The way the word "mullahs" is used on here as pejorative synechdoche for the Iranian regime is grotesquely Islamophobic.
You're dealing with the people who were convinced the Iranians would nuke Jerusalem until it was pointed out it was the third holiest site in Islam.
You think they'd care about that?
They'd rationalise it in the name of Islam.
No, they wouldn't. If they wanted to nuke Israel, they'd nuke Tel Aviv. Or they'd nuke Israel's own nuclear weapons facilities to prevent retalitation.
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
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.
The other comment I've heard is that he'd never have been chosen as successor if they weren't at war. It would have been someone else.
Sounds plausible. A big f*ck you gesture to the assassinating forces.
My new guess is Trump and Israel continue to blow things up for a few more days and then declare mission accomplished, with the provisio that Iran must stop attacks "or else". Which after a few false starts may stick.
The way the word "mullahs" is used on here as pejorative synechdoche for the Iranian regime is grotesquely Islamophobic.
You're dealing with the people who were convinced the Iranians would nuke Jerusalem until it was pointed out it was the third holiest site in Islam.
Ostensibly religious people have not been unknown to trash their own religious sites from time to time, or engage in gross hypocrisy in general in order to justify their sadistic whims and lust for power, without even realising they are doing it. They're much like non-religious people in that way.
Doesn't sound like a very plausible threat to me from a practical perspective, but simply because the regime is religious surely wouldn't guarantee they wouldn't do something that seems like it would be very contrary to that world view.
I am the least observant Muslim in the world and even I know Jerusalem is sacred.
One of the divisions of the IRGC is called the Quds Force, Quds is the name for Jerusalem.
How to you pronounce that? If Q is like Ga in Libyan then it might be Gaads?
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.
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
You are 1-2 years younger than me @Leon and your liver is almost certainly in worse shape. We can leave the brain cells for others to judge. Retirement, thankfully, is a few years away yet, hopefully for us both.
Stop saying stupid things. Then I shan't have cause to upbraid you
You know, I think I will just take that risk.
I share David's expectations of a poor outcome but it is conceivable that some of what Leon hopes for does indeed happen. The Iranian I know is pessimistic, but it is worth noting also that there was an Iranian demomstration in favour of America and Israel in Manchester today.
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.
That wouldn't have happened if they had a Renters' Rights law.
I just had a look at one of the local WhatsApp groups - apparently a couple of the Death To Landlords types have been discombobulated - their landlords are selling up, and they can't afford to buy the properties.
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
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.
The other comment I've heard is that he'd never have been chosen as successor if they weren't at war. It would have been someone else.
Sounds plausible. A big f*ck you gesture to the assassinating forces.
Or a case of "Give the Americans something to shoot at, while we run the country"?
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
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
You are 1-2 years younger than me @Leon and your liver is almost certainly in worse shape. We can leave the brain cells for others to judge. Retirement, thankfully, is a few years away yet, hopefully for us both.
Stop saying stupid things. Then I shan't have cause to upbraid you
You know, I think I will just take that risk.
I share David's expectations of a poor outcome but it is conceivable that some of what Leon hopes for does indeed happen. The Iranian I know is pessimistic, but it is worth noting also that there was an Iranian demomstration in favour of America and Israel in Manchester today.
Leon is mooting a theory that the US military has UFO technology. I don't think his predictions are going to be much use.
Interesting that despite Kemi's strong support of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, less than half of UK voters see the Tories as pro Trump. While a comfortable majority of 70% of voters see Reform as pro Trump
But the fear is that perception could be on the change.
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.
Oil prices in FREEFALL to $85 a barrel after these remarks from President Trump to CBS below that the “war is very complete, pretty much… very far ahead” of 4-5 week schedule also US stock market erasing all losses
… then bounces back up to $90 - still below the Friday close, and down from $119.50 peak.
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.
There's about 100 regimes in the world that could use a good bombing in that case, just to given them a bit more of a chance of a good outcome.
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
Israel has been saying Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon for years... indeed, decades. Maybe we should be cautious about their claims now?
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
Oil prices in FREEFALL to $85 a barrel after these remarks from President Trump to CBS below that the “war is very complete, pretty much… very far ahead” of 4-5 week schedule also US stock market erasing all losses
… then bounces back up to $90 - still below the Friday close, and down from $119.50 peak.
How nice it is nearly done, I look forward to what deal the theocrats can strike with Trump that will save them face yet allow him to show dominance. Bit easier for the lady in Venezuela.
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
Israel has been saying Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon for years... indeed, decades. Maybe we should be cautious about their claims now?
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
Iran has been getting closer that entire time, yes.
Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never.
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
The expert chap on the BBC pointed out that without the theological background and published views on various religious matters, the appointment broke a whole bunch of the norms of the system.
Kinda reminded me of Octavian and his rather bizarre political career.
Oil prices in FREEFALL to $85 a barrel after these remarks from President Trump to CBS below that the “war is very complete, pretty much… very far ahead” of 4-5 week schedule also US stock market erasing all losses
… then bounces back up to $90 - still below the Friday close, and down from $119.50 peak.
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
There are plenty of nepo babies in non-monarchical systems. Justin Trudeau. Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi. Bongbong Marcos. Sheikh Hasina.
Oil prices in FREEFALL to $85 a barrel after these remarks from President Trump to CBS below that the “war is very complete, pretty much… very far ahead” of 4-5 week schedule also US stock market erasing all losses
… then bounces back up to $90 - still below the Friday close, and down from $119.50 peak.
So vibe oil pricing to go with a vibe war.
Trump is a latter-day Louis XIV - "The market? C'est moi!"
My new guess is Trump and Israel continue to blow things up for a few more days and then declare mission accomplished, with the provisio that Iran must stop attacks "or else". Which after a few false starts may stick.
Yes. That's my old guess and I'm still with it. Certainly the US will have had enough soon. Israel will want to keep at it but might have to compromise.
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.
I cling to the hope that the mid terms in November will seriously clip his wings.
We all need some hope but unless he has permanently fallen out with his appointees on the SC Congress is likely to find itself largely ineffectual. A Constitution that was always highly overrated has been shown to have fatal flaws because it depended on Judges with a hint of integrity ensuring everything else remained in balance. Their decisions over the last year have made Trump a Sovereign in all but name and I am not sure what Congress can now do about it.
Loosing Congress might slow him down, but there is no way for the Democrats to get enough seats in the Senate to stop him. They might win a very, very narrow majority - but that will just become gridlocked.
It doesn't matter if you fiddle the elections to Congress if you are going to ignore Congress anyway.
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.
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
You are 1-2 years younger than me @Leon and your liver is almost certainly in worse shape. We can leave the brain cells for others to judge. Retirement, thankfully, is a few years away yet, hopefully for us both.
Stop saying stupid things. Then I shan't have cause to upbraid you
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
There are plenty of nepo babies in non-monarchical systems. Justin Trudeau. Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi. Bongbong Marcos. Sheikh Hasina.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto > Benazir Bhutto The Kims in North Korea
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
Israel has been saying Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon for years... indeed, decades. Maybe we should be cautious about their claims now?
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
Iran has been getting closer that entire time, yes.
Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never.
And Trump was wrong then. I said so at the time.
"Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never"... er, Iran and their nuclear programme was attacked multiple times before.
Oil prices in FREEFALL to $85 a barrel after these remarks from President Trump to CBS below that the “war is very complete, pretty much… very far ahead” of 4-5 week schedule also US stock market erasing all losses
… then bounces back up to $90 - still below the Friday close, and down from $119.50 peak.
So vibe oil pricing to go with a vibe war.
Trump is a latter-day Louis XIV - "The market? C'est moi!"
Does this actually show, if politicians were crooks wishing to fill the coffers of their sponsors and donors using insider dealing, they so easily can…
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.
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.
The other comment I've heard is that he'd never have been chosen as successor if they weren't at war. It would have been someone else.
Sounds plausible. A big f*ck you gesture to the assassinating forces.
More than that; thought of someone best suited to the fighting/continuing repression of any rebellion.
Of course if he gets droned that that means nothing, but probably better at opsec than your average mullah.
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
There are plenty of nepo babies in non-monarchical systems. Justin Trudeau. Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi. Bongbong Marcos. Sheikh Hasina.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto > Benazir Bhutto The Kims in North Korea
I think the latter we might have to say seems to have become a monarchical system, albeit pretending not to be.
It seems having peered into the abyss this morning, the markets have decided on sanity. Oil, which overnight approached $115 if not higher, is now back close to where it was just above $90 a barrel (someone will have done well from that market) and shares, after falling/plummeting/crashing (delete as appropriate) have closed the day in London little changed.
Where are we this evening? Iran seems to have had its capability not just to throw missiles and drones at its neighbours but to defend its own airspace denuded if not eliminated. In essence, Israel and the US have air supremacy and can attack targets in Iran at will inflicting such death and destruction as they wish.
And yet the regime endures, battered certainly, broken possibly but nonetheless still in place. 35 years ago, the Iraqis were driven from Kuwait, the Republican Guard shattered on the "Highway of Death", the Marsh Arabs and Kurds in open revolt and no serious opposition between the US and British forces and Baghdad and yet George W Bush called a halt and the argument was the coalition assembled had only been assembled to liberate Kuwait, not oust Saddam Hussein. I'm left to wonder whether, if the Americans had moved on to Baghdad then where we would be now.
We're back to where we were when all this started - if you want regime change in Tehran, how do you achieve it? You can hope for the people to rise but what if they don't or can't? You can hope for the military to turn against the IGRC but what if they won't or can't? The regime endures and can rebuild and we will be facing all us again in months or years.
Those advocating regime change have not put up a credible option other than American ground troops and is it likely the man who decried foreign wars (and saw the political impact of said on his predecessors) is going to authorise sending American troops into Iran? I suspect not so the regime endures.
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
Israel has been saying Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon for years... indeed, decades. Maybe we should be cautious about their claims now?
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
Iran has been getting closer that entire time, yes.
Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never.
And Trump was wrong then. I said so at the time.
"Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never"... er, Iran and their nuclear programme was attacked multiple times before.
Never hard enough to get regime change.
If regime change is not sought now, then another war is likely again.
The air supremacy advantage should be pressed until the regime collapses. Shame on Trump if he does all this only to TACO out.
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
There won’t be regime change unless there’s boots on the ground . The Kurds aren’t going to be screwed again so Trump will call mission accomplished and his stupid base will believe it.
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
There are plenty of nepo babies in non-monarchical systems. Justin Trudeau. Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi. Bongbong Marcos. Sheikh Hasina.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto > Benazir Bhutto The Kims in North Korea
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
If we are to believe Trump, it seems it's all "over" (or nearly).
I'm still not sure where that leaves us 10 days on - yes, the Iranian regime's capacity to strike at its neighbours seems to have been denuded if not destroyed for now. However, the regime's capacity to strike at its own people seems undiminished and for all the euphoria over Khamanei's death, the theocracy remains very much in power and even more in the Russian camp than before.
Given the nature of the beast and the power of the Internet, I'm not sure how this has damaged radical Muslim fundamentalism either - it can still be exported, the gullible can be radicalised etc, etc.
Presumably in time Iran will re-stock its missiles and drones and we will be back close to where we were 10 days ago and we will go another round of this.
No doubt supporters of Trump will claim a victory but I'm not sure on what grounds. Presuambly, the Gulf States will be more vigilant and will ensure their anti-missile defences are restored and enhanced (which will suit America) but the theocracy will remain in power and the suffering of the Iranian people shows little sign of ending.
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.
Don't forget the fertiliser shortage too. The gulf makes and exports quite a bit and we need it over the next few months,
There's plenty of shit in the US right now to substitute.
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.
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
The expert chap on the BBC pointed out that without the theological background and published views on various religious matters, the appointment broke a whole bunch of the norms of the system.
Kinda reminded me of Octavian and his rather bizarre political career.
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
Israel has been saying Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon for years... indeed, decades. Maybe we should be cautious about their claims now?
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
Iran has been getting closer that entire time, yes.
Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never.
And Trump was wrong then. I said so at the time.
"Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never"... er, Iran and their nuclear programme was attacked multiple times before.
In fact it was 'obliterated' last year with those awesome 'bunker busters'. We have this on no less authority than the US president. He who ordered those strikes.
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.
That's an oddly missing-the-point moment, as well as missing the preceding comment to the one you quoted about 'de facto' monarchy. Many a republic has ended up with hereditary succession in practice. "What, it is just coincidence the president's son was 'chosen' by a political party to be the next candidate, so it's not hereditary!". Him being the Ayatollah's son surely had some role in the decision, even if it was not guaranteed.
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
The expert chap on the BBC pointed out that without the theological background and published views on various religious matters, the appointment broke a whole bunch of the norms of the system.
Kinda reminded me of Octavian and his rather bizarre political career.
Successful enough that he had a whole month named after him! And in summer too!
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
If the US and Israel want to really mess with Iran's heads, they should leak evidence that Khamanei fils is a Mossad agent and conspired to murder his father.
Whether true or not, it would destabilise and discredit the regime.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
But if Trump wants some symbolic victory and Iran wants to stop being bombed, it's probably not going to be difficult to cobble something together, I'd guess. Resurrect the Obama deal, but cross out "Obama" and put "Trump".
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.
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
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.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
Declaring victory and no longer sending (many) american missles and planes will be enough to utterly convince his base that it is done and a glorious victory, so the question is whether the Iranian regime definitely still being in place and (on this we shall see) not being conciliatory would break through to them that something was off.
So he might try that if he wants a quick exit, but perhaps there's still more to come eg trying to get the Kurds in etc.
Away from economic and political turmoil, the good news (for many) is Cheltenham starts tomorrow.
My third favourite meeting of the year (after Royal Ascot and York Ebor) and 50,000+ will descend on Prestbury Park for four days of quality eating and drinking with some horse racing added.
Three championship level races tomorrow. In the opening Supreme Novices Hurdle, I fancy OLD PARK STAR to give Nicky Henderson a good start to the meeting. In the Arkle Challenge Trophy, I'm against both the front two in the market and prefer KARGESE.
FInally, the Champion Hurdle and again I'm against the fancied runners. I think the front three in the market can all be opposed - it would be wonderful to see GOLDEN ACE retain her title but I think PONIROS is a stand out each way play at 16s.
The F-14 Tomcat is no more as a warplane. Iran's last few have been destroyed. They were the last anywhere.
Iran now has no air force.
In a contest between the US airforce and a non global power the airforce of the latter seems worth nothing more than target practice. I certainly wouldn't want to get near a military plane in a place like Iran.
If the US and Israel want to really mess with Iran's heads, they should leak evidence that Khamanei fils is a Mossad agent and conspired to murder his father.
Whether true or not, it would destabilise and discredit the regime.
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.
There’s a theory that he’s already dead and they just announced him as leader to take the heat off and avoid a cycle of assassinations.
This is quite a plausible argument because the Iranians must be terrified of
1. Israeli penetration of the Iranian elite at the deepest possible level - how did the Jews know where and when to strike with such brutal yet precise force, they killed everyone at the top in Tehran in half an hour? Maybe they were helped by djinns?
Also
2. America, which now has next level military tech: this is becoming obvious. See the exfiltration of Maduro. Without losing a man. This does not mean America is almighty and invulnerable - it can't totally defend its allies in the GCC and Shahed drones, which cost sixpence, are causing real pain. Nonetheless there does seem to have been a mysterious quantum leap in America's ability to exert power at a distance
Who would want to be the next Iranian leader in this context? Not me. It's like being the next Spinal Tap drummer
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
Declaring victory and no longer sending (many) american missles and planes will be enough to utterly convince his base that it is done and a glorious victory, so the question is whether the Iranian regime definitely still being in place and (on this we shall see) not being conciliatory would break through to them that something was off.
So he might try that if he wants a quick exit, but perhaps there's still more to come eg trying to get the Kurds in etc.
I’m not sure how TACO works in this scenario when Netanyahu clearly is nowhere near finished and would ideally keep going indefinitely.
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
Given that Trump has already said he doesn't care if Iran remains a theorcracy, and is also not bothered about it becoming democratic, I don't know why anyone would believe he was intent on liberating the people of Iran.
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
Given that Trump has already said he doesn't care if Iran remains a theorcracy, and is also not bothered about it becoming democratic, I don't know why anyone would believe he was intent on liberating the people of Iran.
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
Can't get credit for stopping lots of wars if you don't also start a whole bunch. Lord knows what Fifa can offer him for stopping this one.
Quite a triumph for Badenoch, Farage and the tabloid press.
Badenoch confusing the unpopularity of the Prime Minister with popularity of taking a more aggressive stance, or just trying to keep up with Reform leaning Trumpists whose votes she desperately needs to survive?
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
Declaring victory and no longer sending (many) american missles and planes will be enough to utterly convince his base that is done and a glorious victory, so the question is whether the Iranian regime definitely still being in place and (on this we shall see) not being conciliatory would break through to them that something was off.
So he might try that if he wants a quick exit, but perhaps there's still more to come eg trying to get the Kurds in etc.
If the specific aim is to get shipping moving through the Straits of Hormuz again so the oil price goes down, the ship owners, insurers and crew will need a credible indication from the Iranians that they will no longer shoot at the ships. Vibes aren't good enough. And that requires a formal deal.
Same also for Gulf States being shot at, albeit they're less important.
Quite a triumph for Badenoch, Farage and the tabloid press.
What if Cleverly had won the Tory leadership - as he would have done without oh so clever Gavin's meddling - is an interesting counterfactual. I think as someone who can do statesmanlike he'd have come out of this a lot better than Badenoch.
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
Given that Trump has already said he doesn't care if Iran remains a theorcracy, and is also not bothered about it becoming democratic, I don't know why anyone would believe he was intent on liberating the people of Iran.
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
I have said all along I support regime change and not Trump, and that I have no faith in Trump to do the right thing.
If Trump TACOs out here, then I will say that ending the conflict prematurely is a huge mistake and one I wholeheartedly oppose.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
But if Trump wants some symbolic victory and Iran wants to stop being bombed, it's probably not going to be difficult to cobble something together, I'd guess. Resurrect the Obama deal, but cross out "Obama" and put "Trump".
Both sides will know the deal isn't worth the paper it will be written on, but the aim for both sides is to buy some time.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
But if Trump wants some symbolic victory and Iran wants to stop being bombed, it's probably not going to be difficult to cobble something together, I'd guess. Resurrect the Obama deal, but cross out "Obama" and put "Trump".
Both sides will know the deal isn't worth the paper it will be written on, but the aim for both sides is to buy some time.
If Trump calls this done and they still haven't secured the HEU then it's almost guaranteed there will be more fighting to come.
If the US and Israel want to really mess with Iran's heads, they should leak evidence that Khamanei fils is a Mossad agent and conspired to murder his father.
Whether true or not, it would destabilise and discredit the regime.
Finally, a job AI slop is perfect for.
That he alone of the Khamanei clan appears to have escaped the bombing has to raise suspicions ...
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
Given that Trump has already said he doesn't care if Iran remains a theorcracy, and is also not bothered about it becoming democratic, I don't know why anyone would believe he was intent on liberating the people of Iran.
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
I have said all along I support regime change and not Trump, and that I have no faith in Trump to do the right thing.
If Trump TACOs out here, then I will say that ending the conflict prematurely is a huge mistake and one I wholeheartedly oppose.
I really don’t know what the “right” answer is now. The Americans and Israelis have crossed the Rubicon. But it’s easy to imagine all sorts of different outcomes from any strategy, from glorious liberation to global thermonuclear war.
If there is a TACO now then it’s conceivable that could be followed by:
- a defiant, strengthened Iranian regime that enacts a reign of terror over suspected “traitors” and redoubles its efforts to disrupt the neighbourhood - an organic uprising and/or coup once the bombs stop, with the IRGC weakened and vulnerable to splits - a 1990s Iraq style containment situation, with occasional Israeli and US air strikes and continued sanctions, and Iran unable to project power like it used to - an emollient regime seeking a partial reset with the US, Vietnam style
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
But if Trump wants some symbolic victory and Iran wants to stop being bombed, it's probably not going to be difficult to cobble something together, I'd guess. Resurrect the Obama deal, but cross out "Obama" and put "Trump".
Both sides will know the deal isn't worth the paper it will be written on, but the aim for both sides is to buy some time.
If Trump calls this done and they still haven't secured the HEU then it's almost guaranteed there will be more fighting to come.
The lesson Iran and several other countries will take from this mad adventure is get.your.own.nuclear.weapon.
Whether Iran has any capability of getting one at this point is unclear.
It took Trump 10 days to create an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, and weaken our alliances worldwide. He put American servicemembers in harm’s way, resulting in seven deaths. None of this made you safer or better off. https://x.com/CaptMarkKelly/status/2031072074114949516
🏳️🌈At the very end of last year we looked again at voting intention by sexual orientation ➡️Reform led 🌹Labour by 11 with straight men ➡️Reform led 🌳Tories by 6 with straight women ➡️Reform led 💚Greens by 6 with gay & bi men 💚Greens led 🌹Labour by 16 (!) among gay & bi women
Quite a triumph for Badenoch, Farage and the tabloid press.
What if Cleverly had won the Tory leadership - as he would have done without oh so clever Gavin's meddling - is an interesting counterfactual. I think as someone who can do statesmanlike he'd have come out of this a lot better than Badenoch.
Apparently though. You Gov despite showing major support for Starmer stance is going to deliver a poll kicking Labour in the bollocks
It took Trump 10 days to create an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, and weaken our alliances worldwide. He put American servicemembers in harm’s way, resulting in seven deaths. None of this made you safer or better off. https://x.com/CaptMarkKelly/status/2031072074114949516
I like Kelly, but in all fairness to Trump the mastermind behind this fiasco was Bibi.
Mind you I did expect Trump to top his escapade off with some nukes, just to cement his name in history.
9 days in, the most basic question about the Iran war remains unanswered In just over a week, Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began
Many things worth doing have many reasons why they are worth doing.
That there are so many valid reasons why this war is happening is further proof that it is a good idea, not proof that it is a bad one.
You really are off your head, aren't you? The Trump administration has no plan at all, and no means of achieving any of its stated aims. Far from a victorious march to victory, what is most likely to happen is that after a highly disruptive few weeks of conflict, an unstable truce is put in place with none of Trump's aims achieved whatsoever, but at a cost of several trillion dollars, not to mention the shattering of the illusory security of countries in the GCC and a long term economic downturn- not to mention the benefits to Russia.
The abject incompetence of Trump may bring the benefit that the GOP are utterly trashed at the midterms, but then we will have 2 years of infantile bluster from the emasculated Trump, which- granted- is better than he actually retains any power, but will be an abject humiliation for the USA and the West in general.
No I am not off my head, yes I agree that the Trump administration is useless.
I agree with German Chancellor Merz that the fall of the Iranian regime is required. Is Merz off his head?
If Trump TACOs out then I will oppose that and not be too surprised. Hopefully Bibi prevents him from reverting to form and TACOing out.
I would be utterly delighted to see the GOP trashed at the midterms.
On a Venn diagram I am in the intersection of "despises Trump" and "supports this war".
Removing Mullahs- definitely a good thing. However this is a war of choice, and the choice has been made by Trump, recklessly unprepared, so I fear that there are few good outcomes from this.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I would have more faith if this were a war being launched by practically any other POTUS ever . . . And with the support of the UK and other allies who could push for the right agenda to be followed.
However that is not the case and we are where we are.
And the war I would prefer is not an option, so a reckless Trump initiated war or no war at all . . . Well sadly the former is all that is available to us to see the removal of the Mullahs being even a possibility.
If something has a very low possibility of success and a known, definite cost, then it's probably not worth doing.
So it is never worth buying insurance by that flawed logic.
Plenty of insurance on the market is a swizz! But I wouldn't generally characterise insurance as something with a "very low possibility of success". That's a novel way of putting it. Insurance is usually about preventing an unlikely, but very high cost you can't afford. And I said "probably", because it depends on the exact probabilities and costs.
If success is getting paid out it is a very low possibility so it fits the definition.
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
Israel has been saying Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon for years... indeed, decades. Maybe we should be cautious about their claims now?
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
To be fair, Israel is the expert when it comes to running a covert nuclear weapons development programme.
Sam Stein @samstein · 48m The war is basically over, Trump says in this interview. And then you scroll down a few tweets into the thread and he says he's also thinking of taking over the Straight of Hormuz....
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
Given that Trump has already said he doesn't care if Iran remains a theorcracy, and is also not bothered about it becoming democratic, I don't know why anyone would believe he was intent on liberating the people of Iran.
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
I have said all along I support regime change and not Trump, and that I have no faith in Trump to do the right thing.
If Trump TACOs out here, then I will say that ending the conflict prematurely is a huge mistake and one I wholeheartedly oppose.
I really don’t know what the “right” answer is now. The Americans and Israelis have crossed the Rubicon. But it’s easy to imagine all sorts of different outcomes from any strategy, from glorious liberation to global thermonuclear war.
If there is a TACO now then it’s conceivable that could be followed by:
- a defiant, strengthened Iranian regime that enacts a reign of terror over suspected “traitors” and redoubles its efforts to disrupt the neighbourhood - an organic uprising and/or coup once the bombs stop, with the IRGC weakened and vulnerable to splits - a 1990s Iraq style containment situation, with occasional Israeli and US air strikes and continued sanctions, and Iran unable to project power like it used to - an emollient regime seeking a partial reset with the US, Vietnam style
Trump is farcical and stupid if he TACOs out now and ends the war prematurely before regime change. What a moron.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
But even before the first missiles fired by both sides scribed “in the name of God - death to the evil enemy” we discussed TACO, and you did agree, Iraq will hang over the objectives and operation - ultimately proving lack of seriousness in regime change?
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The regime surviving is the worst of all outcomes.
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
Given that Trump has already said he doesn't care if Iran remains a theorcracy, and is also not bothered about it becoming democratic, I don't know why anyone would believe he was intent on liberating the people of Iran.
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
🏳️🌈At the very end of last year we looked again at voting intention by sexual orientation ➡️Reform led 🌹Labour by 11 with straight men ➡️Reform led 🌳Tories by 6 with straight women ➡️Reform led 💚Greens by 6 with gay & bi men 💚Greens led 🌹Labour by 16 (!) among gay & bi women
It took Trump 10 days to create an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, and weaken our alliances worldwide. He put American servicemembers in harm’s way, resulting in seven deaths. None of this made you safer or better off. https://x.com/CaptMarkKelly/status/2031072074114949516
I like Kelly, but in all fairness to Trump the mastermind behind this fiasco was Bibi.
Mind you I did expect Trump to top his escapade off with some nukes, just to cement his name in history.
Reportedly Netanyahu tried the same thing when Biden was president. Biden did not take the bait.
Phil Stewart @phildstewart MORE - (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is considering reducing oil sanctions on Russia to help cool a surge in global energy prices triggered by the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, with an announcement possible as soon as Monday, according to three sources familiar with the planning.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
Hostilities started in 1979 and have never stopped, they just go through various levels.
Phil Stewart @phildstewart MORE - (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is considering reducing oil sanctions on Russia to help cool a surge in global energy prices triggered by the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, with an announcement possible as soon as Monday, according to three sources familiar with the planning.
I don't think Trump just walking away declaring victory will cut it. There is has to be some kind of deal with the Iranians otherwise everyone will expect hostilities to keep going.
But if Trump wants some symbolic victory and Iran wants to stop being bombed, it's probably not going to be difficult to cobble something together, I'd guess. Resurrect the Obama deal, but cross out "Obama" and put "Trump".
Both sides will know the deal isn't worth the paper it will be written on, but the aim for both sides is to buy some time.
If Trump calls this done and they still haven't secured the HEU then it's almost guaranteed there will be more fighting to come.
The lesson Iran and several other countries will take from this mad adventure is get.your.own.nuclear.weapon.
Whether Iran has any capability of getting one at this point is unclear.
Iran needs to get onboard the what.three.words train. That's where they've gone wrong clearly. "still.have.nukes", "were.still.here", ...
Possibly Trump has saved them a difficult slow public decline of the previous supreme leader. Now his 'glorious' martyrdom has ushered in a new generation. Who I've no doubt is also glorious. As all supreme leaders are, right up until they accidentally trip up in a field of land-mines, or jump in front of an incoming rocket.
Unrelated, but I wonder if JDV has even thought about the slow public decline of a supreme leader and how they might be replaced in a tragic accident.
Trump: "I said, 'Why don't we just capture the ship? We could use it. Why did we sink them?' He said, 'It's more fun to sink them.' They like sinking them better."
It took Trump 10 days to create an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, and weaken our alliances worldwide. He put American servicemembers in harm’s way, resulting in seven deaths. None of this made you safer or better off. https://x.com/CaptMarkKelly/status/2031072074114949516
Let's not forget the scores of innocent little girls murdered by the Americans while they were at school.
Comments
The chap in question was an Iranian who specialised in studying the Iranian regime as an academic, IIRC
I suppose I feel a certain sympathy...
And what is the possibility of the Mullahs getting a nuke they unleash above Tel Aviv other than an unlikely, but very high cost [they] can't afford?
The big question is whether Khamenei junior has a son rising through the ranks, but given the need to be at least some kind of cleric of standing within the regime that is no doubt a step too far, they are not that far down the de facto monarchy pipeline that they could justify that.
NEW
Oil prices in FREEFALL to $85 a barrel after these remarks from President Trump to CBS below that the “war is very complete, pretty much… very far ahead” of 4-5 week schedule also US stock market erasing all losses
… then bounces back up to $90 - still below the Friday close, and down from $119.50 peak.
Oh, yes, and Israel and Trump told us last year, when they last bombed, that Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been destroyed. Yet supposedly Iran is close again? So... where they wrong last year or are they wrong now? Or just wrong all the time?
Attacking any time in past few decades would have been better than doing so now, but better late than never.
And Trump was wrong then. I said so at the time.
Kinda reminded me of Octavian and his rather bizarre political career.
They will pull the financial rug.
They have air supremacy, should be pressing on until the regime collapses.
A foolish one.
The Kims in North Korea
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-wins-best-news-channel-at-royal-television-awards-as-yalda-hakim-named-presenter-of-the-year-13515413
Of course if he gets droned that that means nothing, but probably better at opsec than your average mullah.
If regime change is not sought now, then another war is likely again.
The air supremacy advantage should be pressed until the regime collapses. Shame on Trump if he does all this only to TACO out.
And -maybe- the Trump family too.
Iran now has no air force.
I'm still not sure where that leaves us 10 days on - yes, the Iranian regime's capacity to strike at its neighbours seems to have been denuded if not destroyed for now. However, the regime's capacity to strike at its own people seems undiminished and for all the euphoria over Khamanei's death, the theocracy remains very much in power and even more in the Russian camp than before.
Given the nature of the beast and the power of the Internet, I'm not sure how this has damaged radical Muslim fundamentalism either - it can still be exported, the gullible can be radicalised etc, etc.
Presumably in time Iran will re-stock its missiles and drones and we will be back close to where we were 10 days ago and we will go another round of this.
No doubt supporters of Trump will claim a victory but I'm not sure on what grounds. Presuambly, the Gulf States will be more vigilant and will ensure their anti-missile defences are restored and enhanced (which will suit America) but the theocracy will remain in power and the suffering of the Iranian people shows little sign of ending.
There may even be an inverse relationship between being bombed and regime change to democracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cz0g2yg3579t
Is failed State and ethnic war the worst of all outcomes from here - the outcome TACO is trying to avoid?
The question is whether the US public believes it and reward or punish Trump. They seem to have largely been fooled by or not to care about Venezuela.
Whether true or not, it would destabilise and discredit the regime.
Support: 25% (-3 from 2 March)
Oppose: 59% (+10)
yougov.com/en-gb/daily-...
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:utjyvk6axwpvnvnptzptvqoh/post/3mgndnnm4ok2q
Quite a triumph for Badenoch, Farage and the tabloid press.
GB News
Robbie Gibbs GB News
Sky
Sky is definitely the best if a bad lot
Failed state and civil war would be an improvement.
ITV
Channel 4
So he might try that if he wants a quick exit, but perhaps there's still more to come eg trying to get the Kurds in etc.
My third favourite meeting of the year (after Royal Ascot and York Ebor) and 50,000+ will descend on Prestbury Park for four days of quality eating and drinking with some horse racing added.
Three championship level races tomorrow. In the opening Supreme Novices Hurdle, I fancy OLD PARK STAR to give Nicky Henderson a good start to the meeting. In the Arkle Challenge Trophy, I'm against both the front two in the market and prefer KARGESE.
FInally, the Champion Hurdle and again I'm against the fancied runners. I think the front three in the market can all be opposed - it would be wonderful to see GOLDEN ACE retain her title but I think PONIROS is a stand out each way play at 16s.
It is a war actively going on now
Right now Trump is probably mainly concerned to wrap up his Iran war so he can move on to "liberating" Cuba, and then return his attention to Greenland or Canada.
Same also for Gulf States being shot at, albeit they're less important.
If Trump TACOs out here, then I will say that ending the conflict prematurely is a huge mistake and one I wholeheartedly oppose.
@Peston
·
38m
Taco time, already. Or so markets believe. Oil back below $90 and shares up because
https://x.com/Peston/status/2031097751325606093
If there is a TACO now then it’s conceivable that could be followed by:
- a defiant, strengthened Iranian regime that enacts a reign of terror over suspected “traitors” and redoubles its efforts to disrupt the neighbourhood
- an organic uprising and/or coup once the bombs stop, with the IRGC weakened and vulnerable to splits
- a 1990s Iraq style containment situation, with occasional Israeli and US air strikes and continued sanctions, and Iran unable to project power like it used to
- an emollient regime seeking a partial reset with the US, Vietnam style
Or multiple other futures.
Whether Iran has any capability of getting one at this point is unclear.
https://x.com/CaptMarkKelly/status/2031072074114949516
🏳️🌈At the very end of last year we looked again at voting intention by sexual orientation
➡️Reform led 🌹Labour by 11 with straight men
➡️Reform led 🌳Tories by 6 with straight women
➡️Reform led 💚Greens by 6 with gay & bi men
💚Greens led 🌹Labour by 16 (!) among gay & bi women
Crazy times if so
Mind you I did expect Trump to top his escapade off with some nukes, just to cement his name in history.
@samstein
·
48m
The war is basically over, Trump says in this interview. And then you scroll down a few tweets into the thread and he says he's also thinking of taking over the Straight of Hormuz....
https://x.com/samstein/status/2031098031710290385
What's next to distract from the Epstein files ?
Make it stop.
Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
MORE - (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is considering reducing oil sanctions on Russia to help cool a surge in global energy prices triggered by the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, with an announcement possible as soon as Monday, according to three sources familiar with the planning.
https://x.com/phildstewart/status/2031099868685742157
Possibly Trump has saved them a difficult slow public decline of the previous supreme leader. Now his 'glorious' martyrdom has ushered in a new generation. Who I've no doubt is also glorious. As all supreme leaders are, right up until they accidentally trip up in a field of land-mines, or jump in front of an incoming rocket.
Unrelated, but I wonder if JDV has even thought about the slow public decline of a supreme leader and how they might be replaced in a tragic accident.
Trump: "I said, 'Why don't we just capture the ship? We could use it. Why did we sink them?' He said, 'It's more fun to sink them.' They like sinking them better."
Naturally.