What I am more interested in is how France is on the verge of taking a greater leadership role in NATO, but that is likely a subject of another thread.
That noise you can hear in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises is surely De Gaulle spinning in his grave.
I thought it was France not being in charge he had a problem with.
Indeed. Which, if I recall correctly, was why he was no fan of NATO, and withdrew France from its integrated command structure in 1966.
A pundit on BBC Radio 4's World at One this afternoon opined that the Trump administration may be shifting back from regime change to simply reducing Iran's capacity to harm its neighbours or US interests in the region.
That way it becomes easier to claim victory after a few weeks bombing.
GWB was mocked for it, but if Trump called a quick end to the bombing and unfolded a "Mission Accomplished" banner, it would be most welcome.
The sheer scale of the lunacy of these nutjobs is breathtaking.
The US and Israel may well have done immense damage to Iran's military capabilities, but where do they stop? Invading and subjugating a huge country like Iran is going to be a drain on the resources of even the US.
The sheer scale of the lunacy of these nutjobs is breathtaking.
The US and Israel may well have done immense damage to Iran's military capabilities, but where do they stop? Invading and subjugating a huge country like Iran is going to be a drain on the resources of even the US.
I can't believe they will invade. For one thing, that immediately sets up an armed resistance, I would think. And it is huge. I don't think Trump has a clue.
[Dan] Caine added that Iran’s ballistic missile capability had been reduced by 86% since the opening day of hostilities, its navy largely destroyed and its senior leadership killed or in hiding. He said the progress had allowed the US to establish air superiority along Iran’s southern coast, and that forces would now “begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory”
My italics. I took Caine to be referring to the use of ground forces, but I may have misunderstood.
The sheer scale of the lunacy of these nutjobs is breathtaking.
The US and Israel may well have done immense damage to Iran's military capabilities, but where do they stop? Invading and subjugating a huge country like Iran is going to be a drain on the resources of even the US.
I can't believe they will invade. For one thing, that immediately sets up an armed resistance, I would think. And it is huge. I don't think Trump has a clue.
The irony is that if they played it right, Iran could take care of itself from the inside, but that kind of operation requires a certain amount of finesse that I'm quite sure Trump isn't capable of.
Israel might be, but I'm very skeptical, and I'm also really not sure the average Iranian wants to be owned and operated by a nation on the opposite side of the middle east.
Based on my own experience, nobody likes being owned and operated from the opposite side of the same state. It's one of the biggest gripes in small town USA.
"Summarising the Israeli government’s position, Citrinowicz said: “If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn’t care less about the future . . . [or] the stability of Iran."
A CNN report this afternoon essentially said the Kurds want no part of this war. They have told the Iraqis Iranian Kurds will not be allowed to operate from Iraq.
The Kurds are definitely not willing to be on the side of Israel.
I've seen a surprising amount of Kurdish willingness to support Israel. How much of it is enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend and how much something more I don't know.
Latest seems to imply Germany has met with Trump and France is gearing up.
Will the western nations get more involved?
Iran has been responsible for at least two attacks in Australia and as I understand it Starmer said they were responsible for 20 in the last year in the UK.
What kind of "attacks" are we talking about? Cyber?
Starmer didn't say. I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to link a website yet, but this is the wording of the official release from the PM's office on the 28th of February:
The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes.
But we have long been clear – the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent.
They have murdered thousands of their own people, brutally crushed dissent, and sought to destabilise the region.
Even in the United Kingdom, the Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and the Jewish community.
Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.
So it’s clear – they must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies – including the US.
I condemn Iran’s attacks today on partners across the region, many of which are not parties to this conflict.
We extend our support and solidarity to them.
As part of our commitments to the security of our allies in the Middle East we have a range of defensive capabilities in the region – which we’ve recently taken steps to strengthen.
Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies - as Britain has done before, in line with international law.
We’ve stepped up protections for British bases and personnel to their highest level.
We are also reaching out to UK nationals in the region and doing everything we can to support them.
I have been speaking with leaders today - from the E3, and across the region.
It is vital now that we prevent further escalation and return to a diplomatic process.
We want to see peace and security, and the protection of civilian life.
Iran can end this now.
They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programmes, and cease the appalling violence and repression against the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future, in line with our longstanding position.
That is the route to de-escalation and back to the negotiating table.
Latest seems to imply Germany has met with Trump and France is gearing up.
Will the western nations get more involved?
Iran has been responsible for at least two attacks in Australia and as I understand it Starmer said they were responsible for 20 in the last year in the UK.
What kind of "attacks" are we talking about? Cyber?
Starmer didn't say. I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to link a website yet, but this is the wording of the official release from the PM's office on the 28th of February:
The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes.
But we have long been clear – the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent.
They have murdered thousands of their own people, brutally crushed dissent, and sought to destabilise the region.
Even in the United Kingdom, the Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and the Jewish community.
Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.
So it’s clear – they must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies – including the US.
I condemn Iran’s attacks today on partners across the region, many of which are not parties to this conflict.
We extend our support and solidarity to them.
As part of our commitments to the security of our allies in the Middle East we have a range of defensive capabilities in the region – which we’ve recently taken steps to strengthen.
Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies - as Britain has done before, in line with international law.
We’ve stepped up protections for British bases and personnel to their highest level.
We are also reaching out to UK nationals in the region and doing everything we can to support them.
I have been speaking with leaders today - from the E3, and across the region.
It is vital now that we prevent further escalation and return to a diplomatic process.
We want to see peace and security, and the protection of civilian life.
Iran can end this now.
They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programmes, and cease the appalling violence and repression against the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future, in line with our longstanding position.
That is the route to de-escalation and back to the negotiating table.
He's quite firm on the horror of Iran which most of you seem to be ignoring. Interesting he puts the emphasis on Iran could end this now, ceasing it's appalling violence and repression.
Forgetting there that the US would want fat oil contracts. What's the point of killing so many people if you can't make a buck?
Reduction of terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Being free from a nuclear weapon attack from a regime that is very anti-western.
By killing the guy who had a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. There's no indication that the Iranian regime is any more suicidal than the North Korean one when it comes to launching nukes but recent actions make proliferation more rather than less likely in the medium to longer term.
Anyway, we have the stated position of the Israeli's above.
Latest seems to imply Germany has met with Trump and France is gearing up.
Will the western nations get more involved?
Iran has been responsible for at least two attacks in Australia and as I understand it Starmer said they were responsible for 20 in the last year in the UK.
What kind of "attacks" are we talking about? Cyber?
Starmer didn't say. I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to link a website yet, but this is the wording of the official release from the PM's office on the 28th of February:
The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes.
But we have long been clear – the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent.
They have murdered thousands of their own people, brutally crushed dissent, and sought to destabilise the region.
Even in the United Kingdom, the Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and the Jewish community.
Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.
So it’s clear – they must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies – including the US.
I condemn Iran’s attacks today on partners across the region, many of which are not parties to this conflict.
We extend our support and solidarity to them.
As part of our commitments to the security of our allies in the Middle East we have a range of defensive capabilities in the region – which we’ve recently taken steps to strengthen.
Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies - as Britain has done before, in line with international law.
We’ve stepped up protections for British bases and personnel to their highest level.
We are also reaching out to UK nationals in the region and doing everything we can to support them.
I have been speaking with leaders today - from the E3, and across the region.
It is vital now that we prevent further escalation and return to a diplomatic process.
We want to see peace and security, and the protection of civilian life.
Iran can end this now.
They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programmes, and cease the appalling violence and repression against the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future, in line with our longstanding position.
That is the route to de-escalation and back to the negotiating table.
He's quite firm on the horror of Iran which most of you seem to be ignoring. Interesting he puts the emphasis on Iran could end this now, ceasing it's appalling violence and repression.
No-one's ignoring it. We just don't think murdering Iranian kids is going to improve the situation. And "stop making us hit you" is the abuser's defence.
It sounds like Starmer was referring to plots, rather than actual attacks, which suggests they were foiled and may have been nothing more than idiots making threats in the first place. We've no way of knowing either what "Iranian-backed" means. It could be anything from IRGC agents landing on a deserted coast by RIB intent on sabotage right down to, more likely, attempts at radicalising people on Telegram.
Interesting he puts the emphasis on Iran could end this now, ceasing its appalling violence and repression.
It’s a nice soundbite, but realistically there’s no way the current Iranian regime (and many of their supporters) could stop violently repressing their people without very quickly ceasing to be the current regime and losing all their power, probably most of their wealth, and possibly even their lives. That’s not exactly an appealing prospect, even before their religious fundamentalism and belief that they are chosen by god to lead the country is taken into consideration.
That’s the eternal problem with becoming a violent and oppressive regime. You can’t really stop doing it without the very real risk of ending up being lynched by a bunch of vengeful revolutionaries. It’s the ultimate political double-down.
That’s the eternal problem with becoming a violent and oppressive regime. You can’t really stop doing it without the very real risk of ending up being lynched by a bunch of vengeful revolutionaries. It’s the ultimate political double-down.
Depends. A lot of authoritarian regimes have ended without anyone, or at least very many people, being brought to justice (either by legal process or by, ahem, more organic means). Pinochet lived free long after losing power, evading a late attempt to bring him to book. South Africa chose to offer reconciliation rather than punishment for the crimes of Apartheid. Franco's Spain was allowed to evaporate without justice being done. It's a risk, rather than a certainty (as with political crimes in general; whether they are prosecuted or not depends far more on the political situation than the gravity of the crimes).
Late to the party, not normally a fan of video but I think my 3 min 23 secs was well spent on this one watching the shifting stories the US government tells about the war. It's very effective seeing them juxtaposed
On the The Rest is Politics podcast Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart disagree over what Starmer has done. He argue that Starmer’s original position was correct, but allowing defensive flights just makes us a target of Iran after pissing off Trump by not joining in.
His point is the national interest is to protect British citizens, but then they are stuck in a difficult position - don’t take part and piss off the US whose protection we need, or piss off Iran and deal with domestic terrorism.
He argue that Starmer’s original position was correct, but allowing defensive flights just makes us a target of Iran after pissing off Trump by not joining in.
Sorry - which "he"/"his" is Campbell and which Stewart?
Comments
Indeed. Which, if I recall correctly, was why he was no fan of NATO, and withdrew France from its integrated command structure in 1966.
The US and Israel may well have done immense damage to Iran's military capabilities, but where do they stop? Invading and subjugating a huge country like Iran is going to be a drain on the resources of even the US.
Broken clock strikes again! That man never saw a war he didn't like.
I can't believe they will invade. For one thing, that immediately sets up an armed resistance, I would think. And it is huge. I don't think Trump has a clue.
[Dan] Caine added that Iran’s ballistic missile capability had been reduced by 86% since the opening day of hostilities, its navy largely destroyed and its senior leadership killed or in hiding. He said the progress had allowed the US to establish air superiority along Iran’s southern coast, and that forces would now “begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory”
My italics. I took Caine to be referring to the use of ground forces, but I may have misunderstood.
The irony is that if they played it right, Iran could take care of itself from the inside, but that kind of operation requires a certain amount of finesse that I'm quite sure Trump isn't capable of.
Israel might be, but I'm very skeptical, and I'm also really not sure the average Iranian wants to be owned and operated by a nation on the opposite side of the middle east.
Based on my own experience, nobody likes being owned and operated from the opposite side of the same state. It's one of the biggest gripes in small town USA.
Sample:
"Summarising the Israeli government’s position, Citrinowicz said: “If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn’t care less about the future . . . [or] the stability of Iran."
So collapsing the state it is, then.
Civil war.
Now that wouldn't stay within the borders of Iran would it?
Iraq, Turkey...
The former Yugoslavia after Tito springs to mind.
But who's to say what really will happen.
Meanwhile, Iranian intelligence through back channels have told the US they want to enter into talks to end the war. The US, however, is saying there are no active negotiations. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/politics/reachout-iran-us-potential-talks
Meanwhile the US is burning through its smart weapons at a very rapid rate.
I have heard that Iran is also chewing through their missile batteries, but that doesn't mean that they're out of options in a defensive war.
I've seen a surprising amount of Kurdish willingness to support Israel. How much of it is enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend and how much something more I don't know.
Starmer didn't say. I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to link a website yet, but this is the wording of the official release from the PM's office on the 28th of February:
The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes.
But we have long been clear – the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent.
They have murdered thousands of their own people, brutally crushed dissent, and sought to destabilise the region.
Even in the United Kingdom, the Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and the Jewish community.
Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.
So it’s clear – they must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies – including the US.
I condemn Iran’s attacks today on partners across the region, many of which are not parties to this conflict.
We extend our support and solidarity to them.
As part of our commitments to the security of our allies in the Middle East we have a range of defensive capabilities in the region – which we’ve recently taken steps to strengthen.
Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies - as Britain has done before, in line with international law.
We’ve stepped up protections for British bases and personnel to their highest level.
We are also reaching out to UK nationals in the region and doing everything we can to support them.
I have been speaking with leaders today - from the E3, and across the region.
It is vital now that we prevent further escalation and return to a diplomatic process.
We want to see peace and security, and the protection of civilian life.
Iran can end this now.
They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programmes, and cease the appalling violence and repression against the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future, in line with our longstanding position.
That is the route to de-escalation and back to the negotiating table.
He's quite firm on the horror of Iran which most of you seem to be ignoring. Interesting he puts the emphasis on Iran could end this now, ceasing it's appalling violence and repression.
Reduction of terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Being free from a nuclear weapon attack from a regime that is very anti-western.
I'm surprised you all can't see this.
By killing the guy who had a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. There's no indication that the Iranian regime is any more suicidal than the North Korean one when it comes to launching nukes but recent actions make proliferation more rather than less likely in the medium to longer term.
Anyway, we have the stated position of the Israeli's above.
No-one's ignoring it. We just don't think murdering Iranian kids is going to improve the situation. And "stop making us hit you" is the abuser's defence.
It sounds like Starmer was referring to plots, rather than actual attacks, which suggests they were foiled and may have been nothing more than idiots making threats in the first place. We've no way of knowing either what "Iranian-backed" means. It could be anything from IRGC agents landing on a deserted coast by RIB intent on sabotage right down to, more likely, attempts at radicalising people on Telegram.
It’s a nice soundbite, but realistically there’s no way the current Iranian regime (and many of their supporters) could stop violently repressing their people without very quickly ceasing to be the current regime and losing all their power, probably most of their wealth, and possibly even their lives. That’s not exactly an appealing prospect, even before their religious fundamentalism and belief that they are chosen by god to lead the country is taken into consideration.
That’s the eternal problem with becoming a violent and oppressive regime. You can’t really stop doing it without the very real risk of ending up being lynched by a bunch of vengeful revolutionaries. It’s the ultimate political double-down.
Depends. A lot of authoritarian regimes have ended without anyone, or at least very many people, being brought to justice (either by legal process or by, ahem, more organic means). Pinochet lived free long after losing power, evading a late attempt to bring him to book. South Africa chose to offer reconciliation rather than punishment for the crimes of Apartheid. Franco's Spain was allowed to evaporate without justice being done. It's a risk, rather than a certainty (as with political crimes in general; whether they are prosecuted or not depends far more on the political situation than the gravity of the crimes).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd6zzyg64zqo
They really dont seem to have much of a clue what they're doing and cant keep their story straight. It doesn't inspire confidence- putting it mildly.
His point is the national interest is to protect British citizens, but then they are stuck in a difficult position - don’t take part and piss off the US whose protection we need, or piss off Iran and deal with domestic terrorism.