The Middle East conflict

[najaB]

Surely the problem with renewables is that they cannot, at present anyway, replace everything for which oil is used; The things made from oil, eg plastics, fertilisers?

I was having this very same conversation with a renewables expert on Sunday (he's currently deeply involved in managing a project to supply a small country with something like 90% of it's electricity needs with offshore wind).

I took the position that you articulated, his response was that, with sufficiently cheap electricity, direct conversion from hydrogen and carbon dioxide monoxide (water plus electricity plus limestone) allows you to substitute most hydrocarbon feed into industrial processes.

Edit: Corrected the feed products.

 

[The Ham]

I was having this very same conversation with a renewables expert on Sunday (he's currently deeply involved in managing a project to supply a small country with something like 90% of it's electricity needs with offshore wind).

I took the position that you articulated, his response was that, with sufficiently cheap electricity, direct conversion from hydrogen and carbon dioxide (water plus electricity plus limestone) allows you to substitute most hydrocarbon feed into industrial processes

It's also worth noting that if we just got rid of the oil use for road transport, we'd need something like 50% the oil needs we currently have.

Whilst that's still a big ask, it's still not dealing with the other circa 25% for other transport modes some other savings from other areas before we would need to consider non oil options for things like plastics and chemicals.

My understand is that it breakdowns as:

UK Oil Consumption by Sector (2023–2024)

Transport: ~76% (Road, Aviation, Shipping)
Non-Energy Use: ~9% (Plastics, Lubricants, Asphalt)
Commercial & Public Services: ~4.6%
Industry: ~4.3%
Residential (Heating): ~4.2%
Agriculture & Forestry: ~1.7%

 

[brad465]

The Easter Weekend I think is going to be carnage in Iran: three-four straight days of no market trading provides ample opportunity to do damage without having to worry about markets tanking as a result. We already have this latest development of strikes taking out a bridge:

Iranian bridge cut in half by strike as Trump warns ‘more to follow’

Local officials say eight people were killed by the strike on the under-construction bridge in Karaj, a city west of Iran's capital Tehran.

www.bbc.co.uk

Death toll from bridge strike increases to eight​

​

The death toll following strikes on a bridge in Karaj, a city near Tehran located in Alborz province has increased to eight, according to the deputy of security and political affairs at the Alborz Governor’s Office.

Ghodratollah Seyf added that 95 have been injured in the strikes and has called it a “horrific crime”.

 

[Gloster]

The Easter Weekend I think is going to be carnage in Iran: three-four straight days of no market trading provides ample opportunity to do damage without having to worry about markets tanking as a result.

Or possibly not: no opportunities to make a killing on the markets using insider information.

 

[brad465]

US loses another fighter jet, this time reportedly shot down over Iran (rather than friendly fire over Kuwait):

One crew member from US fighter jet downed in Iran has been rescued, US media report

Verified video, pictured above, appears to show a US search and rescue operation in southern Iran. It's not known what has happened to the second crew member.

www.bbc.co.uk

Media reports say US fighter jet downed over Iran​

​

A US fighter jet has been shot down over Iran, with a search currently under way for its crew, a US official has told Axios, the Reuters news agency and the New York Times. Separately, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the US is conducting a rescue operation for the crew.

It follows reports in Iranian media that a US search for a downed pilot is under way.

 

[najaB]

Iran's completely destroyed air defences failing to cooperate again...

 

[Cloud Strife]

It really is starting to have shades of Russia invading Ukraine, isn't it? Even down to the proclamations that turned out to be rather far from the truth...

 

[Cdd89]

Iran recently made a statement that the Strait is blocked to US/Israeli ships, which arguably implies that it is no longer considered blocked to other nations.

Iran is second only to the White House in putting out confusing and contradictory statements, but that implication was backed up by the recent passage of a French ship through the Strait:

French-owned ship passes through Strait of Hormuz

It appears to be the first ship owned by a major European firm to go through the strait since the conflict began.

www.bbc.co.uk

A French-owned ship has passed through the Strait of Hormuz, more than a month after the US-Israeli war with Iran effectively closed the vital transport route.

The Malta-flagged container ship owned by French company CMA CGM crossed the strait, media organisation BFM TV - which is owned by the shipping company - confirmed on Friday. CMA CGM declined to comment.

It is the first ship owned by a major Western European firm to go through the strait since the conflict began, shipping analysts Kpler confirmed

While almost-entirely blockading the Strait has been effective in causing a global energy crisis, Trump already made it clear that he doesn't care if the strait reopens and is willing to ride out the economic harm which mostly does not fall on the US. Meanwhile, it does/did come with the downside of angering the rest of the world and possibly getting the US allies in reopening it.

A more limited blockade limited to the aggressor nations' vessels has the effect of destroying the potential for this cooperation, especially if oil costs recover a bit more, and therefore might be a smarter strategy.

 

[Trackman]

Iran recently made a statement that the Strait is blocked to US/Israeli ships, which arguably implies that it is no longer considered blocked to other nations.

Iran is second only to the White House in putting out confusing and contradictory statements, but that implication was backed up by the recent passage of a French ship through the Strait:


While almost-entirely blockading the Strait has been effective in causing a global energy crisis, Trump already made it clear that he doesn't care if the strait reopens and is willing to ride out the economic harm which mostly does not fall on the US. Meanwhile, it does/did come with the downside of angering the rest of the world and possibly getting the US allies in reopening it.

A more limited blockade limited to the aggressor nations' vessels has the effect of destroying the potential for this cooperation, especially if oil costs recover a bit more, and therefore might be a smarter strategy.

A Japanese natural gas tanker has passed through not that long ago too.

 

[martin butler]

The Truth is though, that by their actions, US, and Israel have made the middle east more dangerous now than ever before, especially for innocent people who will in the future be caught up in what comes next,

Iran now has every reason to want to kill Americans, and to destroy Israelis, Iran was never a threat that could not be contained by diplomatic means, but now there can never be any meaningful dialog, only more killing,

Iran now could potentially, re start its nuclear production, but not for peaceful means, but to make a crude nuclear device and use it to target Isael, a final act of revenge, and then destroy the rest of the middle east, because the response will be in kind.

Already the other nations, in the region, that managed to co-exist with having these two foes as neabours, now realise that what the US and Israeli actions have done is to put them in the firing line, because they allowed US to have bases on their soil,

 

[sjpowermac]

The Truth is though, that by their actions, US, and Israel have made the middle east more dangerous now than ever before, especially for innocent people who will in the future be caught up in what comes next,

Iran now has every reason to want to kill Americans, and to destroy Israelis, Iran was never a threat that could not be contained by diplomatic means, but now there can never be any meaningful dialog, only more killing,

Iran now could potentially, re start its nuclear production, but not for peaceful means, but to make a crude nuclear device and use it to target Isael, a final act of revenge, and then destroy the rest of the middle east, because the response will be in kind.

Already the other nations, in the region, that managed to co-exist with having these two foes as neabours, now realise that what the US and Israeli actions have done is to put them in the firing line, because they allowed US to have bases on their soil,

I’ve read your posts with great interest, they often seem fairly well reasoned. I’m slightly curious though about some of your assertions here.

You state that “Iran now has every reason to want to kill Americans” and yet hasn’t this always been the case? Their regular chorus of ‘death to America’ and regarding Isreal as the ‘little Satan’ and the USA as the ‘great Satan’ doesn’t imply they wanted friendly relations with either country.

Regarding killing Americans and Israelis you are entirely correct, but make no mention of the fact that the current Iranian government killed tens of thousands of their own people back in January, around 40 000 as I understand it.

You mention ‘contained by diplomatic means’ in regard to a country that has lied and cheated for 47 years and built up a stockpile of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

Don’t take any of the above as my giving support for the current US/Isreal action, I’m very undecided on the matter, but I’m genuinely interested to hear your opinion on the above points.

 

[Annetts key]

I’ve read your posts with great interest, they often seem fairly well reasoned. I’m slightly curious though about some of your assertions here.

You state that “Iran now has every reason to want to kill Americans” and yet hasn’t this always been the case? Their regular chorus of ‘death to America’ and regarding Isreal as the ‘little Satan’ and the USA as the ‘great Satan’ doesn’t imply they wanted friendly relations with either country.

Regarding killing Americans and Israelis you are entirely correct, but make no mention of the fact that the current Iranian government killed tens of thousands of their own people back in January, around 40 000 as I understand it.

You mention ‘contained by diplomatic means’ in regard to a country that has lied and cheated for 47 years and built up a stockpile of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

Don’t take any of the above as my giving support for the current US/Isreal action, I’m very undecided on the matter, but I’m genuinely interested to hear your opinion on the above points.

My take:

Firstly, as I have said before, the world would be a better place without the current regime in Iran, ideally the country should have a democratic government that is willing to be peaceful. In no way am I supporting or backing of defending this Iranian regime. But the U.S.A. and Israel are most definitely not the good guys either.

The regime in Iran was and is hostile to the U.S.A., but in the recent past (apart from when under Trump control) they have conducted negotiations and did have some diplomatic relations. You have to try to separate what they say in public for mostly domestic consumption with what they actually agree to in private. Remember, before Trump's first term, there was an agreement on monitoring their nuclear programme.

In regards to the Iranian hatred of Israel, well, in my view, that is fully understandable. I hate the current Israeli government. There is no doubt that the right in Israeli politics are warmongers that want to wipe out Palestinians and take their land. And they use any excuse to attack Iran or anyone they don't like in some of the nearby countries (e.g. in Syria after Assad's regime fell). Israel overreacts which then causes problems later on, and the cycle repeats. War will not stop this, only some kind of negotiated settlement that is "policed" by countries that both sides respect. But now there is no chance of Iran respecting the U.S.A. (yes, There was not much respect before, but it was not down to zero).

Despite Israel claiming that Iran was one week, one month or whatever away from having a viable nuclear weapon,, for the best part of this century, there is no evidence of this. The amount of uranium is irrelevant if it is not at the level of enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon. And 60% enrichment is very far from good enough. Plus, a nuclear weapon is far more complex than just having enough enriched uranium. During the time that the West was able to monitor their programme, they did not appear to be near to, or preceding at any speed towards having a functioning nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately, Israel has it's hands round the neck of politics in the U.S.A. so the so called information from the U.S.A. is not to be trusted on the state of Iran's nuclear programme.

The actions of the U.S.A. under Trump and the actions of Israel have made it clear that if you are a country that doesn't want to be invaded or attacked, your best bet to get your own nuclear weapons. Look at the reluctance to take any military action against Russia. Hence the world is now a much less safe place IMHO.

 

[JamieL]

You mention ‘contained by diplomatic means’ in regard to a country that has lied and cheated for 47 years and built up a stockpile of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

The Iranian regime is horrific, and I do hope the Iranian people get something that better serves their interest as events unfold in future, but the current conflict in a way supports their efforts to gain a nuclear weapon. If Iran was nuclear armed, it seems unlikely they would have been so readily attacked?

Moreover, I do wonder whether Iran having nuclear weapons might actually deliver some stability? Israel, as the sole regional nuclear power, has operated without restraint bombing Iran at whim despite the chaos it causes for the regional nations and the global economy. Perhaps if Iran had nuclear weapons this conflict wouldn't be happening now? Of course, the opposite could equally be true and a nuclear armed Iran might prompt them to be as aggressive and destabilising to regional security just like Israel is at present. But in any event, the current situation has hit the global economy hard - and we need to find a way that will prevent the US, Israel and Iran from causing economic damage to the global economy in the future. Frankly all three nations need regime change.

 

[martin butler]

My take:

Firstly, as I have said before, the world would be a better place without the current regime in Iran, ideally the country should have a democratic government that is willing to be peaceful. In no way am I supporting or backing of defending this Iranian regime. But the U.S.A. and Israel are most definitely not the good guys either.

The regime in Iran was and is hostile to the U.S.A., but in the recent past (apart from when under Trump control) they have conducted negotiations and did have some diplomatic relations. You have to try to separate what they say in public for mostly domestic consumption with what they actually agree to in private. Remember, before Trump's first term, there was an agreement on monitoring their nuclear programme.

In regards to the Iranian hatred of Israel, well, in my view, that is fully understandable. I hate the current Israeli government. There is no doubt that the right in Israeli politics are warmongers that want to wipe out Palestinians and take their land. And they use any excuse to attack Iran or anyone they don't like in some of the nearby countries (e.g. in Syria after Assad's regime fell). Israel overreacts which then causes problems later on, and the cycle repeats. War will not stop this, only some kind of negotiated settlement that is "policed" by countries that both sides respect. But now there is no chance of Iran respecting the U.S.A. (yes, There was not much respect before, but it was not down to zero).

Despite Israel claiming that Iran was one week, one month or whatever away from having a viable nuclear weapon,, for the best part of this century, there is no evidence of this. The amount of uranium is irrelevant if it is not at the level of enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon. And 60% enrichment is very far from good enough. Plus, a nuclear weapon is far more complex than just having enough enriched uranium. During the time that the West was able to monitor their programme, they did not appear to be near to, or preceding at any speed towards having a functioning nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately, Israel has it's hands round the neck of politics in the U.S.A. so the so called information from the U.S.A. is not to be trusted on the state of Iran's nuclear programme.

The actions of the U.S.A. under Trump and the actions of Israel have made it clear that if you are a country that doesn't want to be invaded or attacked, your best bet to get your own nuclear weapons. Look at the reluctance to take any military action against Russia. Hence the world is now a much less safe place IMHO.

This very much agrees with my own view, much of what is said in Iran, is for domestic reasons, but there were always back channels to try to ensure that nothing came to such a head that it would destabilize the region,

Unfortunately, Israel has changed that, and it's now a never-ending war of attrition being waged, against two nations who wish the other gone, and moderate voices, on both sides, who before could temper things down, are silenced, and the US, have also lost any respect it might have once had,

 

[AlterEgo]

You mention ‘contained by diplomatic means’ in regard to a country that has lied and cheated for 47 years and built up a stockpile of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

Of course Israel obtained its nuclear weapons entirely transparently and without deception. I am sure that will be correct and I won't need to read about the Dimona nuclear program.

 

[cactustwirly]

It has certainly furthered my already strong view that we need to build nuclear plants and renewables with a view to complete electrification of the UK's transport and domestic heating.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2026 ==



Heat pumps have a role but with regard to new housing I'd rather see a move to mandating standards similar to Passivhaus which mean a tiny amount of resistive heating is sufficient.

What about all the commodities that are manufactured from oil?
Basically everything in your house is has a petrochemical element, basically all packaging and a lot of chemicals too.

All the plastic comes from China and that has gone up in price because Asia is the biggest market of oil from the gulf

Getting rid of Gas is decades away, if my boiler breaks I'm getting another gas appliance. A heat pump is far too expensive at this time.
This will be the case for a lot of people

Passivhaus is very expensive and labour intensive, if you want to make houses unaffordable then sure go ahead

 

[GusB]

You state that “Iran now has every reason to want to kill Americans” and yet hasn’t this always been the case? Their regular chorus of ‘death to America’ and regarding Isreal as the ‘little Satan’ and the USA as the ‘great Satan’ doesn’t imply they wanted friendly relations with either country.

Let's not pretend that the feeling isn't mutual; the US and Israel have had it in for Iran since the revolution. If you constantly threaten another nation, don't the response to be all sweetness and light!

Regarding killing Americans and Israelis you are entirely correct, but make no mention of the fact that the current Iranian government killed tens of thousands of their own people back in January, around 40 000 as I understand it.

I don't think anyone here is denying that Iran's crackdown was brutal, but it is not the only country capable of killing tens of thousands of people - aren't you forgetting about the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the West Bank?

You mention ‘contained by diplomatic means’ in regard to a country that has lied and cheated for 47 years and built up a stockpile of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

Despite Nutternyahoo banging on for years about Iran being "this close" to having a nuclear weapon, we've yet to see any evidence. Which country is lying here? Oh yes, the one that actually has nuclear weapons, refuses to acknowledge that it has them and has refused to sign any treaties or submit to any inspections relating to them. Iran had an agreement to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected

Moreover, I do wonder whether Iran having nuclear weapons might actually deliver some stability? Israel, as the sole regional nuclear power, has operated without restraint bombing Iran at whim despite the chaos it causes for the regional nations and the global economy. Perhaps if Iran had nuclear weapons this conflict wouldn't be happening now? Of course, the opposite could equally be true and a nuclear armed Iran might prompt them to be as aggressive and destabilising to regional security just like Israel is at present. But in any event, the current situation has hit the global economy hard - and we need to find a way that will prevent the US, Israel and Iran from causing economic damage to the global economy in the future. Frankly all three nations need regime change.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Iran actually had nuclear weapons as they would be a deterrent to any attacks; the same reason that we have them. I also don't believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would use them aggressively. Its leadership is certainly fanatical, but is it really stupid enough to launch a first strike when obliteration would swiftly follow?

Israel doesn't like Iran having any military capability because Iran is the only country that seems prepared to take action when Israel goes on another land-grabbing rampage. I get that Israel views Iran as an existential threat, but perhaps if Israel acted like a civilised neighbour it would have nothing to fear.

 

[Cdd89]

The Iranian regime is horrific, and I do hope the Iranian people get something that better serves their interest as events unfold in future, but the current conflict in a way supports their efforts to gain a nuclear weapon. If Iran was nuclear armed, it seems unlikely they would have been so readily attacked? Moreover, I do wonder whether Iran having nuclear weapons might actually deliver some stability?

This is the angle from which I am most conflicted about the war. It's easy to criticise the poorly-planned way in which Israel and the US have gone about attacking Iran, but the West needs to be clear about whether we would (consequently) let Iran develop a nuclear weapon.

Quite a few Western leaders do not seem to be addressing this question head on. Starmer, in particular, was full of recent rhetoric about how Iran must never have them - but if he truly believed that, then he would be supporting military action.

And this is in many ways the fundamental decision, since if we are OK with Iran developing nuclear weapons then the war is a foolish endeavour in every regard. On the other hand, if we are truly resolved to stop a country from arming itself in this way, then it's better to take that action earlier rather than later.

Thus, in relation to this point:

Despite Nutternyahoo banging on for years about Iran being "this close" to having a nuclear weapon, we've yet to see any evidence. Which country is lying here?

While opinions clearly differ on how close Iran is, what's not arguable is that they are enriching uranium with this goal in mind and negotations to prevent this have failed. So in many ways this disagreement is a sidetrack; either we intend to stop them from obtaining a nuclear weapon or we do not, and if we do then it is a good thing if they are far away as it would mean we are taking action early.

I do agree with the point above about how allowing Iran to arm itself might deliver some form of stability. Wars of aggression have historically been started by the US and Israel against its perceived enemies, not the other way around. Iran's response (of attacking friendly nations that stayed out of the conflict) does concern me though.

 

[AlterEgo]

Iran's response (of attacking friendly nations that stayed out of the conflict) does concern me though.

They didn't stay out of the conflict, they hosted Iran's enemies at military bases.

 

[Cdd89]

They didn't stay out of the conflict, they hosted Iran's enemies at military bases.

They haven't even launched retaliatory strikes at Iran. We are funding Ukraine in the war against Russia, but Russia hasn't launched direct attacks against us as this rightly represents a red line.

The fact that Iran considers civilian infrastructure of friends of America to be fair game for direct attacks is exactly why this concerns me so much. We haven't allowed ourselves to be dragged into the war offensively, but if Iran could easily reach us I'm confident they would.

 

[AlterEgo]

They haven't even launched retaliatory strikes at Iran. We are funding Ukraine in the war against Russia, but Russia hasn't launched direct attacks against us as this rightly represents a red line.

Russia doesn't directly attack us because we have nuclear weapons (and are part of NATO).

It can hardly be a surprise that countries with the capacity to do so wish to develop nuclear weapons. The amount of protection they offer is considerable.

Ukraine - who ceded nuclear weapons, are occupied now by a nuclear power.

 

[sjpowermac]

Despite Israel claiming that Iran was one week, one month or whatever away from having a viable nuclear weapon,, for the best part of this century, there is no evidence of this. The amount of uranium is irrelevant if it is not at the level of enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon. And 60% enrichment is very far from good enough. Plus, a nuclear weapon is far more complex than just having enough enriched uranium. During the time that the West was able to monitor their programme, they did not appear to be near to, or preceding at any speed towards having a functioning nuclear weapon.

Thank you for your considered response, elements of which I agree with. Agreed too that there’s far more to having a nuclear weapon than just the enriched uranium. Supposing though that Iran was close to having a weapon, how content would you be with that?

The Iranian regime is horrific, and I do hope the Iranian people get something that better serves their interest as events unfold in future, but the current conflict in a way supports their efforts to gain a nuclear weapon. If Iran was nuclear armed, it seems unlikely they would have been so readily attacked?

Moreover, I do wonder whether Iran having nuclear weapons might actually deliver some stability?

Agreed on the first part, a government that hires foreign militias to slaughter 40000+ of their own people is horrific. I’m afraid though that I can’t agree with you that a nuclear armed Iran would bring stability to the region, how can you be sure that they wouldn’t use such a weapon? When they threaten to wipe Isreal off the map, I’m inclined to take them at their word.

Of course Israel obtained its nuclear weapons entirely transparently and without deception. I am sure that will be correct and I won't need to read about the Dimona nuclear program.

I’m not clear hear as to what it is you are arguing about. Are you saying that you wish to see a nuclear armed Iran in order to counter the Israeli weapons? I’d personally prefer no nuclear weapons at all in the world and would be frankly horrified if Iran had them.

Let's not pretend that the feeling isn't mutual; the US and Israel have had it in for Iran since the revolution. If you constantly threaten another nation, don't the response to be all sweetness and light!


I don't think anyone here is denying that Iran's crackdown was brutal, but it is not the only country capable of killing tens of thousands of people - aren't you forgetting about the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the West Bank?


Despite Nutternyahoo banging on for years about Iran being "this close" to having a nuclear weapon, we've yet to see any evidence. Which country is lying here? Oh yes, the one that actually has nuclear weapons, refuses to acknowledge that it has them and has refused to sign any treaties or submit to any inspections relating to them. Iran had an agreement to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected


We wouldn't be having this discussion if Iran actually had nuclear weapons as they would be a deterrent to any attacks; the same reason that we have them. I also don't believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would use them aggressively. Its leadership is certainly fanatical, but is it really stupid enough to launch a first strike when obliteration would swiftly follow?

Israel doesn't like Iran having any military capability because Iran is the only country that seems prepared to take action when Israel goes on another land-grabbing rampage. I get that Israel views Iran as an existential threat, but perhaps if Israel acted like a civilised neighbour it would have nothing to fear.

You don’t believe a nuclear armed Iran would use them? Really? I think their mindset is truly apocalyptic and I’d suggest that when extreme folk with a doctrine of Mahdism says they are going to do something it’s beyond unwise to not take them at their word.

Whilst I’m far from convinced that the USA and Isreal have got this right, I’m utterly perplexed at the echo chamber of the thread who seem on the one hand to acknowledge the Iranian government slaughtered 40000 of their own people and yet at the same time claim they are nice friendly chaps that we could settle this over a nice cup of tea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2026 ==

They haven't even launched retaliatory strikes at Iran. We are funding Ukraine in the war against Russia, but Russia hasn't launched direct attacks against us as this rightly represents a red line.

The fact that Iran considers civilian infrastructure of friends of America to be fair game for direct attacks is exactly why this concerns me so much. We haven't allowed ourselves to be dragged into the war offensively, but if Iran could easily reach us I'm confident they would.

I couldn’t agree more with this. I’m 100% convinced that if Iran felt they could successfully strike Europe then they would. I’m utterly perplexed at the amount of credit so many posters give to the Iranian government.

 

[The Ham]

What about all the commodities that are manufactured from oil?
Basically everything in your house is has a petrochemical element, basically all packaging and a lot of chemicals too.

All the plastic comes from China and that has gone up in price because Asia is the biggest market of oil from the gulf

Getting rid of Gas is decades away, if my boiler breaks I'm getting another gas appliance. A heat pump is far too expensive at this time.
This will be the case for a lot of people

Passivhaus is very expensive and labour intensive, if you want to make houses unaffordable then sure go ahead

No one is saying that we'll be using zero oil any time soon.

However, if we were to remove the equivalent oil use as we use for 95% of road transport (this may be a bit more fit road transport use, but less for heating, trains, shipping and aviation) then we'd reduce our oil demands by 50%.

Gas use will likely reduce as housing stock gets modernised (either through people installing insulation or by houses being demolished and replaced with more efficient ones) and as more people electrify.

You're unlikely to ever justify a heat pump if you are paying full price for your electricity. However, as the cost of solar panels continues to fall, the cost of air power generation is in a very good place and will likely continue to get better.

As such, once you've reached payback for the panels the cost of the energy they create is really free.

Likewise, the energy efficiency is around 390%, that only just makes the maths work if you're paying for all your electricity use for heating and hot water.

If a decent chunk of that is free then the maths could work.

Yes it's not going to be fast as the shift to EV's, however over time (especially if up front costs continue to reduce).

For me with a total gas bill of £460 for the year (£120 of which is the standing charge) it's not really viable currently, even if I could generate 100% of my heating/hot water needs from solar and I needed to replace by gas boiler anyway.

Although if I was able to generate the required energy from solar, financially I'd be better off exporting it to the grid and using that income to cover my gas bills.

 

[GusB]

You don’t believe a nuclear armed Iran would use them? Really? I think their mindset is truly apocalyptic and I’d suggest that when extreme folk with a doctrine of Mahdism says they are going to do something it’s beyond unwise to not take them at their word.

No, I don't believe it would. If Iran had nuclear weapons and used them offensively, you can guarantee that there would be swift retaliation in kind and there'd be no more Iran. That's how nuclear deterrence works.

Ask yourself why North Korea hasn't seen regime change, despite treating its citizens in an appalling manner.

Whilst I’m far from convinced that the USA and Isreal have got this right, I’m utterly perplexed at the echo chamber of the thread who seem on the one hand to acknowledge the Iranian government slaughtered 40000 of their own people and yet at the same time claim they are nice friendly chaps that we could settle this over a nice cup of tea.

No-one in this thread has suggested they're nice friendly chaps who'd settle matters over a nice cup of tea,

I see that you've again brought up the 40,000 people that Iran has killed, but conveniently ignored my point that Israel has murdered far, far more. 70,000+ in Gaza, with the possibility that the real number may be over 100,000.

Iran is not the only villain in this story.

 

[JamieL]

Agreed on the first part, a government that hires foreign militias to slaughter 40000+ of their own people is horrific. I’m afraid though that I can’t agree with you that a nuclear armed Iran would bring stability to the region, how can you be sure that they wouldn’t use such a weapon? When they threaten to wipe Isreal off the map, I’m inclined to take them at their word.

I’m not clear hear as to what it is you are arguing about. Are you saying that you wish to see a nuclear armed Iran in order to counter the Israeli weapons? I’d personally prefer no nuclear weapons at all in the world and would be frankly horrified if Iran had them.

You don’t believe a nuclear armed Iran would use them? Really? I think their mindset is truly apocalyptic and I’d suggest that when extreme folk with a doctrine of Mahdism says they are going to do something it’s beyond unwise to not take them at their word.

Iran, like every other State, has consistently shown its desire for state and regime survival. That is why they entered into JCPOA, that is why negotiations have been ongoing on and off over all these years. Even their hostage taking, as outrageous as that may be, has been linked to debts or payments or other aspects that link to regime survival. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't continue to act rationally in terms of regime survival if they had nuclear weapons. None of this changes the fact the Islamic Republican regime is evil and that their rhetoric is disgusting. Of course, in an ideal world I would not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But in that same ideal world I would not have not wanted the global economy to be hit hard due to Israeli and American imperialism. From an Iranian perspective, these attacks have sort of shown why they need the former to prevent the latter.

As for the nuclear balance argument, this has been discussed by far more prominent authors than myself. Waltz wrote the reference article on the subject back in 2012:

U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that a nuclear-armed Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. In fact, it is the best possible outcome of the West's current standoff with the Islamic Republic. By creating a more durable balance of military power in the Middle East, a nuclear Iran would yield more stability, not less.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23218033

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m afraid though that I can’t agree with you that a nuclear armed Iran would bring stability to the region, how can you be sure that they wouldn’t use such a weapon? When they threaten to wipe Isreal off the map, I’m inclined to take them at their word.

Do you take the Israeli leaders at their word when they use genocidal language towards Palestinians?

I’m not clear hear as to what it is you are arguing about. Are you saying that you wish to see a nuclear armed Iran in order to counter the Israeli weapons?

No, my point is it's hypocritical to accuse Iran of developing its weapons secretly and dishonestly when Israel - and indeed some other countries - also developed them secretly and dishonestly. Israel lied to everyone except the French about their secret nuclear weapons project; even the US didn't know or approve

Iran is really quite mental but nuclear weapons have the benefit of generally stabilising and limiting the scope of future conflict. Look at India and Pakistan, another pair of total nutjob states which hate each other. There hasn't been a full scale war precisely because they are both in possession of nukes. A nuclear Iran is an interesting prospect, I am fairly ambivalent about whether this would be a good idea or not. I would prefer Israel and Iran both to give up nuclear weapons (or the prospect of the same) but I find it almost impossible to imagine that Israel would do so willingly.

 

[sjpowermac]

Iran is really quite mental.

Agreed.

A nuclear Iran is an interesting prospect, I am fairly ambivalent about whether this would be a good idea or not. I would prefer Israel and Iran both to give up nuclear weapons (or the prospect of the same) but I find it almost impossible to imagine that Israel would do so willingly.

Agreed totally, ideally both Isreal and Iran would not have nuclear weapons, though I would go further and say that I would prefer a nuclear weapon free world.

The nub of the issue though is would a nuclear armed Iran use the weapons as a deterrent, or would they actually use them? On the one had you (rightly in my opinion) describe the Iranian government as ‘really quite mental’ and yet seem content they would only have nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If we look at the conduct of Iran in this war in hitting civilian targets in neighbouring states, their slaughter of 40000 of their own people, their ideology in exporting terror for 47 years, I think there’s ample evidence that they would in fact use nuclear weapons.

I’d be genuinely interested to learn what your stance is on the ideology of the Iranian government, preferably without whstaboutary in reference to Isreal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2026 ==

From an Iranian perspective, these attacks have sort of shown why they need the former to prevent the latter.

Yes, I think you are absolutely correct about this, but what a thoroughly awful perspective the Iranian government has. As mentioned previously, I’m very undecided as to whether the USA and Isreal have chosen the correct course of action, I’m rather less confident than yourself and Mr.Waltz that Iran wouldn’t actually use nuclear weapons, I believe that for the current Iranian government the theory of mutually assured destruction breaks down.

 

[JamieL]

I’d be genuinely interested to learn what your stance is on the ideology of the Iranian government

I can't comment on this, but it is interesting to consider the military disposition of the USA against Iran. As you can see from the map below, US bases are deployed along the entirety of the south and west borders of Iran - and that is before you consider the flexibility that comes from the US aircraft carrier battle groups. When you factor in this, it is reasonable for Iran to conclude it faces a significant threat from the USA - indeed, the current war rather proves it. Iran also knows it cannot counter such threats with sufficient conventional force, so you can see why they may want nuclear weapons. So regardless of the ideology of the Iran Islamic Republic government, the logic behind seeking nuclear weapons is grounded in rational terms.

Source:

Trump issues four-word threat to Iran if it doesn't reach new nuclear deal

Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Iran unless a new nuclear deal is reached, only escalating tensions in a region already on edge.

metro.co.uk

 

[Falcon1200]

A nuclear Iran is an interesting prospect, I am fairly ambivalent about whether this would be a good idea or not. I would prefer Israel and Iran both to give up nuclear weapons (or the prospect of the same) but I find it almost impossible to imagine that Israel would do so willingly.

A frightening rather than interesting prospect. Israel has not (yet) used its nuclear weapons. If Iran did ever manage to develop its own, would they also not use them?

In regards to the Iranian hatred of Israel, well, in my view, that is fully understandable.

In my opinion, it is not Israelis Iran hates, and wishes to destroy, it is Jews (a hatred shared around the region and indeed the world). That is why Iran must never have nuclear weapons.

However; The USA and Israeli attack on Iran is mad, pointless, will solve nothing, and there is no possible end in which the region and the world will be in any way a safer or better place.

 

[sjpowermac]

I can't comment on this, but it is interesting to consider the military disposition of the USA against Iran. As you can see from the map below, US bases are deployed along the entirety of the south and west borders of Iran - and that is before you consider the flexibility that comes from the US aircraft carrier battle groups. When you factor in this, it is reasonable for Iran to conclude it faces a significant threat from the USA - indeed, the current war rather proves it. Iran also knows it cannot counter such threats with sufficient conventional force, so you can see why they may want nuclear weapons. So regardless of the ideology of the Iran Islamic Republic government, the logic behind seeking nuclear weapons is grounded in rational terms.

Source:

Trump issues four-word threat to Iran if it doesn't reach new nuclear deal

Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Iran unless a new nuclear deal is reached, only escalating tensions in a region already on edge.

metro.co.uk

Well you can provide whatever maps you like and make whatever justification you wish, but the key question remains as to would the ideology of the current Iranian government lead them to use nuclear weapons if they had them?

I firmly believe that their ideology is well documented, but not particularly well understood in the West, as this forum thread itself shows.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2026 ==

A frightening rather than interesting prospect. Israel has not (yet) used its nuclear weapons. If Iran did ever manage to develop its own, would they also not use them?



No, lets be absolutely clear: It is not Israelis Iran hates, and wishes to destroy, it is Jews (a hatred shared around the region and indeed the world). That is why Iran must never have nuclear weapons.

However; The USA and Israeli attack on Iran is mad, pointless, will solve nothing, and there is no possible end in which the region and the world will be in any way a safer or better place.

I completely agree with all you’ve put there. It’s such a shame that so many on the thread apply conventional wisdom and rules of engagement with regard to the current Iranian government. When Iran threatens to wipe Isreal off the map, we better believe them.

Agreed too, I’m far from convinced that the USA and Israeli attacks will achieve their aims, though I’m at a loss to suggest what alternative actions should have been taken.