• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Middle East conflict

martin butler

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Messages
868
That might just prompt Trump to walk away from NATO.
Its odds on, that if he could, he would have already walked away, Daddy Vlad has been whispering in his ear for years, they never supported you Donnald,

Congress would most likely veto him pulling out as it needs a super majority, and the costs would be too great, loss of arms orders, loss of bases, The ones who still maintain brain function, IE, didn't drink the cool aid, know how much being part of NATO brings in.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
1,031
How much of that was months ago and how much recent? What exactly was destroyed? Is the damage materially impeding US efforts? Has it been verified?

I know who the person is, however I didn’t speak to them first hand. I can’t confirm if the damage is new or previous. It does sound extensive.


Original article is paywalled but can be read, at least for me at this link.


The U.S. Navy base in Bahrain was repeatedly targeted between late February and June. Strikes that got through caused extensive damage, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social-media footage and interviews with current and former servicemembers—damage that the Pentagon hasn’t publicly acknowledged. Hit hard were the command headquarters and at least a dozen other buildings, along with two satellite communications terminals.

Especially important as this is the only US naval base in the region.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,798
Location
West is best
That might just prompt Trump to walk away from NATO.
The point I was making is that the U.S. is highly dependent on having overseas bases in European NATO countries and not having these would be extremely detrimental to overseas military operations. The fact that the U.S. used U.K. based and bases in Germany shows that they were extremely useful to the U.S.

And Trump talks rubbish, as martin butler says, withdrawing from NATO would be difficult for him to do..And bad for him in terms of support within the U.S.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,087
Location
Redcar
I can buy that the physical damage to US bases is more significant than has been admitted to so far. I'm less convinced that there's a massive cover up of significant US casualties (wounded and killed). There would be too many families and friends wondering why Jimmy or Susan hasn't come back from the war, or why their emails/letters/texts are going unanswered, etc etc.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,612
Location
Scotland
I'm less convinced that there's a massive cover up of significant US casualties (wounded and killed). There would be too many families and friends wondering why Jimmy or Susan hasn't come back from the war, or why their emails/letters/texts are going unanswered, etc etc.
I don't think the suggestion is that thousands have been killed, but let's say that there were 100 dead rather than the 13 who have been acknowledged. In a military of over a million, it wouldn't be that difficult to hide them, especially given that communication would likely already be somewhat limited.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
1,031
I don’t see how the US could cover up mass casualties. The WSJ article suggests the Bahrain installation was evacuated early on.

Damage to strategically important and expensive infrastructure is highly embarrassing for the US though. I think there has been a degree of radio silence about that. Early on in the conflict there was almost daily commentary on the results of Iranian attacks, with reviews of open source satellite imagery.

The US (and Gulf states) quickly put pressure on the satellite imagery providers to get them to stop releasing images including US military installations. Since then the US has been able to control the narrative pretty much.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,440
Location
Taunton or Kent
I don’t see how the US could cover up mass casualties. The WSJ article suggests the Bahrain installation was evacuated early on.

Damage to strategically important and expensive infrastructure is highly embarrassing for the US though. I think there has been a degree of radio silence about that. Early on in the conflict there was almost daily commentary on the results of Iranian attacks, with reviews of open source satellite imagery. The US (and Gulf states) quickly put pressure on the satellite imagery providers to get them to stop releasing images including US military installations. Since then the US has been able to control the narrative pretty much.
And I'm guessing the government will be trying to get this story suppressed as much as possible too (although at time of writing the WSJ is headlining it):


Two US service members were killed and one remains missing after Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks in Jordan on Friday, military officials said.

The US Central Command (Centcom) said four US service members were medically evacuated to hospitals in Jordan but have since been discharged. Others who suffered minor injuries have returned to duty.

Jordan's military earlier said it had intercepted 10 Iranian missiles fired into its airspace overnight, without reporting any damage.

The US military said it had carried out the seventh consecutive night of strikes on Iran since President Donald Trump declared their temporary ceasefire agreement "over".

The US death toll in the conflict has risen to 16 after an American Navy pilot who went missing earlier this month was declared dead, marking the second increase in the toll this week.

At least 50 people have been killed and more than 500 injured in US strikes over the past three weeks, according to Iranian state media, citing the country's health ministry.

Washington and Tehran struck a preliminary deal to end the war in June, but the agreement unravelled within a month of its signing.

Hostilities have re-escalated over the past week, with the US reimposing a blockade on Iranian ports and Tehran declaring the Strait of Hormuz closed.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
1,031
Interesting that the US is now acknowledging 400+ injured personnel. I suppose it’s reasonable to assume these injuries aren’t minor cuts and grazes.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,440
Location
Taunton or Kent
Oil is now back to $100 a barrel, thanks to the Houthi's now getting involved:



Oil prices hit $100 a barrel on Thursday for the first time since May, after attacks by Iranian-backed Houthi militants in the Red Sea threatened to squeeze global supplies further and reignite a global inflation shock. Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose more than 6 per cent to $100, extending a blistering rebound this month amid fears that the US and Iran are headed for a return to full-blown conflict.
 

Vexed

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2020
Messages
648
Location
Herts / Hants

Dave61

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2026
Messages
152
Location
Long Eaton
If this mess does not get sorted out before the end of the Summer, it is going to be a bleak winter in Europe not only because of prices but also supply. Mainland Europe is normally rebuilding its stocks for next winter right now but on a recent BBC report I read (sorry can't find it now) they are still heavily depleated.

Whilst we mainy get gas from Norway/US (and a little bit from the North Sea) the rest of the world is also going to need gas and right now the middle east is not supplying much.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,612
Location
Scotland
So, it seems that DJT has found a solution to get Iran to the bargaining table: tariffs.
US President Donald Trump has called on lawmakers to modify a newly passed Russia sanctions bill to accord him sweeping authority to impose tariffs on Iran, a move that threatens to delay the passage of the legislation as it moves to the House of Representatives.

Speaking to journalists in the Oval Office on Wednesday, the American leader pressed for the addition of trade measures aimed at Tehran. "I'd like them to add Iran as tariffs, not just as sanctions, I think that's important, that's what Lindsey wanted," Trump stated.
Source: https://www.aninews.in/news/world/u...added-to-russia-sanctions-bill20260730025954/

Who's going to tell him that tariffs don't have any effect when trade is completely embargoed?
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,440
Location
Taunton or Kent
Two developments in this part of the world today. Firstly oil is shooting back above $100 a barrel due to attacks on oil supplies in Saudi Arabia, with gas and borrowing costs following suit, then we have Netanyahu suing an Israeli newspaper that claims the UAE leader warned Netanyahu of the Hamas October 7th attack days before it was launched:


The price of oil has jumped to $105 a barrel amid signs the conflict in the Middle East will not be resolved quickly, fuelling fears that inflation could accelerate.

With the conflict between the US and Iran in the Gulf intensifying in recent days, the cost of both crude oil and gas has been rising sharply. Brent crude went back above $100 a barrel on Wednesday and has continued to climb.

The war has led to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, preventing supplies of oil and gas from the Gulf from reaching global markets.

US and UK long-term borrowing costs also surged to their highest level in decades.

Speaking at a Republican Party convention in Texas on Wednesday, President Trump said he did not think the fighting would end until after the US mid-term elections in November.

Analysts said the combination of rising energy costs and higher borrowing costs was adding pressure on financial markets.

Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at trading platform IG, said investors were becoming increasingly concerned about the economic impact of higher oil prices.

"It feels like investors worldwide are now waking up to the crisis in oil markets," Beauchamp said. He warned that the surge in energy prices could weigh heavily on the global economy if it continues.

Concerns have also grown after Iran-aligned Houthi forces were reported to have seized Yemen's port of Mokha, a key Red Sea port.

The move could elevate fears of further shipping disruptions.

The price of natural gas has also been soaring on wholesale markets. In the UK, it rose above 200p a therm for the first time since the end of 2022.

Storage levels in Europe are much lower than normal for the time of year, and the need to fill reserves ahead of the winter has helped to push up prices.


Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told lawyers to begin defamation proceedings against an Israeli newspaper over reports that the leader of the United Arab Emirates warned him that Hamas was planning an operation just days before the 7 October 2023 attacks.

According to book extracts published by Haaretz, UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan had a phone call with Netanyahu that September.

The report said Netanyahu was warned that the then-Hamas chief in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, was planning a major operation.

Netanyahu's office said "no warning was given to the prime minister from the United Arab Emirates before 7 October", calling the report part of a "sinister plot".

Haaretz, which has historically been a vocal critic of the prime minister, has stood by its reporting and rejected Netanyahu's defamation claim, saying its "sole purpose is to silence journalistic criticism".

The report - and Netanyahu's angry denials, accusing Haaretz of lies - comes as the general election campaign in Israel starts to heat up. The polls on 27 October are widely considered a referendum on Netanyahu's leadership.

On 7 October 2023, thousands of Hamas-led gunmen breached the Gaza border fence and attacked nearby Israeli communities, military bases and a large music festival. About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to Gaza as hostages.

Israel responded by launching a military campaign in Gaza, during which at least 73,670 people have been killed, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry, whose figures are considered reliable by the UN.

Ever since 7 October, accusations have been laid against Netanyahu that he did not act quickly enough after the attack began. He has resisted an independent public inquiry into what happened and this latest report will only fuel critics' suspicions.

The report, published on Tuesday, cited three "foreign senior sources" and a Palestinian adviser to Sheikh Mohammed as saying that, in the final days of September 2023, a representative from the UAE embassy went to the Israeli prime minister's office with a special phone to ensure the conversation would remain confidential.

During that call, Haaretz reported, Netanyahu was given an explicit warning by Sheikh Mohammed - that Sinwar had told a former Palestinian official that Hamas was preparing a major operation that he described as an "earthquake".

"Bin Zayed expressed concern that the event in question would not only lead to bloodshed but also destabilise the entire region," Haaretz said, adding that the information contained in its report was a result of extensive research of dozens of sources, documents and correspondence, all carried out for a book, Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment, written by Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval.

"To his surprise however, the prime minister reacted with relative calm," Haaretz reported. "Netanyahu said that, in his assessment, Hamas intended to operate in the West Bank area, and he reassured bin Zayed that Israel was prepared for any scenario."

The report went on to recount that the Emirati leader relayed the conversation he had with Netanyahu to the then CIA director William J Burns. It also said Netanyahu failed to brief the heads of Israel's Shin Bet domestic security agency and Mossad intelligence agency, as well as the Israeli army's chief of staff about his conversation with the UAE president.

The report was published on the same day that the UK announced sanctions on illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The decision angered the Israeli government, which announced several countermeasures, including ordering the closure of the British consulate in occupied East Jerusalem.

But while that development made international headlines, it was the Haaretz story that led the news in a country getting ready for elections.

Netanyahu's Likud Party accused Haaretz of "blatant foreign interference in Israel's elections", while the prime minister said on X that the story had "clear political timing, as part of the left's election campaign".

Lawyers for Haaretz responded to Netanyahu's plans to begin legal proceedings, saying they would not be deterred by what they described as the prime minister's attempts to silence journalistic criticism.

The lawyers' letter stated that the report was "the product of an in-depth journalistic investigations and is based on sources pertaining to an issue of paramount public importance".

"In the absence of a full accountability to the public on behalf of your client, the press fulfils its role and exposes step by step the information to the public," it added.

While the UAE has not addressed the conversation specifically, it did not deny it either, issuing a statement emphasising that, since the attack by Hamas, it has worked towards de-escalation, regional stability and preventing violence.

"UAE and Israeli government entities have maintained open and direct lines of communication since the inception of the relationship more than five years ago," the UAE's ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement after the publication of Haaretz's report. "When necessary, all relevant intelligence has been and continues to be communicated between the relevant entities."

Four of Israel's main opposition leaders issued a joint statement demanding an investigation into what happened.

"Netanyahu and his partners in the 7 October government are unfit to continue in office," said Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman and Yair Golan.

"We will work with the co-ordination and responsibility required to prevent them from leading to another disaster."
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,612
Location
Scotland
then we have Netanyahu suing an Israeli newspaper that claims the UAE leader warned Netanyahu of the Hamas October 7th attack days before it was launched
Don't forget that the soldiers whose job it was to watch over the boundary between Israel and Gaza who reported strange goings-on in the weeks and days before the October 7th attacks but were ignored:
They are known as Israel's eyes on the Gaza border.

For years, units of young female conscripts had one job here. It was to sit in surveillance bases for hours, looking for signs of anything suspicious.

In the months leading up to the 7 October attacks by Hamas, they did begin to see things: practice raids, mock hostage-taking, and farmers behaving strangely on the other side of the fence.

Noa, not her real name, says they would pass information about what they were seeing to intelligence and higher-ranking officers, but were powerless to do more. "We were just the eyes," she says.

It was clear to some of these women that Hamas was planning something big - that there was, in Noa's words, a "balloon that was going to burst".
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67958260
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,291
Location
Yorkshire
Two developments in this part of the world today. Firstly oil is shooting back above $100 a barrel due to attacks on oil supplies in Saudi Arabia, with gas and borrowing costs following suit, then we have Netanyahu suing an Israeli newspaper that claims the UAE leader warned Netanyahu of the Hamas October 7th attack days before it was launched:




Don't forget that the soldiers whose job it was to watch over the boundary between Israel and Gaza who reported strange goings-on in the weeks and days before the October 7th attacks but were ignored:

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67958260
It was all very 'convenient' for the war criminal Netanyahu that the attacks happened, as he was looking for an 'excuse' for increasing the scope of his mass genocide.

I say 'excuse' because some deranged racists actually believe that deaths of ~1200 Jews at the hands of terrorists 'justifies' the deaths of ~75,000 Palestinians (and even believe that figure isn't enough) and displacement of many millions sponsored by a state, on the basis that 1 Jewish life is worth many Palestinain lives.

For example, this crackpot:
"No," he said, "millions. One Jewish life, it's 10 million [Palestinians]."

Only a racist would see 1 Jewish life as worth any more than 1 Palestinian life; the idea that the ratio is 1:2, 1:100, 1:1000 or 1:10000000 is really just a measure of how racist and insane the person with those views is.
 
Last edited:

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,802
Location
Newport
Only a racist would see 1 Jewish life as worth any more than 1 Palestinian life; the idea that the ratio is 1:2, 1:100, 1:1000 or 1:10000000 is really just a measure of how racist and insane the person with those views is.
Surely only a religious zealot or similar would see any revenge ratio as acceptable?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,291
Location
Yorkshire
Surely only a religious zealot or similar would see any revenge ratio as acceptable?
I think the concept of 'revenge' is very different to the concept of valuing lives of one 'category' of people as worth more or less than the other. I wasn't commenting on the former, but it is certainly a key factor that has been occuring in this part of the world for many decades.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,612
Location
Scotland
Surely only a religious zealot or similar would see any revenge ratio as acceptable?
I think it's natural for people to want to react to violence with proportional violence, but not to escalate. How many times has a parent's "Why did you hit him/her?" been answered by "They hit me first!" or similar?

In the realm of international relations, one of the few acceptable justifications for military action against another country is as a response to an attack, or in reaction to an attack against an allied country. But the action has to be proportionate. So Israel was arguable justified to in reacting to the October 7th attacks militarily, but the scale of the genocide that they've engaged in cannot be excused or forgotten.
 

Top