i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
NEW: The CIA has been working to arm Kurdish forces with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran, multiple people familiar with the plan told CNN.
Iranian Kurdish opposition forces are expected to take part in a ground operation in Western Iran in the coming days and they expect US and Israeli support, a senior Iranian Kurdish official told CNN.
Some observations after Day 4 of what we can pretty much define as a war.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
My fear is at least a chance Iran and its proxies result to terrorism as payback - people stepping out of boats on a beach and opening fire, bombs in party going tourist areas etc. cruise ships hijacked, Jews shot first, yanks second, brits third etc. years of waves of terror against Brits, yanks, westerners. How can you reassure me this is not heading towards that?
Oh all that should happen but proper terror networks, whether direct Iranian or proxy, need funding. No funds, they start to die. Take the regime apart, the networks will have problems longer term. Short term they should be at it already and you have to expect that something will occur somewhere within the next week or two.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
If Starmer and his AG believe that the US and Israel acted unlawfully then he should say so explicitly instead of making insinuations.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
Why would you take the AGs advice over other qualified individuals?
The AG has long been an advocate on this issue, he is not some impartial individual.
Carney and Albanese, both firm critics of Trump, saw the same law and said "we support this" - and quite right too!
If you want something domestic, this is an excellent piece by the former Advocate General of the Armed Forces for nearly two decades who is quite clear on the issue too and comes to the opposite position to Hermer: https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
The opposition here by Starmer and Hermer is politics, not law.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
If Starmer and his AG believe that the US and Israel acted unlawfully then he should say so explicitly instead of making insinuations.
Why? He kept us out of it. He doesn’t have to then go around attacking a close ally like he’s Donald Trump. Trump wouldn’t care what we think so there’s nothing to be gained.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
If Starmer and his AG believe that the US and Israel acted unlawfully then he should say so explicitly instead of making insinuations.
Why? He kept us out of it. He doesn’t have to then go around attacking a close ally like he’s Donald Trump. Trump wouldn’t care what we think so there’s nothing to be gained.
I don't believe they do think it was unlawful and I think they're being disingenuous in claiming that was the reason for the refusal.
There’s a lot of politics kicking off using the one Hezbollah drone causing slight damage to airfield in Cyprus as their cause. EU v UK politics. Local Politics at that end of the Med, exactly the same as in Indian Ocean that pressured us to surrender Chagos. Exactly the same pressure. Exactly the same scenario.
Should we now bow to the inevitable, and give up the Cyprus bases in same way we have surrendered Chagos?
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
Why would you take the AGs advice over other qualified individuals?
The AG has long been an advocate on this issue, he is not some impartial individual.
Carney and Albanese, both firm critics of Trump, saw the same law and said "we support this" - and quite right too!
If you want something domestic, this is an excellent piece by the former Advocate General of the Armed Forces for nearly two decades who is quite clear on the issue too and comes to the opposite position to Hermer: https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
The opposition here by Starmer and Hermer is politics, not law.
Carney said he thinks it’s inconsistent with international law and a sign of the break down of the international order. Australia was more supportive.
But basically, to think that this (especially something this big) was justified as an act of self defence you have to make assumptions about the threat that are clearly bollocks. Basically you have to want law and be looking for an excuse.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
Why would you take the AGs advice over other qualified individuals?
The AG has long been an advocate on this issue, he is not some impartial individual.
Carney and Albanese, both firm critics of Trump, saw the same law and said "we support this" - and quite right too!
If you want something domestic, this is an excellent piece by the former Advocate General of the Armed Forces for nearly two decades who is quite clear on the issue too and comes to the opposite position to Hermer: https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
The opposition here by Starmer and Hermer is politics, not law.
Carney said he thinks it’s inconsistent with international law and a sign of the break down of the international order. Australia was more supportive.
But basically, to think that this (especially something this big) was justified as an act of self defence you have to make assumptions about the threat that are clearly bollocks. Basically you have to want law and be looking for an excuse.
Apart from words, what are Canada and Australia actually doing and giving in support?
Any UK conservative going along with this utter embarrassment should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Kemi.
Trump lashes out at the United Kingdom:
"The UK has been very uncooperative... They've ruined relationships... They got windmills all over the place that are ruining the country, ruining the landscapes, ruining the beautiful fields... You have Sharia courts adjudicating law." https://x.com/AdamJSchwarz/status/2028886573878517870
Farage, of course, is too dedicated to arselicking to be capable of shame.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
I’ll take the AG’s advice on international law thanks.
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
Why would you take the AGs advice over other qualified individuals?
The AG has long been an advocate on this issue, he is not some impartial individual.
Carney and Albanese, both firm critics of Trump, saw the same law and said "we support this" - and quite right too!
If you want something domestic, this is an excellent piece by the former Advocate General of the Armed Forces for nearly two decades who is quite clear on the issue too and comes to the opposite position to Hermer: https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
The opposition here by Starmer and Hermer is politics, not law.
Carney said he thinks it’s inconsistent with international law and a sign of the break down of the international order. Australia was more supportive.
But basically, to think that this (especially something this big) was justified as an act of self defence you have to make assumptions about the threat that are clearly bollocks. Basically you have to want law and be looking for an excuse.
Yes, he said that despite decades of resolutions, the IAEA, sanctions etc the threat still remains.
This is absolutely valid as self-defence under all existing rules of self-defence. It is self-defence because Iran is quite literally attacking other nations bot directly and indirectly, so those nations and their allies have a right to respond.
And the threat of a nuclear Iran is so existential that the right to self-defence applies there too. Not that it is needed, since Iran is already at war with the West and Israel.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
How on Earth otherwise sensible people can't see this. We're basically having WW3 to protect wealthy paedophiles. And folk are blaming Starmer for not getting stuck in?
How on Earth otherwise sensible people can't see this. We're basically having WW3 to protect wealthy paedophiles. And folk are blaming Starmer for not getting stuck in?
Starmer’s judgment is a lot better than I thought.
Carney has totally vindicated his position in my eyes.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
No doubt he is worried about leaking Liberal votes to the NDP and Canadian Greens who have come out against the US and Israeli strikes on Iran. His position he backed the strikes 'with regret' for their impact on international law now looks like Kerry's 'I voted for the Iraq War before I voted against it' position from 2004 and makes even SKS' position look concise and clear by comparison
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
Just a thought, but the potential new Supreme leader may actually be one of the biggest drivers of regime change in Iran. The pick may well cause a reaction both within the state apparatus and amongst the masses.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law binds so we call for de-escalation"
No doubt he is worried about leaking Liberal votes to the NDP and Canadian Greens who have come out against the US and Israeli strikes on Iran
He can finesse that. I think he screwed up by not referencing any legal authority. At some point the judgement he referred to in the video would be made, maybe it already has, and he would be found to have acted illegally. So he has to pretend his original position wasn't the actual one.
Some observations after Day 4 of what we can pretty much define as a war.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
My fear is at least a chance Iran and its proxies result to terrorism as payback - people stepping out of boats on a beach and opening fire, bombs in party going tourist areas etc. cruise ships hijacked, Jews shot first, yanks second, brits third etc. years of waves of terror against Brits, yanks, westerners. How can you reassure me this is not heading towards that?
Oh all that should happen but proper terror networks, whether direct Iranian or proxy, need funding. No funds, they start to die. Take the regime apart, the networks will have problems longer term. Short term they should be at it already and you have to expect that something will occur somewhere within the next week or two.
When I gave this a like, it’s not that it’s great news to hear, but thanking you for answering with learned opinion.
What the use of the heavy bombers shows, is that Iran now has no meaningful air defences remaining.
Or the Americans have run out of proper targets.
The B-52s carry pretty much the same range of weaponry as the B1s. The B2 has a more restricted capability, IIRC.
The B52s are used either for standoff strikes with long Lange missiles, or dropping large numbers of smart weapons. The days of intervelometers and hundreds of dumb 250lbrs are long gone.
The B52s are the only planes that can carry the largest precision deep penetration bombs to hit deep bunkers.
If you got that from me, I got it wrong: the B2 carries the bigger one. My bad.
There’s a lot of politics kicking off using the one Hezbollah drone causing slight damage to airfield in Cyprus as their cause. EU v UK politics. Local Politics at that end of the Med, exactly the same as in Indian Ocean that pressured us to surrender Chagos. Exactly the same pressure. Exactly the same scenario.
Should we now bow to the inevitable, and give up the Cyprus bases in same way we have surrendered Chagos?
The situations aren't really comparable, because a significant proportion of the population regard the bases as insurance against further incursions by Turkey, and another significant proportion also has strong family and cultural ties to Britain. Then you have another significant group who welcome the economic benefit, and another minority proportion who regard the bases as intolerable colonies.
What the use of the heavy bombers shows, is that Iran now has no meaningful air defences remaining.
Or the Americans have run out of proper targets.
The B-52s carry pretty much the same range of weaponry as the B1s. The B2 has a more restricted capability, IIRC.
The B52s are used either for standoff strikes with long Lange missiles, or dropping large numbers of smart weapons. The days of intervelometers and hundreds of dumb 250lbrs are long gone.
From memory, I think the B52s can carry the deep penetration bunker-busters and the B1s cannot. B1 goes in, destroys the surface stuff, command and control. F18/F35 joins in and kills the air defence. F22 rules the skies. B52 then does the deep underground destruction. Basically the USAF can over time kill what it wants.
My memory was wrong. The B2 carries the bigger bunker-buster bombs. My bad ☹️
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
Even if this madness past the international law test no one with an ounce of military strategic sense would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
Even if this madness past the international law test no one with an ounce of military strategic sense would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
How do you know there is no plan or strategy?
On day one the Ayatollah, many Generals and many other leaders were liquidated.
That seems to have a detail of planning that is remarkable.
We are still not even a week in, and today many more senior leaders have been reported killed - and you claim no plan?
UK foreign policy is choked by lawyers, says departing diplomat
And thank the Lord for that. Otherwise it'd be the Daily fucking Mail.
Or, and this might be a novel concept to you, it could be ran by a democratically elected Government accountable to a democratically elected Parliament?
Some observations after Day 4 of what we can pretty much define as a war.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
My fear is at least a chance Iran and its proxies result to terrorism as payback - people stepping out of boats on a beach and opening fire, bombs in party going tourist areas etc. cruise ships hijacked, Jews shot first, yanks second, brits third etc. years of waves of terror against Brits, yanks, westerners. How can you reassure me this is not heading towards that?
Oh all that should happen but proper terror networks, whether direct Iranian or proxy, need funding. No funds, they start to die. Take the regime apart, the networks will have problems longer term. Short term they should be at it already and you have to expect that something will occur somewhere within the next week or two.
When I gave this a like, it’s not that it’s great news to hear, but thanking you for answering with learned opinion.
How secure are cruise ships from terror attack?
Depends how you want to attack them but there are much easier targets to go after. Anything on land for a start. Bear in mind that profile, of which a cruise ship is very high profile, requires a lot of work whilst mowing down some off duty Americans in Italy or Germany much more straightfirward. The Achille Lauro back in the day was an exception more tham a rule.
There’s a lot of politics kicking off using the one Hezbollah drone causing slight damage to airfield in Cyprus as their cause. EU v UK politics. Local Politics at that end of the Med, exactly the same as in Indian Ocean that pressured us to surrender Chagos. Exactly the same pressure. Exactly the same scenario.
Should we now bow to the inevitable, and give up the Cyprus bases in same way we have surrendered Chagos?
The situations aren't really comparable, because a significant proportion of the population regard the bases as insurance against further incursions by Turkey, and another significant proportion also has strong family and cultural ties to Britain. Then you have another significant group who welcome the economic benefit, and another minority proportion who regard the bases as intolerable colonies.
I think it’s identical. To add some details to what I mean. We know now UK is not top of list who Cyprus wants help from! Cyprus leaders did not ask the UK for any help because they clearly don’t like us and are flipping angry UK - they claim - made them a target in this war.
Making sense of all the funny bits of Cyprus centric emphasis Starmer was making Monday afternoon - that I certainly didn’t appreciate at the time, how UK government flooded the UK media with “but the drone hit before Starmer spoke” - the Cypriot government has angrily and publically criticised the UK for "dragging" the island into the Middle East conflict.
Following the drone strike - according to Cyprus PM and President it is Starmer’s fault dragging Cyprus into this war - so Greece reached out to Germany, Italy, France and Greece to help them. Greece and France are deploying anti-drone systems to the island, Greece has deployed warships and fighter jets. France frigates and aircraft carrier. furious Cyprus may seek to negotiate the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) to only be used for humanitarian purposes in future, not as launchpads for any offensive strikes ever again.
I sense Cyprus political leaders don’t want us there. Where you said they need us for security, insurance from Turkey, I’m sure Cyprus now thinking they have the EU for that! And Israel! Whatever cultural ties to UK, the ties to EU member Greece will be stronger. Not just UK offensive war bases make them a target, we blew up their power station and left them without power! It was “local pressures” and long standing hatred of British Empire that done for UK having no choice but surrender Chagos, and its the same scenario now in Cyprus. Exactly the same.
Meanwhile, Greece and Cyprus have also developed deep strategic partnerships with Israel, including joint military drills. Perhaps as consequence, Hezbollah and Hamas have for years been threatening Cyprus and Greece, so maybe no surprise drones have come from Hezbollah towards Cyprus, and it not simply down to presence of UK military bases. The US Treasury has sanctioned Turkish-registered companies for helping Hezbollah evade sanctions and move Iranian funds and goods - Turkey normally favour Hamas not Shia Hezbollah, but working together now due to sharing common enemies. Yokes - who we all listen to for expertise in these things - has told us to now expect terrorists atrocities - my mind thinking Cyprus or Greece at end of exam season when tourism ramps up 😕
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
Even if this madness past the international law test no one with an ounce of military strategic sense would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
How do you know there is no plan or strategy?
On day one the Ayatollah, many Generals and many other leaders were liquidated.
That seems to have a detail of planning that is remarkable.
We are still not even a week in, and today many more senior leaders have been reported killed - and you claim no plan?
Fine. We are never going to agree on this one.
Let's see where this madness is in, say, three months time.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
Even if this madness past the international law test no one with an ounce of military strategic sense would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
How do you know there is no plan or strategy?
On day one the Ayatollah, many Generals and many other leaders were liquidated.
That seems to have a detail of planning that is remarkable.
We are still not even a week in, and today many more senior leaders have been reported killed - and you claim no plan?
Fine. We are never going to agree on this one.
Let's see where this madness is in, say, three months time.
Or three years time, or ten years time.
I think we're much more likely to have a free Persia thanks to these actions than if they were not taken.
What the use of the heavy bombers shows, is that Iran now has no meaningful air defences remaining.
Or the Americans have run out of proper targets.
The B-52s carry pretty much the same range of weaponry as the B1s. The B2 has a more restricted capability, IIRC.
The B52s are used either for standoff strikes with long Lange missiles, or dropping large numbers of smart weapons. The days of intervelometers and hundreds of dumb 250lbrs are long gone.
The B52s are the only planes that can carry the largest precision deep penetration bombs to hit deep bunkers.
If you got that from me, I got it wrong: the B2 carries the bigger one. My bad.
Actually a key use of the B52s in Iran will just as likely be carpet bombing with conventional bombs. The B52s have been used plenty in over target battlefield bombing, rather than stand off missile carrying. Its a brutally effective way to take out large military facilities and, if the Iranians are stupid enough to stack their stuff in a row, large formations. You want to get your opponents to decide to change into civilian clothes, its a couple of those just circling about dropping a lot of munitions. The B52s came into play last 24 hours though exactly what they were doing is an open question.
Its notable that those non B2 bomber flights seem not to be running from the US tonight at least. That suggests they are coming from somewhere else, like 'that island' which makes that conventional bomber role a lot more viable than having to lug them over the Atlantic.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
Even if this madness past the international law test no one with an ounce of military strategic sense would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
How do you know there is no plan or strategy?
On day one the Ayatollah, many Generals and many other leaders were liquidated.
That seems to have a detail of planning that is remarkable.
We are still not even a week in, and today many more senior leaders have been reported killed - and you claim no plan?
Fine. We are never going to agree on this one.
Let's see where this madness is in, say, three months time.
Or three years time, or ten years time.
I think we're much more likely to have a free Persia thanks to these actions than if they were not taken.
UK foreign policy is choked by lawyers, says departing diplomat
And thank the Lord for that. Otherwise it'd be the Daily fucking Mail.
Or, and this might be a novel concept to you, it could be ran by a democratically elected Government accountable to a democratically elected Parliament?
See. That's exactly what's happening. A democratically elected government is choosing to listen to its lawyers rather than the Daily Mail. What's your issue here exactly? That their advice isn't kill, kill, kill? That may be a novel concept for you.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Carney massively rowing back his position. "It's for the United States and Israel to make the case ... prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law" "Canada wasn't asked to participate. ... International law books so we call for de-escalation"
He’s totally shat the bed but now looks stupid as he joined in. And people still think Starmer was wrong to avoid this altogether?
Agreed. International law shouldn't be a fetish, but rather a North star to guide your actions. If you ignore it as Carney did, you tend to screw up badly.
Even if this madness past the international law test no one with an ounce of military strategic sense would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
How do you know there is no plan or strategy?
On day one the Ayatollah, many Generals and many other leaders were liquidated.
That seems to have a detail of planning that is remarkable.
We are still not even a week in, and today many more senior leaders have been reported killed - and you claim no plan?
Fine. We are never going to agree on this one.
Let's see where this madness is in, say, three months time.
Or three years time, or ten years time.
I think we're much more likely to have a free Persia thanks to these actions than if they were not taken.
Remember the state of Iran predates the Islamic revolution, and was chosen deliberately as a name to convey the non-ethnic nature of the state. “Persia”, if it sees a resurgence as an identity, means a turn back to ethno-nationalism. It would be like renaming the UK “England”. We should be hoping for a liberal, democratic and multi-ethnic Iran, not a new Persia.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So, not being an expert on this race, I assume Cornyn is the relatively moderate Republican and Paxton is a swivel-eyed MAGA loon?
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So, not being an expert on this race, I assume Cornyn is the relatively moderate Republican and Paxton is a swivel-eyed MAGA loon?
Indeed.
So loony, in fact that the Republican controlled Texas House of Representatives passed an impeachment vote against him. He's also a scandal magnet, from both a financial and personal perspective. Were he to win, and to face Talarico, I can see quite a few Republicans simply sitting out the race.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So, not being an expert on this race, I assume Cornyn is the relatively moderate Republican and Paxton is a swivel-eyed MAGA loon?
Indeed.
So loony, in fact that the Republican controlled Texas House of Representatives passed an impeachment vote against him. He's also a scandal magnet, from both a financial and personal perspective. Were he to win, and to face Talarico, I can see quite a few Republicans simply sitting out the race.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So, not being an expert on this race, I assume Cornyn is the relatively moderate Republican and Paxton is a swivel-eyed MAGA loon?
Indeed.
So loony, in fact that the Republican controlled Texas House of Representatives passed an impeachment vote against him. He's also a scandal magnet, from both a financial and personal perspective. Were he to win, and to face Talarico, I can see quite a few Republicans simply sitting out the race.
Paxton just 2 points behind Cornyn now.
Gap back out to 3 percentage points, witgh 53% in. Cornyn has snatched this, I think.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So, not being an expert on this race, I assume Cornyn is the relatively moderate Republican and Paxton is a swivel-eyed MAGA loon?
Indeed.
So loony, in fact that the Republican controlled Texas House of Representatives passed an impeachment vote against him. He's also a scandal magnet, from both a financial and personal perspective. Were he to win, and to face Talarico, I can see quite a few Republicans simply sitting out the race.
Paxton just 2 points behind Cornyn now.
Gap back out to 3 percentage points, witgh 53% in. Cornyn has snatched this, I think.
Paxton closing the gap, but probably too slowly.
Like like Cornyn v Talarico.
Republicans favourite, but the Dems have a chance.
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
Oh my.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So, not being an expert on this race, I assume Cornyn is the relatively moderate Republican and Paxton is a swivel-eyed MAGA loon?
Indeed.
So loony, in fact that the Republican controlled Texas House of Representatives passed an impeachment vote against him. He's also a scandal magnet, from both a financial and personal perspective. Were he to win, and to face Talarico, I can see quite a few Republicans simply sitting out the race.
Paxton just 2 points behind Cornyn now.
Gap back out to 3 percentage points, witgh 53% in. Cornyn has snatched this, I think.
Regarding Texas: I had forgotten that this is just round one.
Fail to make 50%, and it's through to an early May Round Two, where the top two play each other.
So, it's Cornyn v Paxton in early May, while Talarico looks likely to avoid a run off against Crockett.
That's good news for the Dems, because Cornyn and Paxton will continue to attack each other and spend campaign funds, while Talrico will be able to concentrate on fund raising.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
So how do you justify machine gunning ambulances?
Fundamentally Gaza wasn’t genocide. What it was a complete disregard for the lives of civilians and other innocents. It was unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society.
While the aim - the destruction of Hamas - was laudable the methods were intolerable
Comments
As it happens, I personally agree with the premise that much international law is a nonsense, and that we should not be subservient to it. However, that is not the position Parliament has taken and so I respect the fact that that isn’t where we are and I would have to make a case for it in Parliament, and pass an Act clarifying the position for the their lordships.
The AG has long been an advocate on this issue, he is not some impartial individual.
Carney and Albanese, both firm critics of Trump, saw the same law and said "we support this" - and quite right too!
If you want something domestic, this is an excellent piece by the former Advocate General of the Armed Forces for nearly two decades who is quite clear on the issue too and comes to the opposite position to Hermer: https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
The opposition here by Starmer and Hermer is politics, not law.
Trump's DOJ has been quietly removing Epstein files from the DOJ website since the attack in Iran ; CBS reports.
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/2028944343201890382
Should we now bow to the inevitable, and give up the Cyprus bases in same way we have surrendered Chagos?
The UK government has suspended study and work visas for Afghanistan, Sudan, Cameroon and Myanmar in an "unprecedented move"
But basically, to think that this (especially something this big) was justified as an act of self defence you have to make assumptions about the threat that are clearly bollocks. Basically you have to want law and be looking for an excuse.
Trump lashes out at the United Kingdom:
"The UK has been very uncooperative... They've ruined relationships... They got windmills all over the place that are ruining the country, ruining the landscapes, ruining the beautiful fields... You have Sharia courts adjudicating law."
https://x.com/AdamJSchwarz/status/2028886573878517870
Farage, of course, is too dedicated to arselicking to be capable of shame.
https://bsky.app/profile/sarobertson.bsky.social/post/3mg6ua5njax2k
This is absolutely valid as self-defence under all existing rules of self-defence. It is self-defence because Iran is quite literally attacking other nations bot directly and indirectly, so those nations and their allies have a right to respond.
And the threat of a nuclear Iran is so existential that the right to self-defence applies there too. Not that it is needed, since Iran is already at war with the West and Israel.
So it’s inconsistent with international law and you weren’t consulted. If you were consulted you wouldn’t have joined in.
So you…joined in anyway?
What?
His original position was right.
We're basically having WW3 to protect wealthy paedophiles.
And folk are blaming Starmer for not getting stuck in?
Carney has totally vindicated his position in my eyes.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mideast-conflict/article/canadas-support-for-us-striking-iran-came-with-regret-for-global-law-pm-carney/
Politics, not law.
That's politics, not law.
UK foreign policy is choked by lawyers, says departing diplomat
Enter Khamenei's son perhaps....
How secure are cruise ships from terror attack?
There is no strategy. There is no goal. There is no end. There is no exit. There is not even a plan for the resource required this time next week.
Utter utter madness and if it takes some lefty lawyer room-mate AG of Starmer's to spot this - then thank the gods.
Otherwise it'd be the Daily fucking Mail.
On day one the Ayatollah, many Generals and many other leaders were liquidated.
That seems to have a detail of planning that is remarkable.
We are still not even a week in, and today many more senior leaders have been reported killed - and you claim no plan?
Making sense of all the funny bits of Cyprus centric emphasis Starmer was making Monday afternoon - that I certainly didn’t appreciate at the time, how UK government flooded the UK media with “but the drone hit before Starmer spoke” - the Cypriot government has angrily and publically criticised the UK for "dragging" the island into the Middle East conflict.
https://www.politico.eu/article/cyprus-slams-uk-after-akrotiri-drone-strike-forced-locals-to-flee/
Following the drone strike - according to Cyprus PM and President it is Starmer’s fault dragging Cyprus into this war - so Greece reached out to Germany, Italy, France and Greece to help them. Greece and France are deploying anti-drone systems to the island, Greece has deployed warships and fighter jets. France frigates and aircraft carrier. furious Cyprus may seek to negotiate the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) to only be used for humanitarian purposes in future, not as launchpads for any offensive strikes ever again.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/cyprus-hits-uk-drone-attack-105204130.html?guccounter=1
I sense Cyprus political leaders don’t want us there. Where you said they need us for security, insurance from Turkey, I’m sure Cyprus now thinking they have the EU for that! And Israel! Whatever cultural ties to UK, the ties to EU member Greece will be stronger. Not just UK offensive war bases make them a target, we blew up their power station and left them without power! It was “local pressures” and long standing hatred of British Empire that done for UK having no choice but surrender Chagos, and its the same scenario now in Cyprus. Exactly the same.
Meanwhile, Greece and Cyprus have also developed deep strategic partnerships with Israel, including joint military drills. Perhaps as consequence, Hezbollah and Hamas have for years been threatening Cyprus and Greece, so maybe no surprise drones have come from Hezbollah towards Cyprus, and it not simply down to presence of UK military bases. The US Treasury has sanctioned Turkish-registered companies for helping Hezbollah evade sanctions and move Iranian funds and goods - Turkey normally favour Hamas not Shia Hezbollah, but working together now due to sharing common enemies.
Yokes - who we all listen to for expertise in these things - has told us to now expect terrorists atrocities - my mind thinking Cyprus or Greece at end of exam season when tourism ramps up 😕
Let's see where this madness is in, say, three months time.
I think we're much more likely to have a free Persia thanks to these actions than if they were not taken.
Its notable that those non B2 bomber flights seem not to be running from the US tonight at least. That suggests they are coming from somewhere else, like 'that island' which makes that conventional bomber role a lot more viable than having to lug them over the Atlantic.
A democratically elected government is choosing to listen to its lawyers rather than the Daily Mail.
What's your issue here exactly?
That their advice isn't kill, kill, kill?
That may be a novel concept for you.
Subtle as a brick
Right now, the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better position: Cornyn is beating Paxton on the Republican side, and Crockett is beating Talarico.
It's 14% counted (give or take).
Here's the thing: the bits that have declared are the more liberal partas of the State. Very little outside the major cities has come in. So it could still be Paxton v Talarico. Or not.
With 30% in, Talarico has taken the lead over Crockett. He's the moderate Baptist preacher from central casting, who isn't going to scare anyone away.
Cornyn's lead over Paxton is down to four percentage points in the Republican primary with 25% in there. If it's Paxton v Talarico, then (and I know I'll regret saying this) I'd make the Democrats favorites for the Texas Senate seat.
So loony, in fact that the Republican controlled Texas House of Representatives passed an impeachment vote against him. He's also a scandal magnet, from both a financial and personal perspective. Were he to win, and to face Talarico, I can see quite a few Republicans simply sitting out the race.
Although it won't be his birthday in the USA for a few hours, as the game kicks off 0200 UK time
Like like Cornyn v Talarico.
Republicans favourite, but the Dems have a chance.
Fail to make 50%, and it's through to an early May Round Two, where the top two play each other.
So, it's Cornyn v Paxton in early May, while Talarico looks likely to avoid a run off against Crockett.
That's good news for the Dems, because Cornyn and Paxton will continue to attack each other and spend campaign funds, while Talrico will be able to concentrate on fund raising.
Fundamentally Gaza wasn’t genocide. What it was a complete disregard for the lives of civilians and other innocents. It was unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society.
While the aim - the destruction of Hamas - was laudable the methods were intolerable