The Middle East conflict

[Sorcerer]

I'm in two fields about our response to the conflict. On the one hand we do have a duty to assist some of our Middle Eastern allies like the UAE and Qatar, especially given lots of British expats and tourist choose it as a destination, and we are generally a country with a reputation of sticking to it's agreements (that I am aware of anyway).

But on the other hand it's mostly the Americans who have a defence agreement with the Gulf states, and given that Trump has downplayed NATO and our contributions in Afghanistan (I do not accept his apology either, petty at as that may be) I just think "well, you said you didn't need us, so let's not ask how high when you say jump". There is evidently no benefit to assisting the Trump Administration.

What I can be sure of though is that the Reform lot will either play this as Starmer being a pro-Iranian pro-Chinese spy if he doesn't get involved, or as an unpatriotic Brit who'd rather spend money dragging us into another foreign war the British people didn't want if he does, so there's almost no use trying to find a compromise on that front.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm in two fields about our response to the conflict. On the one hand we do have a duty to assist some of our Middle Eastern allies like the UAE and Qatar, especially given lots of British expats and tourist choose it as a destination, and we are generally a country with a reputation of sticking to it's agreements (that I am aware of anyway).

But on the other hand it's mostly the Americans who have a defence agreement with the Gulf states, and given that Trump has downplayed NATO and our contributions in Afghanistan (I do not accept his apology either, petty at as that may be) I just think "well, you said you didn't need us, so let's not ask how high when you say jump". There is evidently no benefit to assisting the Trump Administration.

What I can be sure of though is that the Reform lot will either play this as Starmer being a pro-Iranian pro-Chinese spy if he doesn't get involved, or as an unpatriotic Brit who'd rather spend money dragging us into another foreign war the British people didn't want if he does, so there's almost no use trying to find a compromise on that front.

100% Dammed either way! My only current criticism is we seem to have upset Cyprus....

 

[brad465]

Not the first to think this, but any chance Qatar might ask for the US to hand that $400m Boeing 747 back?

 

[450.emu]

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.

Boris was an odd duck. He was the biggest Europhile the year before Brexit, even though he was seen by many as the bungling bufoon who got stuck in a zipwire at the 2012 Olympics... but many in the EU question why make life even harder for yourselves? It is like deliberately walking out of a well paid job to become homeless. Migration, which was always portrayed as a "bogeyman" has actually gotten worse since Brexit and trade and even travel through airports is worse. Still, regarding the War, there's a fear that fuel prices will rocket as Crude Oil is approaching $150 a barrel since missiles from Iran have destroyed many refineries in Kuwait and Qatar, and the Strait of Hormuz is shut stopping deliveries. People have started queuing for petrol more. Might push more into EVs as a result.

Trump saying "We're not dealing with Churchill here" is so true, as Keir's position on involvement keeps changing. It's certainly had an effect on those in Dubai as the charmed life is not so charming with the odd Shahed drone hitting hotels and apartments. Cost of living will go up, and disaster capitalists will make a fortune like they did in Brexit...

 

[martin butler]

So far, its unconfirmed, officially, but there are reports that Russia is giving Iran intelligence on where the US installations are in the region, to aid the Iranians on targeting those assets, when asked about it, by Fox news, of all people, Trump, flew into a rage, and called it a stupid question, so his response clearly indicates he might have been played once again,

But, if, and as I said, its unconfirmed, Russia is giving targeting co-ordinates how are they getting them ?

 

[JamesT]

So far, its unconfirmed, officially, but there are reports that Russia is giving Iran intelligence on where the US installations are in the region, to aid the Iranians on targeting those assets, when asked about it, by Fox news, of all people, Trump, flew into a rage, and called it a stupid question, so his response clearly indicates he might have been played once again,

But, if, and as I said, its unconfirmed, Russia is giving targeting co-ordinates how are they getting them ?

Satellite imagery?

 

[edwin_m]

Satellite imagery?

They could probably get a pretty good idea from Google. Better satellite imagery is commercially available and I'm sure Iran could get hold of it somehow even if officially embargoed. It's a bit different from Ukraine needing US intelligence, which is more about knowing where mobile assets are at the time.

 

[nw1]

Boris was an odd duck. He was the biggest Europhile the year before Brexit, even though he was seen by many as the bungling bufoon who got stuck in a zipwire at the 2012 Olympics... but many in the EU question why make life even harder for yourselves? It is like deliberately walking out of a well paid job to become homeless. Migration, which was always portrayed as a "bogeyman" has actually gotten worse since Brexit and trade and even travel through airports is worse. Still, regarding the War, there's a fear that fuel prices will rocket as Crude Oil is approaching $150 a barrel since missiles from Iran have destroyed many refineries in Kuwait and Qatar, and the Strait of Hormuz is shut stopping deliveries. People have started queuing for petrol more. Might push more into EVs as a result.

Trump saying "We're not dealing with Churchill here" is so true, as Keir's position on involvement keeps changing. It's certainly had an effect on those in Dubai as the charmed life is not so charming with the odd Shahed drone hitting hotels and apartments. Cost of living will go up, and disaster capitalists will make a fortune like they did in Brexit...

And the Churchill comparisons are quite absurd anyway as in this case, it is Trump who is the aggressor. Trump started this, all, IMO, to distract people from Epstein. From the point of view of starting the war, Trump should certainly not compare people who obey his every order with Churchill.

And Trump has caused the oil crisis. It is 100%, totally, his fault. Time the rest of the world does a bit of "regime change" and starts funding the Democrats. I think we have the right to do this now, given what Trump has done in Iran. Trump is our enemy, not our friend. Yet brown-nosing sycophants like Farage and Badenoch fawn over him - it really does say very bad things about the character of the pair of them in taking his side. Farage is obviously not PM material, but I think it's plain Badenoch isn't either.
And what about the Red Wall voters Farage is targeting, who will see their cost of living increase, which is totally the fault of his best buddy? I hope some of them have the sense to stick two fingers up at Farage as a result.

Forget Euroscepticism, what we need is Ameroscepticism, at least until regime change occurs.

 

[martin butler]

And the Churchill comparisons are quite absurd anyway as in this case, it is Trump who is the aggressor. Trump started this, all, IMO, to distract people from Epstein. From the point of view of starting the war, Trump should certainly not compare people who obey his every order with Churchill.

And Trump has caused the oil crisis. It is 100%, totally, his fault. Time the rest of the world does a bit of "regime change" and starts funding the Democrats. I think we have the right to do this now, given what Trump has done in Iran. Trump is our enemy, not our friend. Yet brown-nosing sycophants like Farage and Badenoch fawn over him - it really does say very bad things about the character of the pair of them in taking his side. Farage is obviously not PM material, but I think it's plain Badenoch isn't either.
And what about the Red Wall voters Farage is targeting, who will see their cost of living increase, which is totally the fault of his best buddy? I hope some of them have the sense to stick two fingers up at Farage as a result.

Forget Euroscepticism, what we need is Ameroscepticism, at least until regime change occurs.

Its time people started to look into the links between the UK, and EU right wing political parties and the US far right, I'm sure there will be clear lines of communication, people like Bannon for example, then look at who funds him,

 

[Mogster]

I'm in two fields about our response to the conflict. On the one hand we do have a duty to assist some of our Middle Eastern allies like the UAE and Qatar, especially given lots of British expats and tourist choose it as a destination, and we are generally a country with a reputation of sticking to it's agreements (that I am aware of anyway).

But on the other hand it's mostly the Americans who have a defence agreement with the Gulf states, and given that Trump has downplayed NATO and our contributions in Afghanistan (I do not accept his apology either, petty at as that may be) I just think "well, you said you didn't need us, so let's not ask how high when you say jump". There is evidently no benefit to assisting the Trump Administration.

What I can be sure of though is that the Reform lot will either play this as Starmer being a pro-Iranian pro-Chinese spy if he doesn't get involved, or as an unpatriotic Brit who'd rather spend money dragging us into another foreign war the British people didn't want if he does, so there's almost no use trying to find a compromise on that front.

The problem is that due to Starmer’s response we are going to be on the outside of whatever happens next, that will likely have huge consequences to the global standing of the UK. You have NATO under Mark Rutte, Germany, France, Australia, Canada all basically backing the US action. so we now appear isolated. I’m sure there was a middle path to tread, remaining on the inside without endorsing assassination from 20,000ft. Unfortunately both the military and diplomatic response has been flaccid, and the UK now looks like at best an unreliable ally or at worst a useless one.

A least this draws attention to the inability of the hollowed out Royal Navy to respond promptly to a developing situation. Everything is tasked, we have nothing available to forward deploy to the Med or Middle East as previously so it’s going to take weeks to respond to any situation outside UK waters.

 

[Port Road]

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.

I don't think the statement Boris Johnston "was relatively popular in the UK" is quite right. In my costituent UK country the vast majority of folk loathed the idiot. And we haven't had a majority GE vote for the Tories here in Scotland since 1955. Long may it continue.

 

[Pete_uk]

I'm in a strange position - hate Trumps government and I hope we keep out of this in term of offencive operations but I really home the Iranian regime falls and the women of Iran can be free and safe.

 

[Yew]

A least this draws attention to the inability of the hollowed out Royal Navy to respond promptly to a developing situation. Everything is tasked, we have nothing available to forward deploy to the Med or Middle East as previously so it’s going to take weeks to respond to any situation outside UK waters.

I do find it's a bit rich of some of the papers for blaming Starmer for David Cameron not building enough Type 45 destroyers though. Even if the first thing he had done when he came to power was to order more ships, they would not be ready now.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't think the statement Boris Johnston "was relatively popular in the UK" is quite right. In my costituent UK country the vast majority of folk loathed the idiot. And we haven't had a majority GE vote for the Tories here in Scotland since 1955. Long may it continue.

Notice the words "at first", while he became unpopular after Partygate the Conservatives in 2019 got the second highest number of votes in an election ever, the highest was John Major's Conservatives in 1992. His 43.6% vote share was the highest for the Conservatives or any party for that matter since 1979. He also got an 80 seat majority.

While I understand he is a very controversial figure, especially now he did win a massive majority at an election which you have to be somewhat popular in able to do.

 

[Port Road]

Notice the words "at first", while he became unpopular after Partygate the Conservatives in 2019 got the second highest number of votes in an election ever, the highest was John Major's Conservatives in 1992. His 43.6% vote share was the highest for the Conservatives or any party for that matter since 1979. He also got an 80 seat majority.

While I understand he is a very controversial figure, especially now he did win a massive majority at an election which you have to be somewhat popular in able to do.

The point I am making is that he never was, and never will be "popular" in Scotland, as he's a Tory. Popular in "England". Not, the "UK".

 

[AlterEgo]

They could probably get a pretty good idea from Google. Better satellite imagery is commercially available and I'm sure Iran could get hold of it somehow even if officially embargoed. It's a bit different from Ukraine needing US intelligence, which is more about knowing where mobile assets are at the time.

Russia has military surveillance satellites, they will use this to monitor movements of troops, ships, and materiel. Anyone can find US installations on Google Earth or Wikipedia!

 

[nw1]

You have NATO under Mark Rutte, Germany, France, Australia, Canada all basically backing the US action.

Is that true? Why are so many countries backing an act of aggression that is not only killing innocent people but will also likely lead to economic problems in their own countries? Sounds like the UK has done something good, for once, rather than obeying the US like they are our masters.

If anything, it will gain us more respect - not less - it's evidence that the UK is no longer the US's compliant lapdog, unlike in 2003.

I'm certainly not buying the "Iran will nuke us otherwise" nonsense. Weapons of Mass Destruction Part Two. If anything, it makes militant Islamists more likely to take retaliatory action against the West in revenge, not less.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm certainly not buying the "Iran will nuke us otherwise" nonsense. Weapons of Mass Destruction Part Two. If anything, it makes militant Islamists more likely to take retaliatory action against the West in revenge, not less.

Not likely. Iran is Shia Muslim and deeply reviled by Sunni Muslims (the traditional sort of militant islamist seen in the West)

What is more likely is Iranian acts of sabotage and interference, or targeting of individual enemies, rather than what we would consider terrorism.

 

[nw1]

Notice the words "at first", while he became unpopular after Partygate the Conservatives in 2019 got the second highest number of votes in an election ever, the highest was John Major's Conservatives in 1992. His 43.6% vote share was the highest for the Conservatives or any party for that matter since 1979. He also got an 80 seat majority.

While I understand he is a very controversial figure, especially now he did win a massive majority at an election which you have to be somewhat popular in able to do.

Playing the devil's advocate it could have been simply that he was hated less by the average person than Jeremy Corbyn.

(That said, I do admit he did seem to be popular amongst a certain sector of the electorate. I guess he is a bit more likeable than Trump or Farage, to be fair).

 

[boiledbeans2]

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

I hate this argument. It's a never win argument. Even if the winner received 75% of the votes, someone will come in and say, "ah... the winner only received 75% of 64.1%, i.e. around 48%. Less than half. Not the majority."

 

[nw1]

I hate this argument. It's a never win argument. Even if the winner received 75% of the votes, someone will come in and say, "ah... the winner only received 75% of 64.1%, i.e. around 48%. Less than half. Not the majority."

I think quite the opposite. If there's one thing I hate, it's the assumption that a person, or a cause, with well under 50% of the total vote commands overwhelming support in their country.

 

[dgl]

Looks like we don't need to be involved in the war any more, Trump says he doesn't need us as he's already won from this post on "Truth" Social (via BBC News).

Huge fire engulfs Kuwait City tower as Trump accuses Starmer of seeking to 'join wars after we've already won'

Heavy Israeli airstrikes hit Iranian oil depots, with residents telling the BBC 'it was as if the night had turned into day'.

www.bbc.co.uk

The US president took to his social media platform Truth Social to say the US did not need the UK's two aircraft carriers in the Middle East.

"The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East. That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!"

This comes after Starmer refused to let the US use UK bases in the initial strikes on Iran. Trump later said "he has not been helpful".

“I never thought I’d see that. I never thought I’d see that from the UK," he told the Sun newspaper.

For context: The UK government has not joined offensive operations or given any commitment to do so. Earlier, the BBC reported one aircraft carrier had been put on an advanced state of readiness in case it needed to be deployed to the region. The UK has allowed the US to use its bases for defensive operations.

Personally I do think Starmer should tell Trump where to stick it and that unless we, or one of our dependants, are being attacked we are staying out and any possibly military intervention from us will be in a defensive capacity only.

Also found it funny that either Trump or one of his handlers mention that we can't have mad men or lunatic (or something like that) having access to nuclear weapons, yes because Netanyahu and Trump are the sanest people out there aren't they?...

 

[DelW]

Trump saying "We're not dealing with Churchill here" is so true, as Keir's position on involvement keeps changing.

It's abundantly clear that we're not dealing with Franklin Roosevelt either.

Also found it funny that either Trump or one of his handlers mention that we can't have mad men or lunatic (or something like that) having access to nuclear weapons, yes because Netanyahu and Trump are the sanest people out there aren't they?...

I'm not sure that "funny" is appropriate, but I see your point.

 

[dgl]

It's abundantly clear that we're not dealing with Franklin Roosevelt either.


I'm not sure that "funny" is appropriate, but I see your point.

Well more pot calling the kettle black really.

I do wonder if Trump has thought of the nuclear option and has been sternly told by military officials that they'd forcefully remove him from power if he tried.

 

[Yew]

I'm hearing that Tony Blair is coming out in support of joining America in an illegal war in the Middle East.

I think we should trust him, as he is an expert in joining illegal American wars in the Middle East.

 

[nw1]

I'm hearing that Tony Blair is coming out in support of joining America in an illegal war in the Middle East.

I think we should trust him, as he is an expert in joining illegal American wars in the Middle East.

I was about to say exactly the same thing.

Remind me why you lost your job, Tony. For a supposedly intelligent person, he is obviously incapable of learning from his own mistakes.

 

[Railwaycat]

I do think Starmer should tell Trump where to stick it and that unless we, or one of our dependants, are being attacked we are staying out and any possibly military intervention from us will be in a defensive capacity only.

Yes, and the first thing he should tell Trump is that the B1 bombers are not welcome at Fairford. The B1 is carrying cruise missiles that are only effective against fixed targets, not the mobile missile/drone launchers that threaten our bases and the Gulf States.

 

[JamesT]

Yes, and the first thing he should tell Trump is that the B1 bombers are not welcome at Fairford. The B1 is carrying cruise missiles that are only effective against fixed targets, not the mobile missile/drone launchers that threaten our bases and the Gulf States.

How do you know what weapons the B1 is carrying? It’s been widely reported that as Iran has effectively no air defences left, the US have switched to gravity bombs instead of missiles. The B1 is eminently capable of carrying those.

 

[DelW]

It probably hasn't occurred to Trump that he'd have been more likely to get Britain and other NATO allies on side if he hadn't spent the last fifteen months insulting, denigrating and patronising European leaders and governments. And threatening to invade Greenland (or possibly Iceland). Oh, and attacking us economically, and trying to promote hard-right factions and stir up civil unrest. Oh, and saying we'd never come to the US's aid, then when reminded of Kuwait, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, claiming we'd stayed away from the front lines. Though not as far away as Commander in Chief Bone-spurs obviously.

With "friends" like Trump,who needs enemies?

 

[nw1]

It probably hasn't occurred to Trump that he'd have been more likely to get Britain and other NATO allies on side if he hadn't spent the last fifteen months insulting, denigrating and patronising European leaders and governments. And threatening to invade Greenland (or possibly Iceland). Oh, and attacking us economically, and trying to promote hard-right factions and stir up civil unrest. Oh, and saying we'd never come to the US's aid, then when reminded of Kuwait, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, claiming we'd stayed away from the front lines. Though not as far away as Commander in Chief Bone-spurs obviously.

With "friends" like Trump,who needs enemies?

Precisely. Trump has screwed the West over, why on earth should we help him in his ego-trip / Epstein distraction tactics?

He is not our friend.