There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
(snip) I would feel a lot better if the regime that had just violated the sovereignty of another state by an unprovoked bombing raid had been a respecter of the rule of law and democractic norms that we are supposedly trying to spread aroundt the world.
Which is why I think Obama would have been given a hearing for such an action. And Trump will not - nor give a shit about what anybody else says.
Heading on out. Really top quality thread of analysis on here this morning (as the current events require). Keep it up!
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Except that the US is highly unlikely to sign up to a new body with no veto rights, and a body that claims to represent the democratic world and doesn't have the US in it is going to look pretty silly.
More generally, deeply unpleasant regimes are going to do what they want to do regardless. Any PR figleaves they may pick up along the way are just a bonus for them. When the League of Nations denounced Japan's behaviour in Manchuria, Japan's response was not to admit fault or change its course, but to leave the League. Unless there's a consensus among a group of countries and willingness to act on it then the pieces of paper don't mean very much.
The current parallels with the 1930s aren't exactly controversial. Trump was already clear during his first term that he regards the UN as irrelevant.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I agree that Iranians should get to choose their system.
How do you propose they do that? Perhaps each individual should get a piece of paper on which they each get a vote and freedom to decide?
Of course people change their minds and circumstances change, so they'd need to do the same again periodically. Maybe every 4 to 5 years.
If Starmer were to join military action presumably he would want to follow precedent and get Commons approval. That might be very problematic, hence might inform some of his thinking. We all remember Cameron and Syria.
4D chess moment: perhaps Putin told Trump to strike Iran so that Starmer would exhaust our piddling armed forces in the mountains or Persia and Putin can then sail up the Thames estuary unopposed?
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Except that the US is highly unlikely to sign up to a new body with no veto rights, and a body that claims to represent the democratic world and doesn't have the US in it is going to look pretty silly.
More generally, deeply unpleasant regimes are going to do what they want to do regardless. Any PR figleaves they may pick up along the way are just a bonus for them. When the League of Nations denounced Japan's behaviour in Manchuria, Japan's response was not to admit fault or change its course, but to leave the League. Unless there's a consensus among a group of countries and willingness to act on it then the pieces of paper don't mean very much.
The current parallels with the 1930s aren't exactly controversial. Trump was already clear during his first term that he regards the UN as irrelevant.
Far better that those hypocrites oscillating between saying the attacks are too late as Iran still has the enriched uranium and knowledge, and saying that they're too early as Iran wasn't on the bring of firing a nuke, without a moment of self-reflection.
Well done to Trump for getting dragged to doing the right thing and not chickening out.
Well done to Bibi for having the gumption to do it too.
Alexa give me examples of two thoughtless comments which might come back to bite the commenter on the arse.
It is always safer to say or do nothing: to avoid criticism by inaction.
Sadly, inaction can also lead to very bad results.
I don't think yesterday's actions were particularly helpful. But I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and inaction was leading us to sleepwalk into that position.
Bibi has said Iran has had a nuclear capability every year since 1992. He may be right in 2025*, but the evidence is as reliable as Blair's Dodgy Dossier. Bibi is losing support in Israel for his inhumanity in Gaza, particularly to the hostages. If Bibi loses power and he likely goes to jail. Bibi needs a diversion and Trump is his useful idiot.
* Maybe there remains some wisdom in safety first, but maybe not.
Would you prefer the IAEA to Bibi?
"The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.
Nineteen of the 35 countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted for the motion, which was backed by the US, UK, France and Germany.
It says Iran's "many failures" to provide the IAEA with full answers about its undeclared nuclear material and activities constitutes non-compliance. It also expresses concern about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons."
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
I don't believe wanting to see the back of the evil regime in Tehran and questioning whether this particular raid, as the action of a frightened old man in his bunker in Washington, was a folly are mutually exclusive.
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
The knowledge in the public domain should be enough.
For civilian purposes you don't enrich uranium past 3.5% typically, 5% max.
The only purpose 60% plus uranium serves is nuclear weapons.
Anyone denying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is utterly delusional.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
Over time, this is far more likely to be a driver of nuclear proliferation. The lesson here is that signing up to the non proliferation treaty opens you up to being bombed. Nations are much more likely now to do deals with (eg) Pakistan on the QT.
Ukraine giving up a giant nuclear arsenal on the basis of "assurances" - then suffering a decade of war from a still nuclear armed neighbour - will prove a bigger driver to nuclear proliferaton.
IMO this one will reinforce that, as it removes any residual fig leaf that the US Govt has even a shred of respect for the international order which has been the basis of their dominance for 80 years, where they just confected (or here, were tricked into confecting) as war at will.
Trump and MAGA want a world of strong men, where strong men dominate and do what they want. That's President McKinley era policy from the 1890s in the Americas.
So the logical step for everyone else is to be little strong men, to be able to defend themselves not being able to rely on international law etc any more.
So they will all want nuclear weapons.
Trump has bought - maybe - a short period of dominance, that may outlast him. Then it is back to the void left where the previous order used to be.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
So far Starmer has played it reasonably well. Particularly the Diego Garcia part. His best next move is the stfu.
Is there greater personal jeopardy here for Starmer than a beer and a curry in Durham during COVID?
There is considerable jeopardy from the left not least because he is PM and cannot shut up
But never forget, Starmer is a lawyer, and one who has got a long way from where he started. He is perfectly capable of saying something that says nothing, if that's what the moment calls for. As is the case here.
And yes, the hard left will moan, but they always moan. Meanwhile, the right are going to be torn between those who are nostalgic for Great British Power and those who have recognised that money spent on power isn't going to be available to spend on them.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Obama negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran that Trump abandoned
That's the big counter factual - what would have happened had Trump 1 tried harder to 'improve' it ? (That assumes a capacity in him which probably doesn't exist, but still.)
It's reasonably likely that the regime, while wanting nuclear capacity, didn't actually want nuclear weapons - Khamenei seems ideologically opposed to them for religious reasons. A bargain which normalised relations might have been possible; and containing their nuclear program much more so.
Given the Iranian regime is behind attacks on Israeli civilians, I doubt their religious beliefs would stop them going further.
There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Obama negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran that Trump abandoned
That's the big counter factual - what would have happened had Trump 1 tried harder to 'improve' it ? (That assumes a capacity in him which probably doesn't exist, but still.)
It's reasonably likely that the regime, while wanting nuclear capacity, didn't actually want nuclear weapons - Khamenei seems ideologically opposed to them for religious reasons. A bargain which normalised relations might have been possible; and containing their nuclear program much more so.
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
This basically drives a lot of thinking these days.
Imagine “BoZo” had come out with this a couple of days before the US bombed Iran
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
The knowledge in the public domain should be enough.
For civilian purposes you don't enrich uranium past 3.5% typically, 5% max.
The only purpose 60% plus uranium serves is nuclear weapons.
Anyone denying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is utterly delusional.
One other things that leans me towards Israel has seen something. They are already fighting on 3 fronts and absolutely no guarantee the US (or anybody else) would assist them and launching this war they just burned years of Mossad infiltration.
Those that say it's just Bibi survival strategy, perhaps, but he can have his forever wars with the likes of Hamas for that.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Obama negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran that Trump abandoned
That's the big counter factual - what would have happened had Trump 1 tried harder to 'improve' it ? (That assumes a capacity in him which probably doesn't exist, but still.)
It's reasonably likely that the regime, while wanting nuclear capacity, didn't actually want nuclear weapons - Khamenei seems ideologically opposed to them for religious reasons. A bargain which normalised relations might have been possible; and containing their nuclear program much more so.
Programme.
This was an exclusively US operation. And my hypothetical concerned the US.
As before, if you bring pedantry, at least make it appropriate.
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
This basically drives a lot of thinking these days.
Imagine “BoZo” had come out with this a couple of days before the US bombed Iran
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
That's tough to predict. As in the 50s, Iran is a divided society. An imposed regime change might stick for a decade or more, as Kermit Roosevelt's operation did. Who's assuming it would be a democracy ?
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
I agree, it is best if regime change happens via internal forces. And many inside Iran have tried to topple their regime; and the regime have acted in brutal ways in response. So I understand your claim that you want the Iranian people to choose the kind of government they get. But that isn't going to happen without help or encouragement, however subtle.
In your view, how do we get to the happy state of the Iranian people deciding the kind of government they live under?
And this mattes not just for the Iranian people; Iran's leadership are massively interfering in the affairs of other countries, and not just neighbouring ones.
Well done to Trump for getting dragged to doing the right thing and not chickening out.
Well done to Bibi for having the gumption to do it too.
Alexa give me examples of two thoughtless comments which might come back to bite the commenter on the arse.
Barty has been full in on bombing Iran for quite some time, so it's not entirely thoughtless. I believe he's also in favour of imposing regime change, which the administration has shied away from.
He certainly has little regard for collateral damage (see also Iraq and Gaza).
It will be a while before we know how this plays out, of course.
Talking of collateral damage, what impact is this going to have on our own Jewish community, when the vast majority of our population is opposed to the consequences of this patent manipulation by Netanyahu?
Whether the US strikes have done enough to destroy all the Iranian nuclear sites is the key. Anyway looks like no direct involvement from the UK, even the launch sites in the Pacific
Good morning
Jonathan Reynolds on Sky confirmed the government were informed of the plans by the US
I would just add that trying to exempt the UK from any adverse consequences of last night's operation ignores that Iran, and its allies, perceive all western nations as enemies to their interests and as such we are very much less safe this morning
To that respect nothing has changed. It isn't a war we need to immerse ourselves within directly or indirectly, or grandstand on behalf of the orange toddler.
Bearing in mind the trouble Blair got us into over Iraq, I am shocked that Patel and Shapps on behalf of Team Kemi are marching in front of Trump and Bibi.
No shock in the right supporting Trump in this action and it is the left who will be in turmoil as I indicated in my reply to @stodge at 9.06
Far more interesting is the American right. There's a lot of MAGA types really unhappy with this. They backed Trump as the man to end American involvement in foreign wars, not to start new wars.
Who is to say the Trump will continue to participate in the war. Unless Iran actually hits an American target in a way that requires a response this may well be it..
Good question. It's personal with Trump not geopolitical. He has got his Military Moment and it's a good one. It's big, it's dramatic, he looks strong and decisive, and it's low in risk to the only thing he cares about - himself and his brand. He was played by Netanyahu but nevertheless he would have been up for it. It's definitely not a given that we see ongoing US involvement in any war in the Middle East that may or may not unfold.
Well done to Trump for getting dragged to doing the right thing and not chickening out.
Well done to Bibi for having the gumption to do it too.
Alexa give me examples of two thoughtless comments which might come back to bite the commenter on the arse.
Barty has been full in on bombing Iran for quite some time, so it's not entirely thoughtless. I believe he's also in favour of imposing regime change, which the administration has shied away from.
He certainly has little regard for collateral damage (see also Iraq and Gaza).
It will be a while before we know how this plays out, of course.
Talking of collateral damage, what impact is this going to have on our own Jewish community, when the vast majority of our population is opposed to the consequences of this patent manipulation by Netanyahu?
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
Well done to Trump for getting dragged to doing the right thing and not chickening out.
Well done to Bibi for having the gumption to do it too.
Alexa give me examples of two thoughtless comments which might come back to bite the commenter on the arse.
Barty has been full in on bombing Iran for quite some time, so it's not entirely thoughtless. I believe he's also in favour of imposing regime change, which the administration has shied away from.
He certainly has little regard for collateral damage (see also Iraq and Gaza).
It will be a while before we know how this plays out, of course.
Talking of collateral damage, what impact is this going to have on our own Jewish community, when the vast majority of our population is opposed to the consequences of this patent manipulation by Netanyahu?
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
This basically drives a lot of thinking these days.
Imagine “BoZo” had come out with this a couple of days before the US bombed Iran
Lord Faulkner on Sky has just said that any attack on US personnel or bases would give the UK the right to assist the US, as they are an ally
That's a really odd point. An attack is not necessary for us to help an ally: we can do so at any time as allowed by law. There's a difference between a "right" and an "obligation"
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
This basically drives a lot of thinking these days.
Imagine “BoZo” had come out with this a couple of days before the US bombed Iran
Lord Faulkner on Sky has just said that any attack on US personnel or bases would give the UK the right to assist the US, as they are an ally
That's a really odd point. An attack is not necessary for us to help an ally: we can do so at any time as allowed by law. There's a difference between a "right" and an "obligation"
Lord Faulkner on Sky has just said that any attack on US personnel or bases would give the UK the right to assist the US, as they are an ally
That's a really odd point. An attack is not necessary for us to help an ally: we can do so at any time as allowed by law. There's a difference between a "right" and an "obligation"
Lord Faulkner on Sky has just said that any attack on US personnel or bases would give the UK the right to assist the US, as they are an ally
That's a really odd point. An attack is not necessary for us to help an ally: we can do so at any time as allowed by law. There's a difference between a "right" and an "obligation"
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
This basically drives a lot of thinking these days.
Imagine “BoZo” had come out with this a couple of days before the US bombed Iran
Hodges, wrong about everything usually, manages to 'stopped clock' on SKS' "The biggest problem of all is that Keir Starmer increasingly seems to view his role as not being British Prime Minister at all, so much as some form of glorified global marriage guidance counsellor.
"Which begs a question. Given the recent implosion of his economic policy, his pensions policy, his welfare policy, his immigration policy, his law and order policy, his policy on defence spending, his policy on the **** and half a dozen other major areas, if our Prime Minister is now losing his grip on vital international affairs, what exactly is the point of him?"
DAN HODGES: When is Keir Starmer going to learn he is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not a glorified global marriage guidance councillor... Keir Starmer was blindsided by strikes on Iran. I knew in April the finishing touches were being put to what Netanyahu dubbed Operation Rising Lion. Tehran knew. Washington knew. But our Prime Minister appears to have been blindsided...
Very sad news. One of the good'uns. I always think back to what could have been if he hadn't injured his knee, he had pace at the time virtually nobody was used to facing.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
The italicised bit is the middle step of three, usually represented by a '?' for the underpants gnomes between collecting the underpants and receiving the profits.
Good morning all. It is, weather-wise, if not in global politics.
I've been a bit of a political nerd nearly all my life, from adolescence onwards, and all that time it has seemed to me that whatever the Iranian government, and sometimes the people, have wanted to do has been deemed a Bad Idea by the people at the top of the US and UK. And frequently Action Has Had To Be Taken to prevent or discourage whatever it was that the Iranians wanted to do.
Generally speaking, whatever Action has been taken has not turned out well for anyone, especially the poor souls who actually live in Iran, who are now living in a country where the major decisions, especially about lifestyle, are taken by elderly men with social views which would have made Cromwell's more extreme followers shake their heads with concern.
It would therefore, I suggest, be a good idea if we could create a situation where the Iranian people could elect the government that want, free from religious control. However, I could understand it if the Iranians, generally, felt that the way the current Israeli government is treating the native Palestinians, frequently but not always their co-religionists, fell well below any normally accepted standards of fairness.
As I said when I started, I've watched this scene develop for some seventy years and while it seems to me there is wrong and right on both sides in the region, I'm firmly off the opinion that the UK should keeps it's nose, and especially it's weapons, as far away as possible. And confine ourselves to giving humanitarian aid as necessary.
On nuclear matters, the Iranians have been lying scumbags. Anyone who thought they were going to honour it was a dupe. There is no good nature to appeal to when a theocracy states its intention on a daily basis to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.
Perhaps, but...
Lots of intelligence sources say Iran had no imminent weapon capability. Bibi has been lying about that for decades
He finally found a patsy dumb enough to do his dirty work
I have no love for the Iranian regime, but only Trump/Bibi could make then seem like sympathetic figures in this
Trump is a bad man. Ergo everything he does is bad. Trump attacks the Iranian mullahs nuclear programme. Ergo I am sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs.
This basically drives a lot of thinking these days.
Imagine “BoZo” had come out with this a couple of days before the US bombed Iran
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
I understand in theory the security in a tricky position (something that perhaps the government could clarify), but it is clearly pointless for Tesco to employ any if they are just going to stand with their hands in their pockets smiling away.
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
The knowledge in the public domain should be enough.
For civilian purposes you don't enrich uranium past 3.5% typically, 5% max.
The only purpose 60% plus uranium serves is nuclear weapons.
Anyone denying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is utterly delusional.
Unless you are building a submarine nuclear reactor in the style of the US/UK or the French - which use 90% enriched uranium. One of the whines about the Australian sub deal was that this would mean transferring weapons grade uranium to Australia.
Whether the US strikes have done enough to destroy all the Iranian nuclear sites is the key. Anyway looks like no direct involvement from the UK, even the launch sites in the Pacific
Good morning
Jonathan Reynolds on Sky confirmed the government were informed of the plans by the US
I would just add that trying to exempt the UK from any adverse consequences of last night's operation ignores that Iran, and its allies, perceive all western nations as enemies to their interests and as such we are very much less safe this morning
To that respect nothing has changed. It isn't a war we need to immerse ourselves within directly or indirectly, or grandstand on behalf of the orange toddler.
Bearing in mind the trouble Blair got us into over Iraq, I am shocked that Patel and Shapps on behalf of Team Kemi are marching in front of Trump and Bibi.
No shock in the right supporting Trump in this action and it is the left who will be in turmoil as I indicated in my reply to @stodge at 9.06
Far more interesting is the American right. There's a lot of MAGA types really unhappy with this. They backed Trump as the man to end American involvement in foreign wars, not to start new wars.
Wars are expensive. Supporting Israel in a long war is expensive. MAGA hoped to DOGE the cost - but the BBB will cover it when they raise the debt ceiling by $5tn
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
The knowledge in the public domain should be enough.
For civilian purposes you don't enrich uranium past 3.5% typically, 5% max.
The only purpose 60% plus uranium serves is nuclear weapons.
Anyone denying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is utterly delusional.
Unless you are building a submarine nuclear reactor in the style of the US/UK or the French - which use 90% enriched uranium. One of the whines about the Australian sub deal was that this would mean transferring weapons grade uranium to Australia.
I don't think an Aukus grade nuclear submarine classes as a "civilian purpose" though.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
The entire area produces much more history than can be consumed and absorbed locally. Neither the Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th century nor the great war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire of 602-628 have been forgotten (Persians nicked the true cross from captured Jerusalem in that one). Nor have Abraham (4000 years ago if at all?) nor David (3000 years ago if at all?) been forgotten.
Hodges, wrong about everything usually, manages to 'stopped clock' on SKS' "The biggest problem of all is that Keir Starmer increasingly seems to view his role as not being British Prime Minister at all, so much as some form of glorified global marriage guidance counsellor.
"Which begs a question. Given the recent implosion of his economic policy, his pensions policy, his welfare policy, his immigration policy, his law and order policy, his policy on defence spending, his policy on the **** and half a dozen other major areas, if our Prime Minister is now losing his grip on vital international affairs, what exactly is the point of him?"
DAN HODGES: When is Keir Starmer going to learn he is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not a glorified global marriage guidance councillor... Keir Starmer was blindsided by strikes on Iran. I knew in April the finishing touches were being put to what Netanyahu dubbed Operation Rising Lion. Tehran knew. Washington knew. But our Prime Minister appears to have been blindsided...
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
The knowledge in the public domain should be enough.
For civilian purposes you don't enrich uranium past 3.5% typically, 5% max.
The only purpose 60% plus uranium serves is nuclear weapons.
Anyone denying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is utterly delusional.
Unless you are building a submarine nuclear reactor in the style of the US/UK or the French - which use 90% enriched uranium. One of the whines about the Australian sub deal was that this would mean transferring weapons grade uranium to Australia.
I don't think an Aukus grade nuclear submarine classes as a "civilian purpose" though.
I also don't think Iran are doing that.
Iran have no interest in compact reactors.
The material for the Australian subs will come under the NPT, and will require a fair bit of paperwork.
The “Big Four” accountants are cutting jobs and scaling back graduate recruitment programmes as they turn to artificial intelligence (AI) to do entry-level work.
The professional services giants Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC have cut hundreds of roles over the past two years as they seek to keep up £1m payouts to partners in the face of a downturn in the consulting market.
The cutbacks mean they will take on hundreds fewer school leavers and university graduates compared with in 2023, with AI able to do some of the administrative tasks they would have been given.
The Israeli military recovered the bodies of two Israeli hostages and a soldier from the Gaza Strip in an operation on Saturday, it said in a statement.
Lord Faulkner on Sky has just said that any attack on US personnel or bases would give the UK the right to assist the US, as they are an ally
That's a really odd point. An attack is not necessary for us to help an ally: we can do so at any time as allowed by law. There's a difference between a "right" and an "obligation"
We are ruled by lawyers and legal obsessives.
It's easy to be very relaxed about the rule of law when you live in a country that possesses it. Some legal obsessives (not my term) are in courts every day all over the USA on behalf of people and institutions who would like it back.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
The entire area produces much more history than can be consumed and absorbed locally. Neither the Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th century nor the great war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire of 602-628 have been forgotten (Persians nicked the true cross from captured Jerusalem in that one). Nor have Abraham (4000 years ago if at all?) nor David (3000 years ago if at all?) been forgotten.
I've been struck when meeting some Iranians how anti-islamic they are. Some also see themselves as the genuine Aryans, rather than north Europeans, and with some historical justification ; hence the country's name.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
The entire area produces much more history than can be consumed and absorbed locally. Neither the Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th century nor the great war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire of 602-628 have been forgotten (Persians nicked the true cross from captured Jerusalem in that one). Nor have Abraham (4000 years ago if at all?) nor David (3000 years ago if at all?) been forgotten.
There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Obama negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran that Trump abandoned
That's the big counter factual - what would have happened had Trump 1 tried harder to 'improve' it ? (That assumes a capacity in him which probably doesn't exist, but still.)
It's reasonably likely that the regime, while wanting nuclear capacity, didn't actually want nuclear weapons - Khamenei seems ideologically opposed to them for religious reasons. A bargain which normalised relations might have been possible; and containing their nuclear program much more so.
Programme.
This was an exclusively US operation. And my hypothetical concerned the US.
As before, if you bring pedantry, at least make it appropriate.
Lucky bringing the linguistic imperialism, I think.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
The entire area produces much more history than can be consumed and absorbed locally. Neither the Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th century nor the great war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire of 602-628 have been forgotten (Persians nicked the true cross from captured Jerusalem in that one). Nor have Abraham (4000 years ago if at all?) nor David (3000 years ago if at all?) been forgotten.
I've been struck when meeting some Iranians how anti-islamic they are. Some also see themselves as the genuine Aryans, rather than north Europeans, and with some historical justification ; hence the country's name.
It is highly charged as an issue. Persian language was and is Indo European not Semitic, and not Turkic. So in the most ancient structure of things Iran is ethnically and linguistically one of ours - or we are one of theirs - just as, for example, Greeks and Icelanders seem unlikely candidates for sharing a language heritage.
But putting Farsi into Arabic script + Islamicisation means that we tend to see themj as 'other'. In reverse, Turkey being in NATO and using Roman script means we tend to see them as less 'other' than they and we really are.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
I was at a meeting in our local library the other day and there was a female teenage work-experience (or something) assistant wandering about with her mobile phone half in and half out of the back pocket of her tight shorts. I spoke to the librarian afterwards (can't go commenting to teenage girls about what they've got attached to their backsides) and suggested that if she wanted the phone stolen she was going the right way about it.
I see the bloke is shoving his loot into a Waitrose carrier bag that you have to pay for. Presumably that's where he does his legal shopping.
Why does Tesco employ a security guy? He does nothing presumable as he has been ordered to do.
Would you risk your life on minimum wage to protect Tesco profits? The only way you're stopping those lads is by using violence against them. Why risk getting done for assault if it goes mental?
I see the bloke is shoving his loot into a Waitrose carrier bag that you have to pay for. Presumably that's where he does his legal shopping.
Why does Tesco employ a security guy? He does nothing presumable as he has been ordered to do.
Intimidation (ha!) and protection for the store staff.
My local Tesco franchise is still using their innovative approach. The dodgy cousin of the manager hangs out there and attacks shop lifters. He’s not paid or employed by the store…
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
I have never experienced or seen this, fortunate to live in a part of the country where at the moment it is not accepted by anyone as a way of acting. But what would be, beyond hand waving and unicorns, Reform's way of tackling it which seriously distinguishes them from the status quo and is affordable?
There are few commentators on here more visceral in their dislike of Trump than me. But you have to wonder if the world would be a better place if it had been Obama undertaking this raid, back when he had the chance.
All tyrannical regimes will do what they can to push their boundaries when they can - literally in Russia's case - unless put back in ther box with a painful smackdown. Opportunities have been missed to do this to RUssia, North Korea and Iran.
The UN is clearly now pointless. It is certainly time for a new format - without veto rights - that the democratic world can sign up to. We must rob these deeply unpleasant regimes of the get out "well, the UN didn't stop us...".
Obama negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran that Trump abandoned
That's the big counter factual - what would have happened had Trump 1 tried harder to 'improve' it ? (That assumes a capacity in him which probably doesn't exist, but still.)
It's reasonably likely that the regime, while wanting nuclear capacity, didn't actually want nuclear weapons - Khamenei seems ideologically opposed to them for religious reasons. A bargain which normalised relations might have been possible; and containing their nuclear program much more so.
Programme.
This was an exclusively US operation. And my hypothetical concerned the US.
As before, if you bring pedantry, at least make it appropriate.
Lucky bringing the linguistic imperialism, I think.
Not at all. It makes no difference whether it was a US operation. It wasn't the official title of an American initiative or organisation (like the Department of Defense) where I agree the US spelling would be appropriate, therefore the correct spelling still applies.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
The entire area produces much more history than can be consumed and absorbed locally. Neither the Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th century nor the great war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire of 602-628 have been forgotten (Persians nicked the true cross from captured Jerusalem in that one). Nor have Abraham (4000 years ago if at all?) nor David (3000 years ago if at all?) been forgotten.
I've been struck when meeting some Iranians how anti-islamic they are. Some also see themselves as the genuine Aryans, rather than north Europeans, and with some historical justification ; hence the country's name.
It is highly charged as an issue. Persian language was and is Indo European not Semitic, and not Turkic. So in the most ancient structure of things Iran is ethnically and linguistically one of ours - or we are one of theirs - just as, for example, Greeks and Icelanders seem unlikely candidates for sharing a language heritage.
But putting Farsi into Arabic script + Islamicisation means that we tend to see themj as 'other'. In reverse, Turkey being in NATO and using Roman script means we tend to see them as less 'other' than they and we really are.
Indeed. Although as mentioned a few times by me, I think modern Turks range from Greeks on several of the coasts to many other origins.
Whether the US strikes have done enough to destroy all the Iranian nuclear sites is the key.
Destroying the existing sites is one thing
Have they destroyed the enriched material? Iran says they already moved it.
Have they destroyed the programme? Iran says "You can't bomb knowledge"
Exactly. The HEU Iran already has has to be seized or destroyed. That's the problem, not the current enrichment sites. If Iran keeps the material it can produce a crude inefficient bomb directly, or undertake a moderate amount of enrichment done slowly to produce more and better weapons. Destroying the major sites has made any inspection or surveillance more difficult.
I would guess that one way or another in 10-20 years time Iran could have the bomb, and they could do it a lot sooner if simply assembling a few junk bombs is considered enough for a minimal detterent.
Not terribly surprised by the morning's news. One can argue it's a good argument for non-proliferation but I don't recall American planes bombing Indian, Pakistani and North Korean let alone Israeli nuclear production facilities.
I suppose it comes down to the truth you have to be a particular class of lunatic to be afforded the privilege of being denied nuclear weapons by force.
I'm musing more on the domestic political impact. While the pro-Palestine groups continue to agitate in parts of the country (my part of London as an example), I've not yet seen a big upswing in activity directly resulting from the conflict between Israel and Iran - that might change with the overt US intervention.
It will continue to perpetuate the other current schism in UK politics - not the one on the so-called "Right" but the one on the so-called "Left" between Labour and a coalition of young Muslim voters and former pro-Corbyn supporters. The latter are more interesting at a local level as they have been campaigning strongly and effectively on the failings of London Labour Councils and may well capture a number of seats at the next London locals next year.
You make a very important point that the right will support Trump's actions, but the left will be in turmoil
Even before last night we had the left on manoeuvres to coalesce around Corbyn over the proposal to prescribe the PLA, a real rebellion over the benefit reductions, and now this
Where this goes for Starmer is highly unpredictable
I would never regard myself as on either the "right" or the "left" to be honest but I see more advantages for the region and the world in a non-nuclear Iran than a nuclear Iran.
That being said, regime change isn't a policy option for me - the Iranians themselves are the only ones who should decide what kind of Government under which they wish to live whether it ber theocracy, democracy or monarchy or some combination of all three.
Iran also has the right to defend itself and we should respect its territorial integrity and independence just as it must respect everyone else's.
How this plays out longer term I don't know - it will harden the resolve of those on the "left" who are opposed to the current incarnation of Labour and will see it as mark 2 Blairism but that politics electorally was pretty successful domestically.
I generally agree with your point. However, the Iranian people *cannot* decide what kind of government they live under: they do not get to vote for the supreme leader, or members of the ruling council. And they never will get that choice until there is a regime change.
Yes but the question is does a changed regime have legitimacy if the change is imposed by an external power or does it have legitimacy if it is facilitated by an external power?
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
There are a quite a few reports that Khomenei used some of the same criminals from Savak to repress the population in the 1980"s.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
The entire area produces much more history than can be consumed and absorbed locally. Neither the Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th century nor the great war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire of 602-628 have been forgotten (Persians nicked the true cross from captured Jerusalem in that one). Nor have Abraham (4000 years ago if at all?) nor David (3000 years ago if at all?) been forgotten.
I've been struck when meeting some Iranians how anti-islamic they are. Some also see themselves as the genuine Aryans, rather than north Europeans, and with some historical justification ; hence the country's name.
Islam is, essentially, an Arabic religion. It has expanded since and, unfortunately, while it once adapted itself to local cultures it has become much less accomodating in recent decades. V S Naipaul spotted this years ago, and his two books, Among the Believers, and Beyond Belief, proved to be prescient. Still well worth a read.
I see the bloke is shoving his loot into a Waitrose carrier bag that you have to pay for. Presumably that's where he does his legal shopping.
Why does Tesco employ a security guy? He does nothing presumable as he has been ordered to do.
Would you risk your life on minimum wage to protect Tesco profits? The only way you're stopping those lads is by using violence against them. Why risk getting done for assault if it goes mental?
No, I get that. So why not just get rid of the job? Save a minimum wage.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
I was at a meeting in our local library the other day and there was a female teenage work-experience (or something) assistant wandering about with her mobile phone half in and half out of the back pocket of her tight shorts. I spoke to the librarian afterwards (can't go commenting to teenage girls about what they've got attached to their backsides) and suggested that if she wanted the phone stolen she was going the right way about it.
Phone thieves don't ride their scooters through libraries.
That's the trouble with a lot of crime prevention advice. It's about context. Basically you should avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And to think they rejected my application to join the Nudge Unit.
Incidentally, the next thing the Americans might do is send the B2s back to hunt mobile MRBM launchers in Iran.
It’s the longer range ballistic missiles that are testing the Israeli defences - higher velocities…
The B2 was originally designed to hunt Soviet mobile ICBM launchers - it has a rather nice radar designed specifically for that task.
I would think politically Trump might think he’s stretched the MAGA isolationists as far as he dare for now. And rely on Israel to take care of that. The potential thorny problem is if the enriched material made it out before the strike - 16 heavy trucks reported to have visited in recent days. One assumes they weren’t just taking Oppenheimer dvds with them. If so I can imagine a second volley in the next 24 hours targeted at that problem, which is fairly justifiable to the Maga base.
One counterfactual to these unnamed intelligence sources saying no evidence to every journalist who will listen. Trump has been doing everything to get out of being involved and staked his presidency on peace maker. Trump really wants that Nobel Peace Prize. We also know Mossad have infiltrated a lot further into Iranian society than was thought possible, they are closest to the real goings on.
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
Since he landed Ukraine with a large bill for US help, perhaps he has an IOU from Bibi (for Cash)
Whether the US strikes have done enough to destroy all the Iranian nuclear sites is the key.
Destroying the existing sites is one thing
Have they destroyed the enriched material? Iran says they already moved it.
Have they destroyed the programme? Iran says "You can't bomb knowledge"
Exactly. The HEU Iran already has has to be seized or destroyed. That's the problem, not the current enrichment sites. If Iran keeps the material it can produce a crude inefficient bomb directly, or undertake a moderate amount of enrichment done slowly to produce more and better weapons. Destroying the major sites has made any inspection or surveillance more difficult.
I would guess that one way or another in 10-20 years time Iran could have the bomb, and they could do it a lot sooner if simply assembling a few junk bombs is considered enough for a minimal detterent.
That assumes they can keep it secret from Us/Israeli/Saudi spy networks. Or that the rest of the world suffers under supine leadership and does nothing about it
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
I have never experienced or seen this, fortunate to live in a part of the country where at the moment it is not accepted by anyone as a way of acting. But what would be, beyond hand waving and unicorns, Reform's way of tackling it which seriously distinguishes them from the status quo and is affordable?
I see this on a regular basis. I don't know what Reform's plan would be. I'm not a Reform supporter, I've never voted for Reform, and wouldn't want them anywhere near government. As to what should be done? I dunno, im not the one in charge of Law and Order. The government (rightly) cracked down hard on the riots/ inciting tweets and general moronic behaviour at the beginning of their government. Maybe bunging a few quid at a task force for a few months? Come down hard when they're somerimes caught? Under cover cops in areas that are hotspot for a week or two to nab them?. Maybe crack a few skulls? Definitely don't let the police announce that they ain't showing up for shoplifting under 200 quid.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
I was at a meeting in our local library the other day and there was a female teenage work-experience (or something) assistant wandering about with her mobile phone half in and half out of the back pocket of her tight shorts. I spoke to the librarian afterwards (can't go commenting to teenage girls about what they've got attached to their backsides) and suggested that if she wanted the phone stolen she was going the right way about it.
Phone thieves don't ride their scooters through libraries.
That's the trouble with a lot of crime prevention advice. It's about context. Basically you should avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And to think they rejected my application to join the Nudge Unit.
She's got to go home though, even if only walking to a car-park. Anyway she didn't look old enough to drive.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
I understand in theory the security in a tricky position (something that perhaps the government could clarify), but it is clearly pointless for Tesco to employ any if they are just going to stand with their hands in their pockets smiling away.
They're obviously there to deter the less brazen shoplifters. Stopping kids from coming in to the store in larger groups, and making sure that anyone knows that they'll be watched/approached if they do try anything.
The people in this video simply don't care about being caught, and are quite happy to be filmed. There's a good chance they're homeless, or heroin addicts, and have little to lose. If you shut the doors and called the police, you're looking at potential injuries to staff, and likely much more expense in terms of damage if they try to kick open the doors, or smash a few things up.
Most people, and most kids who would potentially shoplift, are unlikely to want to be take those chances, be videoed, be recognised by staff, and would be unlikely to resort quickly to violence if they're approached. That's who security is there to deter.
Incidentally, the next thing the Americans might do is send the B2s back to hunt mobile MRBM launchers in Iran.
It’s the longer range ballistic missiles that are testing the Israeli defences - higher velocities…
The B2 was originally designed to hunt Soviet mobile ICBM launchers - it has a rather nice radar designed specifically for that task.
I would think politically Trump might think he’s stretched the MAGA isolationists as far as he dare for now. And rely on Israel to take care of that. The potential thorny problem is if the enriched material made it out before the strike - 16 heavy trucks reported to have visited in recent days. One assumes they weren’t just taking Oppenheimer dvds with them. If so I can imagine a second volley in the next 24 hours targeted at that problem, which is fairly justifiable to the Maga base.
I thought Vance looked like he’d rather be anywhere else at Trumps presser.
I see the bloke is shoving his loot into a Waitrose carrier bag that you have to pay for. Presumably that's where he does his legal shopping.
Why does Tesco employ a security guy? He does nothing presumable as he has been ordered to do.
Would you risk your life on minimum wage to protect Tesco profits? The only way you're stopping those lads is by using violence against them. Why risk getting done for assault if it goes mental?
No, I get that. So why not just get rid of the job? Save a minimum wage.
Even my local tesco express was apparently doing an all items free offer this week, the cashier serving me was unimpressed (and ill put her down as 'Reform')
The ne'er-do-wells know that no one will stop them, the police won't show up, there's very little chance they'll get caught and if they're unlucky enough to actually get caught, they'll get told not to be naughty again and be on their merry way. Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
I have never experienced or seen this, fortunate to live in a part of the country where at the moment it is not accepted by anyone as a way of acting. But what would be, beyond hand waving and unicorns, Reform's way of tackling it which seriously distinguishes them from the status quo and is affordable?
hmm. Re-criminalize, high profile prosecutions, disproportionate sentences. the london/southport riot model.
I don't have a strong view on the US bombing Iran, which I realise is an inadequate take. My observations for what they are worth.
Iran is in a very bad way - Israel has done an effective job of eliminating Iran's proxies Hezbollah and Hamas acting as a protective shield, as well as destroying much of Iran's military capability.
Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a wider war in the Middle East and hopes this will be a one off raid. This is the president who was forced into a deal with tuppenny halfpenny terrorists in Yemen after a raid on them didn't deliver the definitive outcome he was hoping for.
Yesterday's raid on Fordow probably doesn't make much difference. Either Iran will recover and go onto make a bomb or they weren't that close in the first place.
Incidentally, the next thing the Americans might do is send the B2s back to hunt mobile MRBM launchers in Iran.
It’s the longer range ballistic missiles that are testing the Israeli defences - higher velocities…
The B2 was originally designed to hunt Soviet mobile ICBM launchers - it has a rather nice radar designed specifically for that task.
I would think politically Trump might think he’s stretched the MAGA isolationists as far as he dare for now. And rely on Israel to take care of that. The potential thorny problem is if the enriched material made it out before the strike - 16 heavy trucks reported to have visited in recent days. One assumes they weren’t just taking Oppenheimer dvds with them. If so I can imagine a second volley in the next 24 hours targeted at that problem, which is fairly justifiable to the Maga base.
I thought Vance looked like he’d rather be anywhere else at Trumps presser.
Major policy stance of Vance's version of MAGA was no more wars in middle east. Hilarious watching the contortions now.
Comments
Heading on out. Really top quality thread of analysis on here this morning (as the current events require). Keep it up!
Trump was already clear during his first term that he regards the UN as irrelevant.
How do you propose they do that? Perhaps each individual should get a piece of paper on which they each get a vote and freedom to decide?
Of course people change their minds and circumstances change, so they'd need to do the same again periodically. Maybe every 4 to 5 years.
What could we call such a system?
Is it that the Isealis showed him new evidence? Now is it real or it is a Bad Al dodgy dossier?
As of last week, 60% of Americans felt the US should not get involved in the war between Iran and Israel, while 16% thought it should.
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1936585870125212140
If it doesn't, then the domestic political effect will be dwarfed by other issues.
"The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.
Nineteen of the 35 countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted for the motion, which was backed by the US, UK, France and Germany.
It says Iran's "many failures" to provide the IAEA with full answers about its undeclared nuclear material and activities constitutes non-compliance. It also expresses concern about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o
For civilian purposes you don't enrich uranium past 3.5% typically, 5% max.
The only purpose 60% plus uranium serves is nuclear weapons.
Anyone denying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is utterly delusional.
Trump and MAGA want a world of strong men, where strong men dominate and do what they want. That's President McKinley era policy from the 1890s in the Americas.
So the logical step for everyone else is to be little strong men, to be able to defend themselves not being able to rely on international law etc any more.
So they will all want nuclear weapons.
Trump has bought - maybe - a short period of dominance, that may outlast him. Then it is back to the void left where the previous order used to be.
And yes, the hard left will moan, but they always moan. Meanwhile, the right are going to be torn between those who are nostalgic for Great British Power and those who have recognised that money spent on power isn't going to be available to spend on them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/22/uk-nuclear-warhead-base-aldermaston
https://x.com/herdimmunity12/status/1936662319100309939?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Those that say it's just Bibi survival strategy, perhaps, but he can have his forever wars with the likes of Hamas for that.
There's a crucial difference - the Iranian people changing their own regime is one thing - I'd welcome it, most on here would and, if following some transitional period, they chose their next Government via a free and fair election, I'm sure, whatever that Government looked like, we would support it as a legitimate Government even if we didn't necessarily agree with all its policies.
If, however, the regime was seen to have been toppled from outside, any new Government would be tainted by that action and would lack popular legitimacy and, I suspect, would likely lose any election held because people like to be seen to be making their own decisions and running their own affairs as we apparently showed nine years ago.
Just as an aside, the theorcratic revolution in 1979 was widely supported within Iran as people at that time wanted an end to the rule of the Shah and the infamous SAVAK secret police.
And my hypothetical concerned the US.
As before, if you bring pedantry, at least make it appropriate.
As in the 50s, Iran is a divided society. An imposed regime change might stick for a decade or more, as Kermit Roosevelt's operation did.
Who's assuming it would be a democracy ?
In your view, how do we get to the happy state of the Iranian people deciding the kind of government they live under?
And this mattes not just for the Iranian people; Iran's leadership are massively interfering in the affairs of other countries, and not just neighbouring ones.
The problem for the West in Iran is that the CIA and MI6 removal of Mossadegh, who was not in broad terms a brute, has not been forgotten.
Happened in Kilburn tescos yesterday.
https://x.com/CrimeLdn/status/1936680557062001151
Narrator - no such party was formed
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1936698406619185582#m
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14834485/US-Israel-planning-strike-Iran-Keir-Starmer-Trump.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c07d973k0zzo
It is, weather-wise, if not in global politics.
I've been a bit of a political nerd nearly all my life, from adolescence onwards, and all that time it has seemed to me that whatever the Iranian government, and sometimes the people, have wanted to do has been deemed a Bad Idea by the people at the top of the US and UK. And frequently Action Has Had To Be Taken to prevent or discourage whatever it was that the Iranians wanted to do.
Generally speaking, whatever Action has been taken has not turned out well for anyone, especially the poor souls who actually live in Iran, who are now living in a country where the major decisions, especially about lifestyle, are taken by elderly men with social views which would have made Cromwell's more extreme followers shake their heads with concern.
It would therefore, I suggest, be a good idea if we could create a situation where the Iranian people could elect the government that want, free from religious control. However, I could understand it if the Iranians, generally, felt that the way the current Israeli government is treating the native Palestinians, frequently but not always their co-religionists, fell well below any normally accepted standards of fairness.
As I said when I started, I've watched this scene develop for some seventy years and while it seems to me there is wrong and right on both sides in the region, I'm firmly off the opinion that the UK should keeps it's nose, and especially it's weapons, as far away as possible.
And confine ourselves to giving humanitarian aid as necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiQSl6Br8es
I also don't think Iran are doing that.
It’s the longer range ballistic missiles that are testing the Israeli defences - higher velocities…
The B2 was originally designed to hunt Soviet mobile ICBM launchers - it has a rather nice radar designed specifically for that task.
The material for the Australian subs will come under the NPT, and will require a fair bit of paperwork.
The professional services giants Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC have cut hundreds of roles over the past two years as they seek to keep up £1m payouts to partners in the face of a downturn in the consulting market.
The cutbacks mean they will take on hundreds fewer school leavers and university graduates compared with in 2023, with AI able to do some of the administrative tasks they would have been given.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/22/city-giants-replace-graduate-jobs-with-ai/
Forget Iran getting nukes, if Starmer could stop this sort of thing, I'd vote Labour in the next election.
But putting Farsi into Arabic script + Islamicisation means that we tend to see themj as 'other'. In reverse, Turkey being in NATO and using Roman script means we tend to see them as less 'other' than they and we really are.
I spoke to the librarian afterwards (can't go commenting to teenage girls about what they've got attached to their backsides) and suggested that if she wanted the phone stolen she was going the right way about it.
My local Tesco franchise is still using their innovative approach. The dodgy cousin of the manager hangs out there and attacks shop lifters. He’s not paid or employed by the store…
I would guess that one way or another in 10-20 years time Iran could have the bomb, and they could do it a lot sooner if simply assembling a few junk bombs is considered enough for a minimal detterent.
That's the trouble with a lot of crime prevention advice. It's about context. Basically you should avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And to think they rejected my application to join the Nudge Unit.
I don't know what Reform's plan would be. I'm not a Reform supporter, I've never voted for Reform, and wouldn't want them anywhere near government.
As to what should be done? I dunno, im not the one in charge of Law and Order.
The government (rightly) cracked down hard on the riots/ inciting tweets and general moronic behaviour at the beginning of their government. Maybe bunging a few quid at a task force for a few months? Come down hard when they're somerimes caught? Under cover cops in areas that are hotspot for a week or two to nab them?. Maybe crack a few skulls?
Definitely don't let the police announce that they ain't showing up for shoplifting under 200 quid.
Anyway she didn't look old enough to drive.
The people in this video simply don't care about being caught, and are quite happy to be filmed. There's a good chance they're homeless, or heroin addicts, and have little to lose. If you shut the doors and called the police, you're looking at potential injuries to staff, and likely much more expense in terms of damage if they try to kick open the doors, or smash a few things up.
Most people, and most kids who would potentially shoplift, are unlikely to want to be take those chances, be videoed, be recognised by staff, and would be unlikely to resort quickly to violence if they're approached. That's who security is there to deter.
Iran is in a very bad way - Israel has done an effective job of eliminating Iran's proxies Hezbollah and Hamas acting as a protective shield, as well as destroying much of Iran's military capability.
Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a wider war in the Middle East and hopes this will be a one off raid. This is the president who was forced into a deal with tuppenny halfpenny terrorists in Yemen after a raid on them didn't deliver the definitive outcome he was hoping for.
Yesterday's raid on Fordow probably doesn't make much difference. Either Iran will recover and go onto make a bomb or they weren't that close in the first place.