The Middle East conflict

[Killingworth]

mods note - new thread split from this:

Thoughts on the Trump presidency

As I write this we are in the last hour before insanity starts to rule: I thought that we ought to have a new thread to comment on what happens during the Trump, or Trump/Vance, presidency. Personally, my feeling is that there will be all sorts of chaos at first with Trump trying to carry out...

www.railforums.co.uk

Ax bit naive of the Iranian vessel to set out for home across the Indian Ocean knowing US vessels weren't far away. Might have fared slightly better keeping to Indian and Pakistani territorial waters. Belgrano precedent.

It had been at the Indian hosted International Fleet Review where the US representative had pulled out; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fleet_Review_2026 and; https://www.ifrmilan26.com/

 

[thenorthern]

On thing to remember is that with dictators while they might be unpopular, they do enjoy as least some support in their country. The current regime in Iran of course came in by a revolution in 1979. Had it not been supported by a large section of the population then the revolution would not have succeeded.

Is like in Russia while Putin controls the media and elections are not free or fair. You have to remember in the 1990s Yeltsin was of course the President of Russia and the country suffered a severe economic collapse. Also Yeltsin was famously drunk all the time and Russia went from being a world superpower under the Soviet Union to becoming a bit of a nothing country. Putin has given Russians pride in their country and he isn't an embarrassment like Yeltsin was.

While in the United Kingdom both are almost universally unpopular it's important to remember many foreign countries see things in the United Kingdom as odd. For example Brexit was relatively unpopular abroad but in the United Kingdom it was obviously popular as the majority of the public voted for it. I am aware it was a small margin but nevertheless it was still a majority.

While not a dictator Trump is sort of similar. While he is very unpopular outside the United States but it's important to remember he is relatively popular in the United States. After all he was elected by the US people with 49.8% of the vote.

In other words while people might not be popular in the United Kingdom they often enjoy a lot of support in their own country.

 

[brad465]

On thing to remember is that with dictators while they might be unpopular, they do enjoy as least some support in their country. The current regime in Iran of course came in by a revolution in 1979. Had it not been supported by a large section of the population then the revolution would not have succeeded.

Is like in Russia while Putin controls the media and elections are not free or fair. You have to remember in the 1990s Yeltsin was of course the President of Russia and the country suffered a severe economic collapse. Also Yeltsin was famously drunk all the time and Russia went from being a world superpower under the Soviet Union to becoming a bit of a nothing country. Putin has given Russians pride in their country and he isn't an embarrassment like Yeltsin was.

While in the United Kingdom both are almost universally unpopular it's important to remember many foreign countries see things in the United Kingdom as odd. For example Brexit was relatively unpopular abroad but in the United Kingdom it was obviously popular as the majority of the public voted for it. I am aware it was a small margin but nevertheless it was still a majority.

What's also worth adding is that a country's media is much more honest about what goes on abroad than it is in its own country, even in democratic countries with a largely free press. If you want to know the truth about your country, read about it in a foreign news' outlet. The only exception perhaps is in some extremely die-hard dictatorships like North Korea, where they cover up what goes on both at home and abroad equally hard, as things are so bad there that an awful situation in another country is still better than in North Korea.

 

[thenorthern]

What's also worth adding is that a country's media is much more honest about what goes on abroad than it is in its own country, even in democratic countries with a largely free press. If you want to know the truth about your country, read about it in a foreign news' outlet. The only exception perhaps is in some extremely die-hard dictatorships like North Korea, where they cover up what goes on both at home and abroad equally hard, as things are so bad there that an awful situation in another country is still better than in North Korea.

That was certainally the case with Boris Johnson, while he was (at first) relatively popular in the United Kingdom after all he won a large majority at Westminster. Outside of the United Kingdom he was relatively unpopular, especially in EU countries for obvious reasons. The exception to this was obviously in Ukraine where Boris Johnson is very popular.

 

[nw1]

On thing to remember is that with dictators while they might be unpopular, they do enjoy as least some support in their country. The current regime in Iran of course came in by a revolution in 1979. Had it not been supported by a large section of the population then the revolution would not have succeeded.

Is like in Russia while Putin controls the media and elections are not free or fair. You have to remember in the 1990s Yeltsin was of course the President of Russia and the country suffered a severe economic collapse. Also Yeltsin was famously drunk all the time and Russia went from being a world superpower under the Soviet Union to becoming a bit of a nothing country. Putin has given Russians pride in their country and he isn't an embarrassment like Yeltsin was.

While in the United Kingdom both are almost universally unpopular it's important to remember many foreign countries see things in the United Kingdom as odd. For example Brexit was relatively unpopular abroad but in the United Kingdom it was obviously popular as the majority of the public voted for it. I am aware it was a small margin but nevertheless it was still a majority.

Not actually true - 52% of those who voted, 37% of the adult population. So a clear minority of the UK adult population as a whole, and that's before you factor in the way in which UK residents from EU countries (apart from Ireland) were excluded from the referendum, which would make the actual level of support from UK adult council-tax-paying residents (irrespective of nationality) even lower (and IMO, entirely invalidates the result).

I'm not sure Brexit is a particularly good example in any case if we're contrasting Western liberal democracies and dictatorships, and making the point that some non-Western countries may see the West as "odd". Brexit has been a rather atypical action for a Western country.

While not a dictator Trump is sort of similar. While he is very unpopular outside the United States but it's important to remember he is relatively popular in the United States. After all he was elected by the US people with 49.8% of the vote.

Again, the actual support was 49.8% of 64.1%, i.e. around 32% (less than 1 in 3).

In both cases, I wonder whether there is really that much difference with Russia, Iran, etc. in the sense that the percentage of people that actually support those countries' leaderships could well be rather similar to those who support Brexit or Trump. The difference is that we have freedom of speech here (and to a degree in the US), so you can't be locked up or worse for criticising Brexit or (at the moment) Trump. So you don't get a lot of dissenting voices in Russia for example, even though I suspect many Russians abhor Putin and his actions.

This is not a support of Trump's action though. Iran may be currently ruled by an extremely unpleasant dictatorship but there is no excuse for starting a war.

 

[The exile]

On thing to remember is that with dictators while they might be unpopular, they do enjoy as least some support in their country. The current regime in Iran of course came in by a revolution in 1979. Had it not been supported by a large section of the population then the revolution would not have succeeded.

In other words while people might not be popular in the United Kingdom they often enjoy a lot of support in their own country.

And the only thing better than a war for bolstering public support at home is being able to say “they started it - now rally round”. In the short to medium term at least.

It takes a rare combination of genius and circumstances for a leader to be able to sustain popularity both at home and abroad.

 

[edwin_m]

Not actually true - 52% of those who voted [for Brexit], 37% of the adult population. So a minority of the UK adult population as a whole, and that's before you factor in the way in which UK residents from EU countries (apart from Ireland) were excluded from the referendum, something which IMO entirely invalidates the result.

Also public opinion had turned against Brexit well before it was enacted.

While not a dictator Trump is sort of similar. While he is very unpopular outside the United States but it's important to remember he is relatively popular in the United States. After all he was elected by the US people with 49.8% of the vote.

Again: that was then, and now polls in the US show Trump's popularity rating as a quite large net negative.

 

[nw1]

And the only thing better than a war for bolstering public support at home is being able to say “they started it - now rally round”. In the short to medium term at least.

Of course, only sheep "rally round". Other people make their own decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2026 ==

Ax bit naive of the Iranian vessel to set out for home across the Indian Ocean knowing US vessels weren't far away. Might have fared slightly better keeping to Indian and Pakistani territorial waters. Belgrano precedent.

It had been at the Indian hosted International Fleet Review where the US representative had pulled out; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fleet_Review_2026 and; https://www.ifrmilan26.com/

You could say, what the hell is the US doing bombing a ship in the middle of the ocean anyway? What will that achieve other than make the international community, and increasingly, the US electorate, hate Trump even more?

This is a war crime: an unjustified act of mass murder, and Trump and Hegseth need to stand trial for war crimes if there is any justice in the world.

 

[martin butler]

Of course, only sheep "rally round". Other people make their own decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2026 ==



You could say, what the hell is the US doing bombing a ship in the middle of the ocean anyway? What will that achieve other than make the international community, and increasingly, the US electorate, hate Trump even more?

Sinking a ship in international waters, without a declaration of war, is in itself a war crime, It's just going to reduce America's standing in the world, even lower, Trump, may not give a fig about international law, but civilised countries do, America first, is going to be America alone.

As regards Spain, Have they got any F35's on Order, ? best cancel them, and talk to Canada about buying Canadian built Gripens with RR engines.

 

[nw1]

Sinking a ship in international waters, without a declaration of war, is in itself a It's just going to reduce America's standing in the world, even lower, Trump, may not give a fig about international law, but civilised countries do, America first, is going to be America alone.H

Indeed, and as for Hegseth's "quiet death" comment and this:

No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.

(https://www.war.gov/News/Transcript...hairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/)

I sincerely hope that one day, Hegseth stands trial for war crimes and spends the rest of his miserable little life in prison. Probably one of the most inappropriate people in the USA to be Defence Secretary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sinking a ship in international waters, without a declaration of war

When was the last time war was declared formally? WW2? It just doesn't happen any more.

As for the rules of war I've always found them strange. Either it's OK to kill people in pursuit of political control or territory, or it's not. The idea that you can blow people up but you can't leave them in the sea having sunk their ship is just strange - why is one OK but the other not? It seems that simple to me (and I, for the record, tend towards that it is not - there are exceptions in self defence like Ukraine but this isn't one of them).

 

[nw1]

When was the last time war was declared formally? WW2? It just doesn't happen any more.

As for the rules of war I've always found them strange. Either it's OK to kill people in pursuit of political control or territory, or it's not. The idea that you can blow people up but you can't leave them in the sea having sunk their ship is just strange - why is one OK but the other not? It seems that simple to me (and I, for the record, tend towards that it is not - there are exceptions in self defence like Ukraine but this isn't one of them).

Indeed - and for clarification, in case I came across biased towards this sea-based incident, it's not OK to bomb and murder innocent schoolgirls, either.

 

[The exile]

Of course, only sheep "rally round". Other people make their own decision.

When you’re under attack from outside, “flocking together” is a pretty normal survival strategy - at least initially. In those circumstances any differences other than “the conduct of the defence of the country” are somewhat secondary.

 

[bleeder4]

When was the last time war was declared formally? WW2? It just doesn't happen any more.

As for the rules of war I've always found them strange. Either it's OK to kill people in pursuit of political control or territory, or it's not. The idea that you can blow people up but you can't leave them in the sea having sunk their ship is just strange - why is one OK but the other not? It seems that simple to me (and I, for the record, tend towards that it is not - there are exceptions in self defence like Ukraine but this isn't one of them).

Yes, as an example there was never any declaration of war between us and Argentina back in 1982. So when our sub Conqueror torpedoed their cruiser Belgrano we were not technically at war with them. Incidentally, that was the first time a ship had been sunk by torpedo since WW2, despite the US claiming the Iranian ship the other day was the first!

 

[JamesT]

Yes, as an example there was never any declaration of war between us and Argentina back in 1982. So when our sub Conqueror torpedoed their cruiser Belgrano we were not technically at war with them. Incidentally, that was the first time a ship had been sunk by torpedo since WW2, despite the US claiming the Iranian ship the other day was the first!

Pakistan torpedoed the Indian frigate INS Khukri in 1971.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, as an example there was never any declaration of war between us and Argentina back in 1982. So when our sub Conqueror torpedoed their cruiser Belgrano we were not technically at war with them. Incidentally, that was the first time a ship had been sunk by torpedo since WW2, despite the US claiming the Iranian ship the other day was the first!

Belgrano was, of course, the former USS Phoenix so it might be embarrassing to talk about that one!

 

[ainsworth74]

As for the rules of war I've always found them strange. Either it's OK to kill people in pursuit of political control or territory, or it's not. The idea that you can blow people up but you can't leave them in the sea having sunk their ship is just strange - why is one OK but the other not?

Because sailors without a ship who are floating in the ocean aren't a threat anymore and therefore should be given what help and assistance can be provided (without putting yourself at risk) as to any other mariner who has had their ship sink on them.

Now, personally, I'd argue that in this case the Iranian ship was also not a threat to the US or its allies. They were thousands of miles away from the actual theatre of operations (unlike Belgrano), were not in or approaching a declared exclusion zone (unlike Belgrano), and were not operating in a way (as far as we're aware) that suggested that they were a threat to the submarine that attacked them. I can't see a justification for sinking that ship without warning.

If it had been in the Strait of Hormuz (or approaching it), if it had been attempting to use its sonar to localise the US submarine, if it had been acting a way that might suggest a threat to US surface ships or shore based installations, if it had been in a declared maritime exclusion zone then sinking it might well have been legitimate (in the way that sinking Belgrano was).

But from what we know? It seems to me like a US submarine just killed dozens of Iranian sailors who posed no threat whatsoever and could easily have been sent a warning to either surrender themselves to a neutral port ASAP or face destruction without further warning.

 

[The exile]

Because sailors without a ship who are floating in the ocean aren't a threat anymore and therefore should be given what help and assistance can be provided (without putting yourself at risk) as to any other mariner who has had their ship sink on them.

Now, personally, I'd argue that in this case the Iranian ship was also not a threat to the US or its allies. They were thousands of miles away from the actual theatre of operations (unlike Belgrano), were not in or approaching a declared exclusion zone (unlike Belgrano), and were not operating in a way (as far as we're aware) that suggested that they were a threat to the submarine that attacked them. I can't see a justification for sinking that ship without warning.

If it had been in the Strait of Hormuz (or approaching it), if it had been attempting to use its sonar to localise the US submarine, if it had been acting a way that might suggest a threat to US surface ships or shore based installations, if it had been in a declared maritime exclusion zone then sinking it might well have been legitimate (in the way that sinking Belgrano was).

But from what we know? It seems to me like a US submarine just killed dozens of Iranian sailors who posed no threat whatsoever and could easily have been sent a warning to either surrender themselves to a neutral port ASAP or face destruction without further warning.

Is that not one of the essential differences between declaring war and dealing with a localised threat? Once you’ve declared war, the enemy’s military assets are “fair game” wherever they are; otherwise not.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is that not one of the essential differences between declaring war and dealing with a localised threat? Once you’ve declared war, the enemy’s military assets are “fair game” wherever they are; otherwise not.

That would certainly be my broad interpretation. I think there are edge cases i.e. the US is bombing Iran, if Iran had a way of lauching attacks on the US mainland then that would also, in my view, be fair game despite the lack of a declaration of war. But I can't see a reason why a solitary Iranian frigate far from home and any theatre of operations is a justified target for sinking without warning.

If it had been sailing towards Diego Garcia it may well have been appropriate to sink it on the basis that it could present a threat to the base there.

 

[The exile]

That would certainly be my broad interpretation. I think there are edge cases i.e. the US is bombing Iran, if Iran had a way of lauching attacks on the US mainland then that would also, in my view, be fair game despite the lack of a declaration of war. But I can't see a reason why a solitary Iranian frigate far from home and any theatre of operations is a justified target for sinking without warning.

If it had been sailing towards Diego Garcia it may well have been appropriate to sink it on the basis that it could present a threat to the base there.

Certainly with the Belgrano sinking (or rather the subsequent inquiry) the direction it was heading at the time it was sunk was considered important.

 

[DoubleLemon]

trying to find it but Trump has said the US will back insurance for all shipping through the area. that's going to be expensive.

edit: seems like it's being reported now https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-orders-u-backed-insurance-150000570.html?guccounter=1

 

[Cowley]

Having received an email and having had discussions between the staff team, we’ve gone with the suggestion that it might be good to have a separate thread on this rather than it all being in the Donald Trump presidency thread, because of the far reaching implications.

From the current BBC live feed.

Israel and Iran launch new strikes as first UK flight bringing citizens home is delayed

The flight, chartered by the UK government, was supposed to leave Oman on Wednesday night but was delayed by a technical issue. One passenger calls it a "total farce".

www.bbc.com

This is how things currently stand.

Strikes in the Gulf have continued for a sixth day, following the US and Israel's joint attack on Iran. If you're just joining us, here's what to know.

Strikes around the region: Explosions have been reported in Bahrain and Qatar, as Iran continues to target Gulf nations with retaliatory strikes.

In Azerbaijan, the foreign ministry says two civilians are injured after two Iranian drones hit the country - one struck the terminal building of an airport and the other fell near a school building.

Meanwhile, Iranian state television says a US tanker in the Gulf is "currently on fire" after its navy targeted it. This follows an earlier report from the UK Maritime Organisation about a tanker being struck off the coast of Kuwait.

On the ground in Iran: Fresh waves of strikesby the US and Israel have hit Tehran - we've seen photos of smoke rising over the Iranian capital and of residents watching for missiles.

The Israel Defense Forces says it has struck a ballistic missile launcher in the city of Qomand an aerial defence system in Isfahan.

In Israel: The nation continues to be targeted by Iranian counter strikes. Ben Gurion Airport has reopened after five days as Israeli authorities approve a partial reopening of airspace subject to security developments. A repatriation flight to Tel Aviv has also arrived in the country.

 

[Cowley]

We’ve set up a separate thread for the conflict now, as similar with the conflict in Ukraine it really needs to be it’s own topic.

The Middle East conflict

Having received an email and having had discussions between the staff team, we’ve gone with the suggestion that it might be good to have a separate thread on this rather than it all being in the Donald Trump presidency thread, because of the far reaching implications. From the current BBC live...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Railwaycat]

Because sailors without a ship who are floating in the ocean aren't a threat anymore and therefore should be given what help and assistance can be provided (without putting yourself at risk) as to any other mariner who has had their ship sink on them.

Now, personally, I'd argue that in this case the Iranian ship was also not a threat to the US or its allies. They were thousands of miles away from the actual theatre of operations (unlike Belgrano), were not in or approaching a declared exclusion zone (unlike Belgrano), and were not operating in a way (as far as we're aware) that suggested that they were a threat to the submarine that attacked them. I can't see a justification for sinking that ship without warning.

If it had been in the Strait of Hormuz (or approaching it), if it had been attempting to use its sonar to localise the US submarine, if it had been acting a way that might suggest a threat to US surface ships or shore based installations, if it had been in a declared maritime exclusion zone then sinking it might well have been legitimate (in the way that sinking Belgrano was).

But from what we know? It seems to me like a US submarine just killed dozens of Iranian sailors who posed no threat whatsoever and could easily have been sent a warning to either surrender themselves to a neutral port ASAP or face destruction without further warning.

Exactly. You've got the situation on land where rescuers can be with the wounded immediately, not so at sea with a lone ship. Can't help but think that, maybe sometime in the future, this act will be avenged.

 

[brad465]

The World Cup just got even more spicy; Iran have qualified, but I can easily see them boycotting it, and if they don't the US will be trying to block anyone from there entering the country for fear of terrorists being amongst them. Then of course if this drags on, at what point would the US be expelled as a host and from the tournament as a team? Can Canada and Mexico shoulder the remaining fixtures?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2026 ==

Hope Vance dressed appropriately and said thank you:

US asked Ukraine for help fighting Iranian drones, Zelensky says

Ukraine's president says Kyiv will only help if it does not deplete its own air defences.

www.bbc.co.uk

The US has asked Ukraine for help defending Gulf allies against Iranian drones, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky.
He said Ukraine's partners had been reaching out and there had been "requests from the American side". The Pentagon declined to comment.
Zelensky made clear Ukraine would help only on the condition that its own defence was not weakened and that there were diplomatic gains for Kyiv - suggesting, in particular, that Ukraine would be willing to swap its interceptor drones for more US Patriot air defences to protect against Russian ballistic missiles.
The war in the Middle East has raised fears Ukraine could suffer if its allies are distracted by the conflict.
There have also been concerns about a potential shortage of interceptor missiles and Russia benefiting from rising oil prices, the proceeds from which are a key source of funding for its war effort.
Zelensky has acknowledged these risks but also seems keen to take advantage of the crisis to further Ukraine's national interest.
He has spoken to counterparts across the Gulf - in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait - and is promising what he calls "concrete steps" to help them defend their military bases and civilian infrastructure from Iranian attack.

 

[Russel]

Israel seem very confident in their abilities...

Ynet Global

Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon told reporters that in "a few days" it will be much more difficult for Iran to disrupt the movement of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. "We must continue to dismantle Iran from its capabilities before diplomacy," Danon said.

 

[Egg Centric]

at what point would the US be expelled as a host and from the tournament as a team?

Won't happen. FIFA aren't going to expel a peace prize winner after all!

What is marginally more possible is some kind of wider boycott. Depends where this whole thing goes

 

[nw1]

Won't happen. FIFA aren't going to expel a peace prize winner after all!

What is marginally more possible is some kind of wider boycott. Depends where this whole thing goes

I'd say boycott of a regime who has clearly acted as an aggressor and started a conflict would be entirely appropriate, though no boycott of Canada and Mexico venues should take place.

 

[brad465]

Trump gone from MAGA to MIGA:

Trump accuses Starmer of seeking to 'join wars after we've already won' and says UK aircraft carriers not needed

Meanwhile, Iran continues attacks on Gulf states as UAE officials say a Dubai resident has been killed by falling shrapnel.

www.bbc.co.uk

US President Donald Trump says "there will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER".

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump adds: "After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.

"IRAN WILL HAVE A GREAT FUTURE. 'MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!).'"

 

[Russel]

Trump gone from MAGA to MIGA:

Trump accuses Starmer of seeking to 'join wars after we've already won' and says UK aircraft carriers not needed

Meanwhile, Iran continues attacks on Gulf states as UAE officials say a Dubai resident has been killed by falling shrapnel.

www.bbc.co.uk

What a mess.

I've never know goalposts move so frequent and frequently.