iraq and that didn't turn out too well. On the other hand they may simply be lucky this time around.
Which is why sensible leaders like Carney and Albanese are setting aside their differences with Trump and supporting this, as mature people should.
I have yet to see a single better suggestion of how to achieve it from the critics here.
Araghchi says that Iran “may have lost one or two commanders”. He also says that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is “alive” as far as he is aware.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5ge95q6y7t
History also tells us for all the 1989s in Eastern Europe, where regime change was affected internally with little bloodshed (except in Romania and many would rightly argue the Ceaucescus got what they deserved), in other countries it has been a prelude to internal anarchy and violence.
I’d like to hope those who are determined to see the removal of the mullahs have given some thought as to what follows and can appreciate the concerns of those who see the dangers to the Iranian people of a protracted period of anarchy if there is to be no security and stability provided by a force on the ground.
Protestors are already getting slaughtered and you are content to watch and tut and say "not my problem".
An Iranian attack hit the "Palm Hotel & Resort" in Dubai.
However, Iran is different. It is a great ancient non-Arab nation with a profound pre-Islamic identity to fall back on. A civilisation, almost. There is ample evidence that mosque-going has collapsed. The Iranian people have had enough of the imams. The Iranian people are brave, smart and desperate for change
There is reason to believe that this time might really be different to the previous disasters. Or… it might not. Nothing is certain
But the alternative is letting the ayatollahs get a nuclear bomb
Trump is doing the right thing. We should support it
https://x.com/isabeloakeshott/status/2027693926866415777
https://x.com/slatzism/status/2027664079335080302?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Sticky Vickys got nothing on Isabel
It does appear that there’s a fire at the Fairmont hotel on Palm Jumeirah, but there’s no reports of how it started.
Anarchy gives a chance, however slim, of fighting for freedom.
Oppression is a boot stomping on the face of humanity - forever.
If the choice is the regime or anarchy, then bring on anarchy.
Though there are alternative potential leaders in waiting, like Pahlavi.
We aren't under attack. If he unequivocally supports israel have no doubt we will be.
You couldn't make it up! The sooner Starmer is booted into touch the sooner Labour can regroup. Any new leader will be an upgrade
A pretty high chance that Trump will not survive to the end of his term either...
Will you come out and say it? I have come out and said unambiguously I would support British action including boots on the ground. Will you come out and say you want inaction and want us to do nothing as protestors are slauhtered?
The majority of the British people want no part of the death squads of the IDF
They are no different and equally as disgusting as the Iranian Guard.
We should cut all relations with both.
Not in Sudan when more people are massacred there. Not in Myanmar. Not in Venezuela.
We know that pretty much every one of our attempted interventions in the region in recent decades has been a disaster.
And we know that Trump has no real plans for the future; but Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale.
Why?
Or you want to leave them in power.
There is no third way.
As to your other point, we should seek to mitigate the anarchy via a short term presence to provide security and stability while, as a priority, recreating a Police force to maintain the new laws of the post Islamic Republic. Those laws will be for the Iranian people to decide but the first stage to any new order is order and that means controlling petty violence and criminality which would have been controlled by the repressive regime.
I would never welcome or support anarchy - we have to move quickly to a new security once the theocracy has been swept away. My concern about today is that has been forgotten in the desire to see the mullahs removed.
I ask because it’s very easy to call for “boots on the ground” when you think it’s not your boots but history shows us that it starts with professional soldiers and events can conspire to lead the average man on the street, maybe you, having their lives turned upside down and having to go and do the shooting and being the targets.
Now it might be that you are prepped mentally and physically. You are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and that’s fine, I have personally tried to joint the Militia/TA here and am just too old, I have no children, am fit and am a really good shot (although that is no guarantee of survival) but have you really thought about whether you are actually that keen for boots on the ground if suddenly you get drafted?
I genuinely would love to have an honest response from you but to think it’s ok because it won’t be you is a dangerous position.
A return to Kemalism in Turkey might be the more likely opportunity.
We cannot and should not be involved other than to protect our sovereign territory and bases and where possible British people.
I will accept no apology for wanting Netanyahu wiped off the face of the earth given his indiscriminate bombing of innocent people including UK nurses doctors, aid staff and passport holders.
He can rot in hell with the Ayotollas
This is not black and white particularly with Bibi running the show. The collateral damage both inside and outside Iran could escalate.
Notwithstanding Starmer being a useless Prime Minister I opine that so far he has not put a foot wrong today. Compare and contrast with Blair nearly a quarter of a century ago.
Hopefully sensible leaders like Carney and Albanese getting in behind this action would be cautioning against such half measures.
Which is precisely what our Government should be doing too. Not hiding behind a "not my problem" attitude.
MTG responds to the Iran attacks, calling the administration “sick fucking liars.”
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2027765284220649526?s=20
Edit - spoke too soon!
prozziesInfluencers.....At day 586 in Number 10, Keir Starmer ranks rock bottom in recent history.
Starmer: -45
Brown: -28
Sunak: -27
May: -17
Thatcher: -15
Cameron: -11
Johnson: -5
Major: +10
Blair: +37
Truss: N/A
https://x.com/britainelects/status/2027745615971533105?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I have always been surprised that Islamic terrorists never rocked up on Dubai beaches by boat like in Tunisia and hit tourists/expats. I guess that Dubai monitor the approaches microscopically but would be a big target.
So America has no choice but to go in and, hopefully, engineer a better result for the world
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2027756559304966356?s=20
The way the camera is setup and Starmer wooden movements / delivery, it is like AI from 2 year ago.
As I said, I'm not against the bases being used, but no contribution apart from that.
Happily, Starmer is deluded enough to think he still has a chance of winning something. If he read the room a little better, he might realise that there's really very little point in appeasing any voter groups at this point.
BREAKING - Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, according to the The European Union's naval task force - Israel's Channel 12
"Hands off Iran"
https://x.com/STWuk/status/2027758321890169099?s=20
https://open.substack.com/pub/thenextmove/p/what-to-make-of-events-in-iran?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2a9ngu
There's lots of governments that are abhorrent, and obviously Iran's are amongst them. That doesn't necessitate people to support declaring war on them or else be regime supporters.
There's clearly pros and cons of this attack. And, to be honest, without a clear idea of the intelligence and plan it's hard to say if it's a good idea or not. It could be a success or end up a disaster at this point.