www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx23e4jz2g0t
"We know where Iran's supreme leader is but we won't kill him - for now, says Trump"
|
Its called "strategic ambiguity"
IE.
Trump has no bucking idea what he is doing but willl spout anything for a headline.
Iran has no clue what he is going to do but it could be anything.
Israel will thrive and do anything at will in the resultng uncertainty
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 17 Jun 25 at 20:30
|
|
China has issued an urgent advisory urging Chinese nationals to leave Israel immediately due to "the deteriorating security situation". The embassy recommended exiting via land borders to Jordan.
|
In Trump's addled brain I'm quite sure he thinks it's clever implicitly to declare war as a threat to underpin one of his amazing negotiations, a bit like his ludicrous import tariffs.
cf. the threats to Canada, Mexico and Greenland.
It won't have occurred to him that he could actually start a war, especially when he is dealing with people madder than he is.
As for strategic ambiguity, that comes by default when you have no articulated strategy at all.
He is an absolutely incompetent negotiator.
|
>>He is an absolutely incompetent negotiator.
Maybe he has been taking lessons from sir Keir.
|
One can only hope so but it seems unlikely.
I think Starmer is doing a decent job, compared with the previous 5.
|
I've just typed "Keir Starmer's achievements" into the Google search box.
-----
AI Overview
Keir Starmer's achievements are largely tied to his time as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which began in 2024. Key policy initiatives include ending certain winter fuel payments, implementing an early-release scheme for prisoners to address overcrowding, and settling public sector strikes. He also established Great British Energy and the Border Security Command, and has taken a stance on foreign policy issues like the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza.
Oops, something went wrong.
------
Last edited by: Kevin on Wed 18 Jun 25 at 19:37
|
A report card on the anniversary of his election is likely to be little better that a "D"
- winter fuel allowance - politically crass, exposed pension credit flaws, U-turn
- employers NI up - no other choice as tax and VAT deliberately excluded
- non-dom rules may now be reversed
- reconsidering inheritance tax for farmers
- has slipped firmly into traditional political behaviour of half and selective truths
- grooming gang enquiry now national not local
- border force changes but more illegal immigrants and hotel costs
Starmer input to the international arena is worthy. Se riously wonder whether it will have any real impact (UK is a bit player compared to US and Israel) or just a bit of distraction.
There are tensions within Labour - traditionalist (tax and spend etc) vs centre ground (balance the books, compromise etc). It was evident before the election that promises were unaffordable without tax rises. Clarity and honesty should prevail - an awkward political concept.
Looking back over the preceding 5 PMs I would rate:
- Cameron and Sunak competent but far from exceptional
- May like Starmer - decent but ineffective. Starmer has anther 4 years to prove otherwise!
- Johnson a triumph of BS over substance and hugely flawed
- Truss incompetent,
|
I'd only rate 3 in my voting life time,,,
Maggie, gave us a modernising shake-up, but didnt invest the sale of the family silver
Blair, but went all presidential and made a major gulf war cockup
Cameron, but badly mishandled the brexit vote thing. (he trusted the voting public too much)
|
I'd add Wislon to that.
Not so much over economics and all that but social reform.
Abolition of the Death Penalty
Legalisation of Homesexual acts between consenting adults
Abortion
Reform of Divorce
and more controversially Comprehensive Education.
|
|
There is a train of thought that Trump hasnt given the go-ahead, because the US is not convinced the GBU-57A/B MOP "Bunker Buster" could penetrate the 90 metres of mountain to destroy the Fordo nuclear site, and that only a nuke could finish it off.
|
|
Would a nuclear missile penetrate 90 metres? Doesn’t the blast radiate outwards? Of course it would give you a headache if you were in the bunker
|
>> Would a nuclear missile penetrate 90 metres? Doesn’t the blast radiate outwards? Of course it
>> would give you a headache if you were in the bunker
Nukes come in various configurations, air burst, ground burst, tactical, strategic, The thinking is the bunker buster would soften up the mountain, and the nuke would stir it up.
|
Wouldn't two bunker busters in quick succession do the trick?
Or get the Ukrainians to send some drones in, they seem pretty adept with them LOL
|
At least a couple of grown ups will have been trying to counsel Trump not to start another unwinnable war on the basis of possibly dodgy intelligence. That might have had an effect, as might the possibility that the MAGAts will go off him somewhat given he promised no more wars.
I think in his tiny mind he thinks he is making them sweat with his 2 week hiatus and thinks Iran will negotiate or cave in some way, bearing in mind his belief in his own ability to coerce and bamboozle people at will. No doubt he has already convinced himself he outsmarted China.
I really hope he doesn't do it. He can give weapons and defensive tools to Israel and no doubt will, but US direct action on Iran will have many unwanted consequences and we should steer well clear. Given his attitude to defending Europe we have no obligation IMO.
|
Given he seems to be a prime proponent of "don't confuse me with the facts" absolutely anything is possible.
( He ignored the advice from his own DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, that the Iranians were nowhere near having nukes because "I think they are")
|
“Given his attitude to defending Europe we have no obligation IMO.”
Starmer is backing away from supporting US. Legal reasons will give him justification for not getting involved
|
|
Bases will be where the discussion is as with Libya.
|
>> Bases will be where the discussion is as with Libya.
The bunker buster can only be carried (currently) by USAF B2 Spirit heavy bombers. Diego Garcia is the only base they can be staged at*
Currenly none there, and in theory they need UK permission
*cyprus too close (within Iranian missile range in theory), no Arab country will allow them to be staged ( blowback attacks). I suppose its possible to fly the mission from the US with tanker support
|
|
They can fly directly from US. They need in air refuelling. Tanker aircraft are stationed at many US airbases including Mildenhall There is no restriction as to which aircraft they can refuel.
|
>> Or get the Ukrainians to send some drones in, they seem pretty adept with them
>> LOL
Don't you think Israel had something to do with them? Look at the similarity to the drones in Iran being launched from within Iran and the Ukraine drones being launched from within Russia.
|
Given that Ukraine planned the russian raid over a year ago, I think its likely the israelis quickly learned fron the ukrainians.
|
|
I see the US have moved several dozen tankers into Europe. Certainly helps give DT options.
|
Trump needs a few days to get all the kit needed in the right place. A two week delay builds pressure and allows time for negotiation- whether successful is entirely speculation.
Trump needs to get his Gulf allies onside as they would likely be hit first in any escalation. If he later uses the MOPs he can claim he gave Iran every opportunity to do a deal.
More fundamental question - should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear capability (weapons and energy) without external control or scrutiny.
- are Iran nuclear enrichment and bomb ambitions credible?
- should we be concerned that Iran may in the future have nuclear weapons?
- should we trust the Iranian leadership protestations or regard Iran as a terrorist state?
Blair justified the Iraq war on weapons of mass destruction which were never found. I am now somewhat wary of politicians creating news to support their political intent.
A personal view - Iran is an unpredictable terrorist state which has directly supported Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. There is no certainty that if they had such weapons, they would not use them.
Nuclear weapons are global game changers. Opinions like "95% certain" or "highly unlikely" are not good enough odds - their nuclear program must be disabled if demonstrably transparent oversight or control cannot be negotiated.
|
>>A report card on the anniversary of his election is likely to be little better that a "D"
Facebook etc hates Starmer because they have been told to by the Daily Mail, is the top and bottom of it.
Labour's presentation might have been (very) off but in truth Reeves has had very little choice than to hit business for income initially* and a lot of people are grudgingly admitting that Starmer is playing a weak hand sensibly, having taken some time to find his feet, partly hampered I think by an abundance of caution.
I am disappointed to see a Labour government targeting welfare but the numbers show an alarming rise in costs since Covid which suggests it is not under control, and again it is unrealistic to expect no examination of that at the very least.
Badenough's politization of the grooming gangs for example is and has been disgraceful, and Labour's approach as far as I can see has been entirely sensible. Fortunately she gets her facts wrong every PMQ and reinforces her reputation for ignorance and arrogance.
*I am convinced this is why Sunak called such an early election. He had absolutely no options left.
|
Hot off the press...
Three nuclear sites in Iran have been attacked by the USA!
|
When I read yesterday that the leadership in Iran was refusing to negotiate about its nuclear programme I told SWMBO I reckoned that was exactly the pretext Trump wanted.
I take no pleasure in being proved right.
|
>> Hot off the press...
>>
>> Three nuclear sites in Iran have been attacked by the USA!
I am reminded how much like a fat bully boy taking a cheap shot at a defencless victim this is.
|
>> www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyx5yw8y28o.amp
Tom Lehrer said irony was dead after Kissinger won the peace prize. I think the quote needs another trip out.
|
|
Well I got that one wrong, I thought he would dither for the usual 2 weeks and beyond. Netanyahu seems to have control of him this time.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 22 Jun 25 at 10:17
|
Two days ago Trump said he had not made a decision, giving himself a two week deadline.
After failed talks in Europe over the weekend he clearly reached the conclusion that there was little prospect of a speedy conclusion to negotiations. It is no surprise that he launched an attack without warning - expecting an announcement on Truth Social is naïve.
There may be a cultural divide between the Iranian and Trumpian concept of negotiations. For Trump a negotiation has a clear timebound conclusion, for Iran it simply means they are still talking (possibly endlessly)
The fundamental question is "should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons". IMHO an unambiguous "NO"
Would further negotiations produce a mutually acceptable solution - IMHO probably not. Any further delay makes it more likely the nuclear horse would have bolted.
Personal view - Trump got this one right.
Worst outcome - delays an Iranian nuclear threat by 5+ years. No obvious support from Irans allies - not many left anyway!
Best outcome - regime change in a country with one of the worst human rights record on the planet - although we don't know what will replace it.
|
>>Personal view - Trump got this one right.
I'm pretty sure he didn't. Too many boats and bridges burnt. Where does this stop if Iran attacks US bases?
There is a legal problem with pre-emptive action. What about the UN? Trump's action further legitimises Russia's invasion of Ukraine and can only encourage China on Taiwan (for example).
UK AG was questioning legality before this happened. Now, we are getting in behind the US.
Worldwide conflict looks less unlikely today than it did yesterday.
|
It's all very antiseptic watching from afar.
There are thousands of civilians dead in Gaza, Iran and Israel.
The hypocrisy is astounding - a hospital was hit in Israel and it caused outrage. How many hospitals has Israel hit in Gaza?
At the end of the day, the people that get killed most are innocent civilians. It's about time that we reverted to the medieval model and insist that our leaders lead battles from the front. That may reduce the chances of war.
(In one of AC Clarke's books, when an alien race went to war, their leader's death warrant was signed, acknowledging the damage that this would do to the welfare of their citizens and the danger that they faced. War was therefore seen as an absolutely last resort.)
|
>> (In one of AC Clarke's books, when an alien race went to war, their leader's
>> death warrant was signed, acknowledging the damage that this would do to the welfare of
>> their citizens and the danger that they faced. War was therefore seen as an absolutely
>> last resort.)
Its never gone well for leaders who lose a war, I dont think you need to formalise it preemptively
|
"Where does this stop if Iran attacks US bases?"
Yes, and it's not just the governments who may call attacks. IMO in their mind it will give some individual or groups of hotheads on each side the legitimacy they need to carry out terrorist activities around the world, whether or not they have official government support.
|
>> There is a legal problem with pre-emptive action. What about the UN?
What about them? I doubt Israel or the US care what they think.
>> Worldwide conflict looks less unlikely today than it did yesterday.
>>
Probably less likely, no one cares enough about iran to do anything to support them.
|
Iran with a nuclear weapons capability can threaten and change the world.
Without, Iran can only launch ballistic missiles, drones etc. Most if targeted at areas with Israel type defensive capability are shot down. Iran could fund terrorist action worldwide.
Neither has the impact of a nuclear attack - millions dead, global shutdown??. Terrorist and other disruptive response has relatively minor impacts - local or regional, limited impact on world order (unsympathetic I know).
Trump is unlikely to get any material criticism from European leaders for his actions, and should have got key Middle East leaders on side - AFAIK no major criticism. Russia may make mischief but they are fully engaged in Ukraine. China - who knows.
It is a simple choice - risk nuclear conflict with possibly global consequences, or risk escalation probably local or regional. Doing nothing merely perpetuates the status quo.
This is just the latest chapter in a conflict which has been unresolved for 75 years - a few years of just about stable interrupted by regular conflict and sometimes outright wars. All involved - UN, US, UK, Arab states, Palestinians and Israel to name but a few have played their part in failure.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Last edited by: Terry on Sun 22 Jun 25 at 17:23
|
|
Iran sees nuclear armed Israel given carte blanche to do as it wishes without restraint. It is hardly surprising that it seeks to join the same club.
|
The Trump administration is as usual being very smug. Given they seem to have a policy of firing anybody who knows what they are doing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they haven't achieved quite what they are claiming.
The Iranian government is not stupid and Iran had already claimed prior to the strike that its stock of highly enriched (60%) uranium 235 had already been moved to secret hidden locations. Is it possible that centrifuges and other equipment might also have been hidden?
When Iran "refused to negotiate" it must have known the risk but appears to have been willing to accept it. Maybe the Americans don't know everything?
There appears to have been no detectable increase in radiation. I have no idea quite how significant this is. The important part may be the destruction of the centrifuges.
"The location of Iran’s highly enriched uranium is unknown, but it could already be in the hands of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and stored at one of several secret facilities. Indeed, on Thursday, a senior IRGC official reportedly said they had preventively transferred all the enriched uranium to hidden locations. Iran might also have undisclosed centrifuges, possibly at these alleged secret sites, available to further enrich (concentrate) its stockpile of 60-percent uranium. These may even already be operating."
thebulletin.org/2025/06/the-radiation-risks-of-irans-nuclear-program-with-or-without-a-strike-on-fordow/
|
>Iran sees nuclear armed Israel given carte blanche to do as it wishes without restraint...
Just a couple of slight differences.
Israel isn't supplying and bankrolling proxies to lob missiles into Iran and attack international shipping.
Israel isn't constantly trumpeting it's intention to wipe Iran from the face of the Earth.
Last edited by: Kevin on Sun 22 Jun 25 at 21:28
|
Just a couple of slight differences.
>>
>> Israel isn't supplying and bankrolling proxies to lob missiles into Iran and attack international shipping.
>>
>> Israel isn't constantly trumpeting it's intention to wipe Iran from the face of the Earth.
>>
They both want to be top dog in the region, how they go about it is largely detail.
|
You miss the point.
The ownership of nuclear weapons virtually ensures that no military action will be taken against you whatever you might say or do. Israel has that freedom for good or evil. Its actions are unrestrained by other countriess. Iran sees that and wants the same. In terms of International law Iran has just as much right to aquire nuclear weopons as Israel had.
|
>Israel has that freedom for good or evil. Its actions are unrestrained by other countriess.
I don't recall Israel even admitting that it possesses nuclear weapons never mind any implication from anyone that they might use them so they can do what they like 'unrestrained'.
>In terms of International law Iran has just as much right to aquire nuclear weopons as Israel had.
Iran is still subject to JCPOA which prohibits them from developing nuclear weapons. Iran agreed to limit it's nuclear ambitions in return for a lifting of sanctions. It had no intention of honouring that agreement and frustrated attempts by the IAEA to police their compliance so it has no rights to acquire nuclear weapons.
|
Israel has been a nuclear power since the late 1960s - ~60 years. In that time they have neither confirmed their existence, nor threatened their use.
They have (AFAIK) the only democratically elected government in the region. About 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab all of whom enjoy the right to vote.
That Iran under international law should have equal right to nuclear weapons is not disputed, but it would (IMHO) be foolish to allow it.
Analogy - in UK firearm ownership is a common right subject to licencing laws which rightly distinguish between those who are judged to be trusted, and those who pose a risk to themselves or others.
Allowing Iran nuclear weapons is analogous to giving a psychotic 14 year old with a record of violent assault a shotgun and box of cartridges. Completely bonkers.
|
don't recall Israel even admitting that it possesses nuclear weapons never mind any implication from anyone that they might use them so they can do what they like 'unrestrained'.
They don’t have to admit. It is a fact of which all nations are aware.
Iran agreed to limit it's nuclear ambitions in return for a lifting of sanctions. It had no intention of honouring that agreement .
How do you know that? It was Trump who tore up the agreement. Not Irsn
What legal basis does the US have for attacking another Sovereign nation? None. It’s going down the same route as Russia in Ukraine. Might is right. We are abandoning even the pretense of a world governed by international law. This is all going to end very badly indeed.
|
And it might not even work
If its aim is to produce nukes then getting bombed is probably a better strategy than JCPOA which Trump ended. Put the other way round, JCPOA probably slowed them down more than bombing.
Iran still has 400Kg of 60% HEU somewhere, which Netayahu says is enough for 9 nukes when further concentrated, and the ability to make centrifuges.
|
And you believe anything Netanyahu says? Like they don’t kill kids and bomb hospitals?
Is Nuclear still the deterrent it was when you have kids being able to use cheap drones to wipe out multi million pound conventional warfare?
|
No I don't trust Netayahu but there are other sources for the 400Kg.
Point is if they had it then they almost certainly still have it. Iranian sources said before the raid IIRC that they had moved it and satellite photos showed a convoy of vehicles at one of the sites.
|
>> don't recall Israel even admitting that it possesses nuclear weapons never mind any implication from
>> anyone that they might use them so they can do what they like 'unrestrained'.
>>
>> They don’t have to admit. It is a fact of which all nations are aware.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
|
I am currently in Crete on holiday. Yesterday morning about 11.15 heard a very loud aircraft/s that weren’t showing on flight radar and couldn’t physically see them.
Then got wakened at 6.30 this morning with the same.
In my ignorance I didn’t realise USAF had a base here and of course we are a stones throw from Cyprus and the GB base.
|
" It's going down the same route as Russia in Ukraine."
Not really. Its a targeted attack not trying to acquire territory.
|
>> Not really. Its a targeted attack not trying to acquire territory.
>>
Its not what the USA is trying to do, i's the justification for doing it. No real attempt to justify the attack on a legal basis (they can't International law does not allow for pre-emtive strikes).
The USA and Russia simply justify their actions on the basis of "might is right". In the past efforts have at least been made to legally justify such actions. Even Hitler felt obliged to justify the invaion of Poland wiht fake evidence. We are now in a world where powerful countries no longer feel the need need to justify their actions. Effectively we are reverting to a pre First World War situation. A rules based world is receding fast.
|
Has Netanyahu not being saying for the best part of this century that Iran had or were about to have nuclear weapons. And never once has any evidence of their actual existence been found?
Just something that gets pulled out every so often when it suits his agenda.
|
And now the ironymeter has shot off the scale with Putin saying
“Absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no ground and no justification,” says Russia’s president in opening remarks broadcast live on Russian state TV’s rolling news channel"
(from BBC live coverage)
|
Nobody is saying they have nukes.
IAEA is still in Iran and previous inspections have quantified their nuclear programme (although some believe that Iran has hidden some resources). Of the existence of a uranium enrichment programme their is no doubt; and whilst 60% is not high enough for bombs it would only take months rather than years to further enrich the 60% stock and convert it to metal.
|
And now the ironymeter has shot off the scale with Putin saying
“Absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no ground and no justification,” says Russia’s president in opening remarks broadcast live on Russian state TV’s rolling news channel"
(from BBC live coverage)
|
The "new" thing here is pre-emptive action - in Russia's case to prevent Ukraine joining Nato and in the USA/Israel's case to prevent Iran getting nukes. Neither of course is the first time it's happened.
Once the idea that you can invade another country 'just in case' becomes the rule then don't be surprised if the USA just occupies Greenland.
The USA did not decide this and implement it in a few days. I'd guess they've been readying it for weeks if not months. Pulling the trigger was just a matter of timing.
One thing he probably thinks he has achieved is to dispel his 'chicken' reputation, and also perhaps to remind the world that the USA can do stuff competently. Note also that there was no use of British bases - Britain is no longer a trusted ally, on the upside we are well out of it.
Whatever the objections to a European defence force it's high time Europe and the UK started acting as a political unit. Kick countries like Hungary out of the EU if necessary. USA and China are truly world powers. Except in the matter of nuclear weapons, Russia is a tinpot dictatorship and a united Europe should not be so much in fear of it. UK+EU has 10 x the GDP and around 3 x the population of Russia.
|
>The "new" thing here is pre-emptive action - in Russia's case to prevent
>Ukraine joining Nato and in the USA/Israel's case to prevent Iran getting
>nukes. Neither of course is the first time it's happened.
Correct. Russia used the clause which allows pre-emptive action for 'self-defence'. In Donbas they used the same excuse they've used before where they claim they are protecting an ethnic Russian population from persecution. They're working up to it in Moldova.
|
>How do you know that? It was Trump who tore up the agreement. Not Irsn
Because Iran had not declared the existence of hidden enrichment facilities as required in the
agreement. They showed the IAEA only what they wanted them to see. Both the US and Israel stated that Iran was not complying.
Iran admitted that they were enriching Uranium only after Israeli agents had broken into a building in Tehran and stolen files containing Iran's plan to develop a nuke. They claimed the enrichment was for power generation but refused to allow the IAEA unrestricted access. Even so, I believe that the IAEA discovered traces of nuclear material that Iran denied they had.
That resulted in Trump tearing up the agreement.
>What legal basis does the US have for attacking another Sovereign nation?
Well, I believe that the UN Security Council resolution banning Iran from developing nukes is still in force and Obama stated that the US would use military force if necessary. The US and Israel also have a bi-lateral defence agreement.
>We are abandoning even the pretense of a world governed by international
>law. This is all going to end very badly indeed.
Laws only work when all parties play by the same rule book and Iran has shown no signs of wanting to do so. Quite the opposite in fact. Put aside your automatic hatred of anything Trump does for just one moment and consider what effect a nuclear armed Iran would have on the rest of the Middle East.
|
At the end of the day, the UN means Jack S, and can do nothing, absolutely BA.
TBF, its about time the eyeranian regime got beaten into submission. Its gonna be painful tho, American assets/personel are going to get hit, and if The eyeotollahs get put down, we will have another syria/lybia/iraq/yemen chaotic blend of armed factions. Thats problem with regime change, those who do it rarely have the change planned, merely the downfall.
|
>> Thats problem with regime change,
>> those who do it rarely have the change planned, merely the downfall.
>>
A subject broached in the film "Charlie Wilson's War" re kicking the Russians out of Afghanistan but then not doing anything to rebuild the country afterwards.
|
Absolutely. When was the last military overthrow of a dictatorship that ended with the installation of a liberal democracy? A chaotic Iran could well be a bigger threat to stability in the Middle East than the current regime ever has been.
|
As I have been expecting Iran has just now escalated matters and attacked the US base at Al Udeid in Qatar.
The base is the largest US base in the area and I used to visit it in my working life.
I do not expect Trump to let such an attack go unpunished.
|
They were given advance notice and moved everybody out.
Why didn’t they just try and stop them instead?
|
|
They will have tried to but it's an effort to reduce casualties.
|
>> They were given advance notice and moved everybody out.
>> Why didn’t they just try and stop them instead?
>>
I would suggest that letting Iran launch a token but ineffective attack suits both sides. The US suffered no casualties and the Iranians can tell their people they gave the Yanks a b***** nose, so both sides can emerge with pride intact and claim a victory.
The best tactic for reaching some sort of peace agreement.
|
Probably not but perhaps he should. Number of missiles directed at base was apparently the same number as bombs dropped by US. More of a face saving exercise than a realistic military response. Perhaps the world’s best deal maker will see it that way and call a halt.
Then again he might want to continue in his role as world’s best tactician and unleash another attack.
|
>Then again he might want to continue in his role as world’s best tactician
>and unleash another attack.
He warned them that they'd be stupid to try and hit back so I sincerely hope so. Turn up the pressure.
|
>> He warned them that they'd be stupid to try and hit back so I sincerely
>> hope so. Turn up the pressure.
>>
However sanity deems to have prevailed
Trump wrote:
“Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
|
>However sanity deems to have prevailed
Actually, leaving Iran free to continue their efforts to spread their warped ideology and terrorism is insanity.
|
|
Don’t worry. Trump’s ceasefire is only in his mind. Normal killing resumes today.
|
>Don’t worry. Trump’s ceasefire is only in his mind. Normal killing resumes today.
Is that the public hanging of gay men from cranes or just the supply of arms to Houthis, Hamas and Russia to let them do the dirty work?
|
So how would you recommmend Trump and Netanyahu proceed to curb Iran’s “warped ideology”.
Massive bombing campaign perhaps, joint invasion and overthrow of regime on the model of Iraq ?
|
>So how would you recommmend Trump and Netanyahu proceed...
Err, you're the one whingeing about how Trump is handling it at the moment, how about you providing some realistic alternatives instead of constantly sniping from the sidelines?
|
>> Actually, leaving Iran free to continue their efforts to spread their warped ideology and terrorism
>> is insanity.
How to stop them doing that is more of a problem.
|
>Thats problem with regime change, those who do it rarely have the change
>planned, merely the downfall.
I think he mentioned something about hotels and casinos.
|
>> I think he mentioned something about hotels and casinos.
Yeah he probably has the "Trump Straights of Hormuz Resort" model on his desk already
|
Terrorism thrives where massive inequality prevails and basic needs are not met - clean water, reliable power supplies, adequate food, personal security, decent education, etc.
Basically those things which provide stability, opportunity and security today, and which hold out the promise of a similarly benign environment for future generations.
Hotels and casinos could provide all of that. Jobs in construction, services, hospitality, finance, etc + all the ancillary services which communities rely upon including a decent infrastructure (water, power, roads etc).
Happy contented staff will generally provide a better service to visitors (gamblers and sunseekers) who are the source of all the income which allows a benign and prosperous community to function.
We should celebrate, not ridicule, the creativity of those who have actually identified a way to change failed states into potentially prosperous stable communities.
|
Happy contented staff will generally provide a better service to visitors
Yes they will soon forget that they uses to have a house and the day their family was blown up. They will be a happy to receive a few dollars tip from an American tourist. All will be well in Gaza.
|
>> Happy contented staff will generally provide a better service to visitors
>>
>> Yes they will soon forget that they uses to have a house and the day
>> their family was blown up. They will be a happy to receive a few dollars
>> tip from an American tourist. All will be well in Gaza.
>>
Easy to be disparaging but do you have a better solution.
The current conflict is just the latest chapter in an unresolved argument going back 75 years.
When a ceasefire (of some sort) is agreed, 2m Gazans will be left with a wrecked country - most impacted or traumatised by conflict. Hamas may disappear as a name but hatred and all that flows from it will survive. In 5, 10 or 15 years the whole experience will be repeated.
It will take generations for memories to fade. A few dollars tip from a tourist will not do it - but the tips are a collateral benefit derived from a justice system which works, decent health and education facilities for all, running water and power 24x7, housing, full bellies, jobs, etc.
|
“Easy to be disparaging but do you have a better solution.“
Yes The two state solution with Palestine as an independent state able to determine its own future.
|
>>
>>
>> Yes The two state solution with Palestine as an independent state able to determine its
>> own future.
>>
>>
>>
I'm sure that would turn the Iranians into a nation of peace lovers with no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
|
A Palestinian State is likely to be part of a solution.
Netanyahu would not be supportive but be will not be around for ever. The Iran affair shows that when Trump says "jump" his response may be, however reluctantly, "how high".
Gaza at one point had a high level of independence. Initially managed by an utterly incompetent Palestinian Authority, they were usurped by Hamas. The rest is history.
A Palestinian State needs more than a bit of land - drawing a few new lines on a map is not a solution. To be credible it needs massive investment to build a sustainable society - infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, opportunity, education, homes etc etc. Who will foot the bill.
Hotels and casinos may be fatuous but it was the only game in town - it may now be dead in the water. Other current solutions with real money behind them are limited to non-existent.
It needs coherent focussed action with money from the UN and Arab states still sadly deficient after 75 years of conflict.
Trump is unpleasant and unpredictable, but his outsize ego may be the catalyst for a real change in middle east stability - do nothing, or inconsequential rhetoric has been proven a failure for the last 75 years.
|
Has Trump Just Declared War on Iran? - Zero
