The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
$20bn for the enriched uranium would be pretty good value.
I think Britain ended up paying £400m for the release of some British citizen the Iranians had imprisoned on the pretext of espionage.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Also St George’s market is fab
The city hall exhibition is worth at least a quick wander round. If only for the architecture...
I was in Belfast when the RSS conference was there. I think you could work out which areas were which from the font on the street signs and the painted kerbstones. The city centre reminded me of Leeds, a fairly decent walkable big town/small city. It doesn't have a WH Smith/TJ Jones, and I couldn't find a Greggs. But I could find a cake shop, which was nice. The Titanic exhibition was unmemorable. The experience was much like other towns: taxi to hotel, check in, look out of window, see higgledy-piggledy architecture, gray clouds, wet green hill/range in background. At street level it was a bit less squalid than GB cities - people dressed not badly, no/fewer homeless, no vape shops - but that might just be because it was over five years ago. We have gone really downhill since the 2010s.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
$20bn for the enriched uranium would be pretty good value.
I think Britain ended up paying £400m for the release of some British citizen the Iranians had imprisoned on the pretext of espionage.
That was an unusual situation where Iran did actually have a case we owed them, although falsely imprisoning someone on trumped up charges as a ransom demand is an unorthodox way of enforcing a contract.
We had taken payment for some military equipment (tanks, I think) before the revolution, then failed to deliver it after the Ayatollah came to power.
Understandable why we wouldn’t deliver the goods, but equally understandable why Iran would want their money back.
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Also St George’s market is fab
The city hall exhibition is worth at least a quick wander round. If only for the architecture...
I was in Belfast when the RSS conference was there. I think you could work out which areas were which from the font on the street signs and the painted kerbstones. The city centre reminded me of Leeds, a fairly decent walkable big town/small city. It doesn't have a WH Smith/TJ Jones, and I couldn't find a Greggs. But I could find a cake shop, which was nice. The Titanic exhibition was unmemorable. The experience was much like other towns: taxi to hotel, check in, look out of window, see higgledy-piggledy architecture, gray clouds, wet green hill/range in background. At street level it was a bit less squalid than GB cities - people dressed not badly, no/fewer homeless, no vape shops - but that might just be because it was over five years ago. We have gone really downhill since the 2010s.
It’s much much better than that. It’s full of character and has some amazing Victorian buildings
Also quite a setting with the water and the mountains. It’s not Wolverhampton
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Yes, I was out leafleting in one of the more run-down estates in a target ward yesterday. Lots of dilapidated housing, young men with aggressive dogs, half-dismantled cars on the front lawns and tattered England flags draped from upstairs windows and flying from many of the lamp posts. It's WWC but is an unemployment hot spot around here with a very Reformy feel to it.
I've seen my first few political posters, about 4 Green and 1 Labour in Kentish Town. Based on this extensive research, I predict the Greens winning lots of seats from Labour across inner London.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
$20bn for the enriched uranium would be pretty good value.
I think Britain ended up paying £400m for the release of some British citizen the Iranians had imprisoned on the pretext of espionage.
That was an unusual situation where Iran did actually have a case we owed them, although falsely imprisoning someone on trumped up charges as a ransom demand is an unorthodox way of enforcing a contract.
We had taken payment for some military equipment (tanks, I think) before the revolution, then failed to deliver it after the Ayatollah came to power.
Understandable why we wouldn’t deliver the goods, but equally understandable why Iran would want their money back.
It's similar to this situation - it's reported to be frozen funds (so actual Iranian money that they left somewhere the US could seize it) rather than the US borrowing money to pay Iran. But it involves the US giving up the leverage of holding onto that money.
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Yes, I was out leafleting in one of the more run-down estates in a target ward yesterday. Lots of dilapidated housing, young men with aggressive dogs, half-dismantled cars on the front lawns and tattered England flags draped from upstairs windows and flying from many of the lamp posts. It's WWC but is an unemployment hot spot around here with a very Reformy feel to it.
I've seen my first few political posters, about 4 Green and 1 Labour in Kentish Town. Based on this extensive research, I predict the Greens winning lots of seats from Labour across inner London.
Lewisham is quite likely to flip from Labour monopoly to Green majority in one go.
Hopefully that might force a change in policy on channels for EVs in on-street parking areas.
Its even stranger how members of the media knew and asked #10 about it, who didn't take this minor matter any further. But who would be shocked if Sir Olly Robbins becomes Lord Olly Robbins in a couple of years.
Breaking: I just spoke to President Trump says he ‘feels good’ about the opening of the Strait but too bad he didn’t have help from NATO which he called a ‘paper tiger’. The Strait is not open as it pertains to Iran he told me. ‘We have to finish the deal before we open it for Iran’. In terms of where it leaves the US / UK relationship and with Sir Keir Starmer: “not good, not good at all”
"Strait of Hormuz: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the vital trade chokepoint is now open to all commercial vessels for the remaining period of the truce, adding that this is in line with the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire."
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Starmer didn't know, No. 10 didn't know, no minister knew, but now it seems that the press knew ages ago. It does not add-up, it appears that it was an open secret that Mandelson was appointed against the advice of the vetting service. If Starmer and No. 10 weren't told so explicitly it was because they wanted to maintain plausible deniability.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
Or Trump could have not binned Obama's deal, and we might be where we now are (assuming this deal goes through) without hundreds of billions of economic damage, and a lot of deaths.
The two biggest criticisms of the JCPOA were sunsets and financial relief that Iran could spend on terrorism.
The deal under discussion has both. That’s not a necessary criticism of diplomacy; it’s a criticism of those who criticized the JCPOA and will support any Trump deal. https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2045121597632094659
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
As I said last night it does seem that Iran has been flummoxed by the blockade because their foreign currency income has overnight dropped to zero which leaves them with little to no room to pay for essential imports. Worse still is that it even leaves the regime without the ability to pay the soldiers which is how they maintain control over the people who hate them.
If Trump had done this three or four weeks ago after the first round of assassinations didn't produce regime change we could have saved a lot of bother.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
And have stopped it as of last night / this morning according to Jones.
I can see that the UKSV report is confidential, I'm struggling with the "UKSV recommendation is confidential". Why would the FCDO civil servants take that responsibility on themselves.
The PM's explanation has to account for both why Robbins had to go if in fact the FCO was not allowed to pass on the information; and secondly why the PM said PeterM had been vetted and cleared outside the HoC but didn't say so inside the HoC if in fact Starmer knew nothing at all; and why various people including Cooper were guarded and careful in their language months ago in order to imply PeterM had cleared vetting but carefully not saying so.
Unconvincing so far. This is sad because nearly all the alternative PMs are much worse than Starmer.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
This is why I come to PB. Where else can we receive these kinds of insights into the inner thoughts of the prime minister's spouse?
To be fair he did vote for Starmer.
Is Leon the only person on here to have actually voted for Starmer in an election? I didn't vote for him as leader and he's not my MP so I am in the clear.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Breaking: I just spoke to President Trump says he ‘feels good’ about the opening of the Strait but too bad he didn’t have help from NATO which he called a ‘paper tiger’. The Strait is not open as it pertains to Iran he told me. ‘We have to finish the deal before we open it for Iran’. In terms of where it leaves the US / UK relationship and with Sir Keir Starmer: “not good, not good at all”
My sense of it is that Trump won't reopen the blockade until all of the enriched uranium is handed over and there's a binding agreement for inspectors at all nuclear sites.
He's actually got Iran by the balls with the blockade. Trump finally has a way to force the regime to his will and I don't see him giving that up.
Breaking: I just spoke to President Trump says he ‘feels good’ about the opening of the Strait but too bad he didn’t have help from NATO which he called a ‘paper tiger’. The Strait is not open as it pertains to Iran he told me. ‘We have to finish the deal before we open it for Iran’. In terms of where it leaves the US / UK relationship and with Sir Keir Starmer: “not good, not good at all”
Starmer will be praying for more of this sort of thing. It’s the only positive he has going for him now.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
That hangdog look as he continued to furiously hump your leg...
Boris? personal remorse? f*** off
Boris was shameful in every aspect of his life, yes, genuinely ashamed, never.
Not true. When Boris was upbraided in the House of Commons for one of his many misdeeds he blushed and looked remorseful. I remember it distinctly because it surprised me: that this apparently amoral, careless and extremely ambitious man also showed evidence of a conscience
There is also the possibility that he was acting and felt no shame, in truth. But even then he’s better than Skyr, who can’t even be bothered to act guilty
I suspect this is because Starmer feels no guilt about anything. He is devoid of a moral compass because he threw his away. He thinks whatever he does is good and right and is incapable of examining his own actions and finding fault
I mean this seriously. Recall this is a man who by his own account never dreams. Who cannot name a favourite poem or novel. He has never wondered if he is extrovert or introvert. Starmer has no inner life, no interiority, at all. That means he has no conscience because that part of his brain is missing
He’s a just a balloon of red faced self regard, otherwise full of air
I was nitpicking at the difference in meanings of shameful v. ashamed, but in any case BJ’s blustering blushes were only discomfort at being found out, no genuine remorse there.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
This is why I come to PB. Where else can we receive these kinds of insights into the inner thoughts of the prime minister's spouse?
To be fair he did vote for Starmer.
Is Leon the only person on here to have actually voted for Starmer in an election? I didn't vote for him as leader and he's not my MP so I am in the clear.
I voted Labour in order that Starmer would be PM if that counts, after voting Tory in GEs for 50 years. The sad bit is that I would vote Labour in a GE tomorrow as the best way to ensure we don't get Reform or Reformlite government. Only Tory, Reform or Labour can win my seat. (And I would vote with a reasonable degree of enthusiasm for my sitting Labour MP.)
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
Or Trump could have not binned Obama's deal, and we might be where we now are (assuming this deal goes through) without hundreds of billions of economic damage, and a lot of deaths.
The two biggest criticisms of the JCPOA were sunsets and financial relief that Iran could spend on terrorism.
The deal under discussion has both. That’s not a necessary criticism of diplomacy; it’s a criticism of those who criticized the JCPOA and will support any Trump deal. https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2045121597632094659
But we're not where Obama was are we ?
Economically Irajn is heading for basket case territory Iran cant fund its proxies Iran has no Navy Iran has no Air force Irans armaments infrastructure is setriously degraded Diplomatically Iran knows the US can come back and do it all again
While you hate Trump it perhaps is worth bringing a bit of balance to where things are,
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
I would be shocked if Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rest aren't building huge oil and gas pipelines that completely bypass the straits. That will have a couple of years worth of lead time but after that there's no leverage left for Iran once the pipelines are built.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Oh, I think it's likely longer than that. The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
The lack of integrity in our leaders in all sorts of sectors has been a problem for some time. It has corroded trust in our institutions. It has made their effective functioning all but impossible. It was the single most important thing for a new government to start repairing. Starmer has failed in this most essential of tasks ever since becoming PM. This is just the latest example.
Why would anyone want to work for him, knowing how he never takes responsibility & blames others. He is not a leader. Why would anyone else show responsibility when this is the example being set from the top?
And so the degradation of our institutions and politics continues.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
I would be shocked if Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rest aren't building huge oil and gas pipelines that completely bypass the straits. That will have a couple of years worth of lead time but after that there's no leverage left for Iran once the pipelines are built.
I hope all those tankers are stocked up and ready to head out in one huge convoy over the next couple of days. Get out now! And send in and refill the next batch of empties while the goings good.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
You lost me at making Boris look morally superior ! Can you point out the signs of personal remorse ?
I think Starmer will have to go eventually but I’m not buying this beatification of Bozo .
Boris knew when he'd done wrong. His regret may have been more over getting caught, perhaps. But he did have a moral compass, even if he considered its directions as mainly advisory rather than binding. Whereas Starmer genuinely appears not to have one. That's not to say he chooses evil over good, he just doesn't seem to haveany instinctive way of telling the difference. It goes no further than "I am in the Labour Party therefore I am one of the good guys." Almost all politicians are guided by something - whether it is what is morally right, or what best fits my principles, or what is best for my country, or what is best for my constituents, or in some lamentable cases what is best for me personally. Starmer appears to have - nothing. Just 'what does the process say I should do'.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Oh, I think it's likely longer than that. The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
Nah, pipelines that transit down through UAE and Oman is how this ends. I'd be shocked if that isn't already being planned.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Oh, I think it's likely longer than that. The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
Nah, pipelines that transit down through UAE and Oman is how this ends. I'd be shocked if that isn't already being planned.
Yes. and then Iran loses a huge chunk 0f its leverage
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Oh, I think it's likely longer than that. The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
Nah, pipelines that transit down through UAE and Oman is how this ends. I'd be shocked if that isn't already being planned.
Qatar can't move its gas field. It's a massive and vulnerable target, as the last few weeks has demonstrated.
And it will take more than three years to build new LNG terminals elsewhere to supply Asian customers.
The lack of integrity in our leaders in all sorts of sectors has been a problem for some time. It has corroded trust in our institutions. It has made their effective functioning all but impossible. It was the single most important thing for a new government to start repairing. Starmer has failed in this most essential of tasks ever since becoming PM. This is just the latest example.
Why would anyone want to work for him, knowing how he never takes responsibility & blames others. He is not a leader. Why would anyone else show responsibility when this is the example being set from the top?
And so the degradation of our institutions and politics continues.
Arguably Welby had a case to stay, Lambeth Palace raised the Smyth case with police and while he could have followed it up it was the police who took years to investigate it.
As for Starmer, if there is clear evidence he was personally told Mandelson failed his vetting then yes he should go but we don't have that yet
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Starmer didn't know, No. 10 didn't know, no minister knew, but now it seems that the press knew ages ago. It does not add-up, it appears that it was an open secret that Mandelson was appointed against the advice of the vetting service. If Starmer and No. 10 weren't told so explicitly it was because they wanted to maintain plausible deniability.
It's all very fishy.
"Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertiliser plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows."
The lack of integrity in our leaders in all sorts of sectors has been a problem for some time. It has corroded trust in our institutions. It has made their effective functioning all but impossible. It was the single most important thing for a new government to start repairing. Starmer has failed in this most essential of tasks ever since becoming PM. This is just the latest example.
Why would anyone want to work for him, knowing how he never takes responsibility & blames others. He is not a leader. Why would anyone else show responsibility when this is the example being set from the top?
And so the degradation of our institutions and politics continues.
Arguably Welby had a case to stay, Lambeth Palace raised the Smyth case with police and while he could have followed it up it was the police who took years to investigate it.
As for Starmer, if there is clear evidence he was personally told Mandelson failed his vetting then yes he should go but we don't have that yet
The lack of integrity in our leaders in all sorts of sectors has been a problem for some time. It has corroded trust in our institutions. It has made their effective functioning all but impossible. It was the single most important thing for a new government to start repairing. Starmer has failed in this most essential of tasks ever since becoming PM. This is just the latest example.
Why would anyone want to work for him, knowing how he never takes responsibility & blames others. He is not a leader. Why would anyone else show responsibility when this is the example being set from the top?
And so the degradation of our institutions and politics continues.
Arguably Welby had a case to stay, Lambeth Palace raised the Smyth case with police and while he could have followed it up it was the police who took years to investigate it.
As for Starmer, if there is clear evidence he was personally told Mandelson failed his vetting then yes he should go but we don't have that yet
Yet.
If that shoe drops, he doesn't last the day. Whatever day that is.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Oh, I think it's likely longer than that. The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
Nah, pipelines that transit down through UAE and Oman is how this ends. I'd be shocked if that isn't already being planned.
Yes. and then Iran loses a huge chunk 0f its leverage
They lose that when there is air defence in depth.
John Bolton not impressed. Which is not a surprise.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 4m Iran will sign anything to get the U.S. out of the region. And once we are gone, they will start rebuilding their nuclear program. This is what has happened for 40 years, and we saw it most recently after the 12 Day War last summer.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
I would be shocked if Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rest aren't building huge oil and gas pipelines that completely bypass the straits. That will have a couple of years worth of lead time but after that there's no leverage left for Iran once the pipelines are built.
Cannot pipelines be attacked ?
Yes, but a section of desert pipeline is easier to replace than a ship. Not worth the missiles or drones vs trying to hit the depot.
Its even stranger how members of the media knew and asked #10 about it, who didn't take this minor matter any further. But who would be shocked if Sir Olly Robbins becomes Lord Olly Robbins in a couple of years.
It might suggest that there were leaks as part of a plot to bring Starmer down but it didn't come off at the time.
The lack of integrity in our leaders in all sorts of sectors has been a problem for some time. It has corroded trust in our institutions. It has made their effective functioning all but impossible. It was the single most important thing for a new government to start repairing. Starmer has failed in this most essential of tasks ever since becoming PM. This is just the latest example.
Why would anyone want to work for him, knowing how he never takes responsibility & blames others. He is not a leader. Why would anyone else show responsibility when this is the example being set from the top?
And so the degradation of our institutions and politics continues.
Arguably Welby had a case to stay, Lambeth Palace raised the Smyth case with police and while he could have followed it up it was the police who took years to investigate it.
As for Starmer, if there is clear evidence he was personally told Mandelson failed his vetting then yes he should go but we don't have that yet
“I’m too important to be responsible”
About 1000x this
"I'm too important to lose my job over being responsible"
Breaking: I just spoke to President Trump says he ‘feels good’ about the opening of the Strait but too bad he didn’t have help from NATO which he called a ‘paper tiger’. The Strait is not open as it pertains to Iran he told me. ‘We have to finish the deal before we open it for Iran’. In terms of where it leaves the US / UK relationship and with Sir Keir Starmer: “not good, not good at all”
No change re UK then. His whinges don't really have an effect anymore since he's already made clear he despises NATO and thinks the UK weak and useless.
I'm sure he can damage us further but no buttkissing will ensure he doesn't rage out the next time he wants Greenland or whatever, so kowtowing makes no sense.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
I would be shocked if Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rest aren't building huge oil and gas pipelines that completely bypass the straits. That will have a couple of years worth of lead time but after that there's no leverage left for Iran once the pipelines are built.
Cannot pipelines be attacked ?
Yes, but a section of desert pipeline is easier to replace than a ship. Not worth the missiles or drones vs trying to hit the depot.
Plus you can bury pipelines - even after the fact.
A berm of 10 meters of sand is just bulldozer work. And would take a direct hit with heavy ordinance to defeat.
John Bolton not impressed. Which is not a surprise.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 4m Iran will sign anything to get the U.S. out of the region. And once we are gone, they will start rebuilding their nuclear program. This is what has happened for 40 years, and we saw it most recently after the 12 Day War last summer.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
I would be shocked if Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rest aren't building huge oil and gas pipelines that completely bypass the straits. That will have a couple of years worth of lead time but after that there's no leverage left for Iran once the pipelines are built.
I doubt Iran wanted to play the card of closing it, but they had few in hand.
John Bolton not impressed. Which is not a surprise.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 4m Iran will sign anything to get the U.S. out of the region. And once we are gone, they will start rebuilding their nuclear program. This is what has happened for 40 years, and we saw it most recently after the 12 Day War last summer.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Perhaps this is one of those moments when two antagonists need to come to blows properly in order to reach a proper accommodation. Both sides realise they can’t get what they originally wanted. It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally it does: the Korean War, arguably. The Northern Irish troubles. FARC in Colombia.
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
I guess we should be cautious. The deal isn't done yet. It would be a surprise if Iran gave up its enriched uranium that easily - we all assumed they'd be desperate to build a bomb to prevent a repeat attack.
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Also, perhaps Iran have now realised they have a WMD: the straits of Hormuz. So less need for nukes.
There is that, but the Strait of Hormuz is a weapon with a half-life comparable to Plutonium-236 (just under 3 years), at best.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
Oh, I think it's likely longer than that. The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
Nah, pipelines that transit down through UAE and Oman is how this ends. I'd be shocked if that isn't already being planned.
That's fine for oil, but much harder for natural gas, because you need liquification plants to turn that pipeline gas into something that can be shipped. (And a similar problem exists for fertilizer.)
And those liquification plants are (a) hella expensive, and (b) have a long lead-time.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Starmer could get back in Trump's good books by offering to design a process that shields the relevant people from knowledge of the details.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Because growing the tax base also eliminates the deficit.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can help deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Looked great at the time but look at us now.
George Osborne also halved Labour's order for new destroyers, cut defence spending by 20 per cent, then cut spending on actual defence by fiddling the figures to include the cost of Trident and pensions.
Even worse, Osborne is a personal friend of well-known security risk Peter Mandelson, who was arrested for urinating in the street after leaving Osborne Towers.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Chump change. Trump knows sensible fuel prices and Dow 50k+ puts him in much better stead for November than how it was last week.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Nonsense
The US Government will pay out $20 billion
The Iranian government will get $20 - X Billion
The size of X and where it lands will be a mystery.
OK, this is getting ridiculous now. No.10 has also begun claiming Olly Robbins was precluded by the rules from sharing information on the vetting. So why did No.10 sack him. If, as they are now asserting, he simply followed the rules.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Chump change. Trump knows sensible fuel prices and Dow 50k+ puts him in much better stead for November than how it was last week.
It does.
Assuming the Straits stay open, petrol prices will start to normalise in the US, and he is in much better shape.
That said... prices will still likely be higher in November than they were a year ago. And there's also pass through inflation, around things like fertilizer, that have still to come through. So, he's not completely out of the woods.
I would say, though, that the Republicans should now be favourites to hold the Senate (albeit probably only narrow ones).
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
$20bn for the enriched uranium would be pretty good value.
I think Britain ended up paying £400m for the release of some British citizen the Iranians had imprisoned on the pretext of espionage.
That was an unusual situation where Iran did actually have a case we owed them, although falsely imprisoning someone on trumped up charges as a ransom demand is an unorthodox way of enforcing a contract.
We had taken payment for some military equipment (tanks, I think) before the revolution, then failed to deliver it after the Ayatollah came to power.
Understandable why we wouldn’t deliver the goods, but equally understandable why Iran would want their money back.
Yes I think we were in the wrong on that front. Either tanks or money back.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Nonsense
The US Government will pay out $20 billion
The Iranian government will get $20 - X Billion
The size of X and where it lands will be a mystery.
The account will start with a T and end with a p...
I’m now waiting at Gare Montparnasse for my train to Vannes
I’ve got myself a (small; 50cl) pint of a French IPA called Barge du Canal. It’s rather good..
Santé!
Appreciate you're passing through but spent last week in Paris, lovely city. Hopefully you'll have more luck with the French transport system than I did !
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Chump change. Trump knows sensible fuel prices and Dow 50k+ puts him in much better stead for November than how it was last week.
It does.
Assuming the Straits stay open, petrol prices will start to normalise in the US, and he is in much better shape.
That said... prices will still likely be higher in November than they were a year ago. And there's also pass through inflation, around things like fertilizer, that have still to come through. So, he's not completely out of the woods.
I would say, though, that the Republicans should now be favourites to hold the Senate (albeit probably only narrow ones).
Before then the heavily trailed Cuban operation will probably have taken place so it's success or failure will be a bigger factor than the state of the Middle East.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Chump change. Trump knows sensible fuel prices and Dow 50k+ puts him in much better stead for November than how it was last week.
It does.
Assuming the Straits stay open, petrol prices will start to normalise in the US, and he is in much better shape.
That said... prices will still likely be higher in November than they were a year ago. And there's also pass through inflation, around things like fertilizer, that have still to come through. So, he's not completely out of the woods.
I would say, though, that the Republicans should now be favourites to hold the Senate (albeit probably only narrow ones).
Six and a half months until the midterms. Plenty of time for Trump to feck something else up, or for attention to return to Epstein, if he stops blowing things up as a distraction.
But I suppose it's also possible that something happens with respect to Cuba that works as well as Venezuela did, and pulling out of NATO might be popular.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Starmer could get back in Trump's good books by offering to design a process that shields the relevant people from knowledge of the details.
We already gave them the jet engine, now you're suggesting we give them the disappearing desk too?
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
Translation: Iran will get $20bn, but has agreed to say nothing about it.
Chump change. Trump knows sensible fuel prices and Dow 50k+ puts him in much better stead for November than how it was last week.
It does.
Assuming the Straits stay open, petrol prices will start to normalise in the US, and he is in much better shape.
That said... prices will still likely be higher in November than they were a year ago. And there's also pass through inflation, around things like fertilizer, that have still to come through. So, he's not completely out of the woods.
I would say, though, that the Republicans should now be favourites to hold the Senate (albeit probably only narrow ones).
Six and a half months until the midterms. Plenty of time for Trump to feck something else up, or for attention to return to Epstein, if he stops blowing things up as a distraction.
But I suppose it's also possible that something happens with respect to Cuba that works as well as Venezuela did, and pulling out of NATO might be popular.
Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs: nothing matters more than whether people can afford to pay their bills.
Boris also survived overriding security concerns to create the KGB-adjacent Lord Lebedev.
I suspect we are on dangerous ground when considering Johnson to be the benchmark.
No, none of this is as bad as the capers Johnson got up to but Starmer was supposed to be above all that. The lame excuses however are at Johnsonian levels of bullshit.
Starmer may not be "technically" lying but he is dancing on the head of a pin. EVERYONE knows Starmer rubber stamped Ambassador Mandelson. It blew up in his face.
Comments
This is better than sex
I think Britain ended up paying £400m for the release of some British citizen the Iranians had imprisoned on the pretext of espionage.
Trump: "IRAN HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THE STRAIT OF IRAN IS FULLY OPEN AND READY FOR FULL PASSAGE. THANK YOU!"
If we end up with Iran getting essentially the same deal they had from Obama all those years ago, then yes what a waste of blood and treasure in the meantime, but that’s better than some of the alternatives.
The best outcome would have been a rapid collapse of the regime in the early days of the war. It would still have been reckless by Trump, but his gamble would have paid off. Israel would not then have had the excuse to start carpet bombing civilians in Lebanon. But that didn’t happen so we are where we are.
Robbins shouldn’t have been made the fall guy though, he did his job properly
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2045120709765042467?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
We had taken payment for some military equipment (tanks, I think) before the revolution, then failed to deliver it after the Ayatollah came to power.
Understandable why we wouldn’t deliver the goods, but equally understandable why Iran would want their money back.
Also quite a setting with the water and the mountains. It’s not Wolverhampton
But perhaps MaxPB was right yesterday when he said that the US blockade was putting severe pressure on the Iranian regime. It could have left Iran in a corner with nowhere to go.
Hopefully that might force a change in policy on channels for EVs in on-street parking areas.
Breaking: I just spoke to President Trump says he ‘feels good’ about the opening of the Strait but too bad he didn’t have help from NATO which he called a ‘paper tiger’. The Strait is not open as it pertains to Iran he told me. ‘We have to finish the deal before we open it for Iran’. In terms of where it leaves the US / UK relationship and with Sir Keir Starmer: “not good, not good at all”
(So, not Trump freelancing this time...)
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/17/world/live-news/iran-war-trump-lebanon-israel-ceasefire
It's all very fishy.
The two biggest criticisms of the JCPOA were sunsets and financial relief that Iran could spend on terrorism.
The deal under discussion has both. That’s not a necessary criticism of diplomacy; it’s a criticism of those who criticized the JCPOA and will support any Trump deal.
https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2045121597632094659
If Trump had done this three or four weeks ago after the first round of assassinations didn't produce regime change we could have saved a lot of bother.
Unconvincing so far. This is sad because nearly all the alternative PMs are much worse than Starmer.
https://x.com/Roshan_Rinaldi/status/2044959149918736591
Closing the Strait of Hormuz in 2035 just isn't going to have the same impact. But I guess they have more immediate problems.
He's actually got Iran by the balls with the blockade. Trump finally has a way to force the regime to his will and I don't see him giving that up.
But we're not where Obama was are we ?
Economically Irajn is heading for basket case territory
Iran cant fund its proxies
Iran has no Navy
Iran has no Air force
Irans armaments infrastructure is setriously degraded
Diplomatically Iran knows the US can come back and do it all again
While you hate Trump it perhaps is worth bringing a bit of balance to where things are,
The oil supply is replaceable/re-routable. The natural gas (and derivatives), which will continue to be a sharp weapon for some time, nowhere near as quickly/easily replaced.
This was at the time of Welby's problems - https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/11/a-british-tradition/.
Every word applies to Starmer now. He is doing no more than invoking the now traditional “I’m too important to be responsible” defence.
Then this - https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/29/wigs-at-dawn/ - about why lawyers are not often good politicians and what Starmer's weaknesses are.
The lack of integrity in our leaders in all sorts of sectors has been a problem for some time. It has corroded trust in our institutions. It has made their effective functioning all but impossible. It was the single most important thing for a new government to start repairing. Starmer has failed in this most essential of tasks ever since becoming PM. This is just the latest example.
Why would anyone want to work for him, knowing how he never takes responsibility & blames others. He is not a leader. Why would anyone else show responsibility when this is the example being set from the top?
And so the degradation of our institutions and politics continues.
Whereas Starmer genuinely appears not to have one. That's not to say he chooses evil over good, he just doesn't seem to haveany instinctive way of telling the difference. It goes no further than "I am in the Labour Party therefore I am one of the good guys."
Almost all politicians are guided by something - whether it is what is morally right, or what best fits my principles, or what is best for my country, or what is best for my constituents, or in some lamentable cases what is best for me personally. Starmer appears to have - nothing. Just 'what does the process say I should do'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c625dd1zjy3o
"Harry and Meghan meet Bondi shooting survivors"
It's a massive and vulnerable target, as the last few weeks has demonstrated.
And it will take more than three years to build new LNG terminals elsewhere to supply Asian customers.
As for Starmer, if there is clear evidence he was personally told Mandelson failed his vetting then yes he should go but we don't have that yet
About 1000x this
So those tankers have got about 48 hours then if they are lucky.
If that shoe drops, he doesn't last the day. Whatever day that is.
*Ukraine waves hello*
John Bolton
@AmbJohnBolton
·
4m
Iran will sign anything to get the U.S. out of the region. And once we are gone, they will start rebuilding their nuclear program. This is what has happened for 40 years, and we saw it most recently after the 12 Day War last summer.
https://x.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/2045140724639809890
I'm sure he can damage us further but no buttkissing will ensure he doesn't rage out the next time he wants Greenland or whatever, so kowtowing makes no sense.
A berm of 10 meters of sand is just bulldozer work. And would take a direct hit with heavy ordinance to defeat.
The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT
And those liquification plants are (a) hella expensive, and (b) have a long lead-time.
Even worse, Osborne is a personal friend of well-known security risk Peter Mandelson, who was arrested for urinating in the street after leaving Osborne Towers.
The US Government will pay out $20 billion
The Iranian government will get $20 - X Billion
The size of X and where it lands will be a mystery.
OK, this is getting ridiculous now. No.10 has also begun claiming Olly Robbins was precluded by the rules from sharing information on the vetting. So why did No.10 sack him. If, as they are now asserting, he simply followed the rules.
Don has had enough of Israel.
Trump says Israel ‘prohibited’ from bombing Lebanon
I’ve got myself a (small; 50cl) pint of a French IPA called Barge du Canal. It’s rather good..
Santé!
Assuming the Straits stay open, petrol prices will start to normalise in the US, and he is in much better shape.
That said... prices will still likely be higher in November than they were a year ago. And there's also pass through inflation, around things like fertilizer, that have still to come through. So, he's not completely out of the woods.
I would say, though, that the Republicans should now be favourites to hold the Senate (albeit probably only narrow ones).
Insert Windsor Davies gif.
Season 3 of Picard.
Trump: "Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World! President DONALD J. TRUMP"
But I suppose it's also possible that something happens with respect to Cuba that works as well as Venezuela did, and pulling out of NATO might be popular.
Bibi and Don were displaying Liz Truss levels of IQ if they didn’t think Iran would block the Strait of Hormuz.
And PB overreacted once again.
Keir Starmer says the UK will lead a defensive military mission with France to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz
No, none of this is as bad as the capers Johnson got up to but Starmer was supposed to be above all that. The lame excuses however are at Johnsonian levels of bullshit.
Starmer may not be "technically" lying but he is dancing on the head of a pin. EVERYONE knows Starmer rubber stamped Ambassador Mandelson. It blew up in his face.