FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What Will US Victory Look Like ? 🇺🇲

What Will US Victory Look Like ? 🇺🇲

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

"...military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured..."

That depends entirely on the definition of victory. Long term, as well as short term.

Perhaps there is no victory, just struggle after struggle. Perhaps this shapes things in favour of Turkey. Perhaps in favour of Saudi Arabia.

Israel's weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon basically put the current regime in Syria in place. Things are complex, including the definition of victory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 7 weeks ago

nearby

If usa walk away now, Iran's military capability is gone (except drones).

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Best we can hope for is deescalation. Regime change not happening anytime by the look of it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning. "

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *e-OptimistMan 7 weeks ago

Stalybridge

Winning implies imposing the will of the victor over the vanquished. No amount of bombing can achieve victory without boots on the ground to occupy territory. Even then a competently managed guerilla campaign against an occupier denies "victory" .

Despite the wishes of Trump the only way this conflict will end is through negotiation. The sooner he recognises this the better.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

No such thing as a win in war. US will generate waves of terrorists, destroy lives by enforcing their awful culture on people. All illegally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

It’s very much about the illegal attack undertaken by Isreal and the USA. Throw in the war criminals in chief, Hegseth (not an overstatement, he’s literally committed war crimes) and it’s an all round shit show that I’m glad the U.K. are keeping at arm’s length.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?"

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-denounce-aggression-iran-and-lebanon-warn-devastating-regional

That will summarise far more eloquently than I.

Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"...military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured...

That depends entirely on the definition of victory. Long term, as well as short term.

Perhaps there is no victory, just struggle after struggle. Perhaps this shapes things in favour of Turkey. Perhaps in favour of Saudi Arabia.

Israel's weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon basically put the current regime in Syria in place. Things are complex, including the definition of victory."

Very well put

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 weeks ago

North West

Trump wasn’t exactly coy about wanting regime change.

If that doesn’t happen, this military campaign isn’t a victory. More like an attempted containment operation. If the Islamic Republic survives, they will be more determined than ever to develop a nuclear weapon.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMikeMan 7 weeks ago

Newtown / Oswestry

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

It will be exactly the same as every country the US has gone into a absolute shit show that leaves lingering hatred and resentment that comes back to bite them on the arse in the future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

It will be exactly the same as every country the US has gone into a absolute shit show that leaves lingering hatred and resentment that comes back to bite them on the arse in the future."

Japan, Germany, Korea, The Balkans ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-denounce-aggression-iran-and-lebanon-warn-devastating-regional

That will summarise far more eloquently than I.

Are you better versed in international law than any of those? "

You are aware this opinion?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 weeks ago

North West

It will be exactly the same as every country the US has gone into a absolute shit show that leaves lingering hatred and resentment that comes back to bite them on the arse in the future."

True I think. All those people saying ‘if only we got rid of the Islamic Republic there would be finally be peace in the Middle East’

All those surviving relatives of all the people killed by the US & Israel, those thousands upon thousands of mourning families will suddenly, as if by magic, have no axe left to grind whatsoever.

Yeah, right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-denounce-aggression-iran-and-lebanon-warn-devastating-regional

That will summarise far more eloquently than I.

Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

You are aware this opinion?"

Once again, Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-denounce-aggression-iran-and-lebanon-warn-devastating-regional

That will summarise far more eloquently than I.

Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

You are aware this opinion?

Once again, Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

Linking UN experts isn’t the same as explaining the legal argument. What specifically is illegal?? And what outcome do you think will happen from their **unbiased** assessment?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *e-OptimistMan 7 weeks ago

Stalybridge

Trump attacked Iran without a declaration of war- a sneak attack if you will.

When the Japanese did the same at Pearl Harbour the yanks were rightly miffed.

Attacking with a declaration of war can be viewed as a illegal if not cowardly act.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-denounce-aggression-iran-and-lebanon-warn-devastating-regional

That will summarise far more eloquently than I.

Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

You are aware this opinion?

Once again, Are you better versed in international law than any of those?

Linking UN experts isn’t the same as explaining the legal argument. What specifically is illegal?? And what outcome do you think will happen from their **unbiased** assessment?"

Specifically the attacks breached the UN charter. - Article 2(4). They were not ratified by the UN, nor was there imminent threat.

And the outcome is irrelevant - that’s like asking what sentence you think someone will get for robbing a bank - they still did it.

If you support the attacks, that’s fine. It doesn’t change their legality

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

USA cannot ‘win’. But Trump can boast that he’s destroyed Iran's nuclear capability

Twice in a year. So much winning.

Is this more about Trump to you, than the US military taking the fight to Iran?

You have called the attacks by the US and Israel illegal many times.

What facts to date make it illegal?"

All the facts, set in stone under international law. You cannot just randomly attack a sovereign country. It's the basic stuff in UN treaties. In fact you don't even nerd to read though treaties to know it's true. Morality should have told you already.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

I understand in principle the support of these attacks - the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, undoubtedly. But the UN charter is clear.

We can dance around morality and so forth, but that doesn’t change legality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 weeks ago

North West

Nothing to see here, if the US invade a country it’s totally righteous in all cases and of that isn’t obvious they will dance around on the head of a pin until they convince everybody otherwise.

If the likes of Russia or China do it, no denunciation is strong enough.

Such is the International Rules Based Order.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"I understand in principle the support of these attacks - the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, undoubtedly. But the UN charter is clear.

We can dance around morality and so forth, but that doesn’t change legality. "

True, but like most things it is not as straight forward as the US did this therefore it is illegal. The UN experts can offer their views but they are not a formal declaration that they are acting illegally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"I understand in principle the support of these attacks - the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, undoubtedly. But the UN charter is clear.

We can dance around morality and so forth, but that doesn’t change legality.

So the same as Iraq?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

Perhaps the time to answer this is after the mid terms domestically..

Also given the mixed and often contradictory messaging from trump, rubio, hegseth etc its a bit like asking how long is a piece of string ..

No concise aims at the outset of such endeavours usually ends badly, for many innocent people and often long term ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"I understand in principle the support of these attacks - the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, undoubtedly. But the UN charter is clear.

We can dance around morality and so forth, but that doesn’t change legality. "

The so does the US regime, its vile to its people, does not serve them. But rules are rules. We cannot take personal opinions of nutjob politicians as a point to cause global chaos. To profit his pockets and those around him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"I understand in principle the support of these attacks - the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, undoubtedly. But the UN charter is clear.

We can dance around morality and so forth, but that doesn’t change legality.

So the same as Iraq?"

It could end up that way, however the nuances in play make it difficult to say one way or the other for sure.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 7 weeks ago

nearby

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

that's the wrong question

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation. "

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes. "

how will we do that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"Perhaps the time to answer this is after the mid terms domestically..

Also given the mixed and often contradictory messaging from trump, rubio, hegseth etc its a bit like asking how long is a piece of string ..

No concise aims at the outset of such endeavours usually ends badly, for many innocent people and often long term .."

Hegseth needs removing, ideally yesterday.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?"

Badly more than likely

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely"

no, go on .... you appear to be displaying pro-interventionist sentiments on the subject, please tell the forum, how do you think that this country will protect the shipping lanes in the straits of hormuz?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMikeMan 7 weeks ago

Newtown / Oswestry

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

It will be exactly the same as every country the US has gone into a absolute shit show that leaves lingering hatred and resentment that comes back to bite them on the arse in the future.

Japan, Germany, Korea, The Balkans ?"

Unfortunately the list of countries where their intervention hasn’t worked is much longer plus 3 of the counties you mention were multinational efforts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz?"

thanks for the input although it just seems a generic political statement, but i would still like an answer from the person that my question was directed at. over to you notme ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

thanks for the input although it just seems a generic political statement, but i would still like an answer from the person that my question was directed at. over to you notme ?"

Sorry... The point was that the initial post was exactly that text - Notme then responded to the "we need de-escalation" by saying that the reason for the ships was to protect shipping lanes (implying, not to escalate). You then ask how we will do that. Assuming that you'd understood the context of the remarks (presumably), you got a tongue in check "badly".

So you're asking a question of a poster who was simply giving context to that "generic political statement".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hagTonightMan 7 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.

Regime change in iran, the people in iran is ready for freedom and democracy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"Regime change in iran, the people in iran is ready for freedom and democracy."

Lots of nations on the world could do with that. Should Israel and the USA attack all of them?

Maybe a few nations want to bomb the USA or Isreal to force regime change too?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

thanks for the input although it just seems a generic political statement, but i would still like an answer from the person that my question was directed at. over to you notme ?

So you're asking a question of a poster who was simply giving context to that "generic political statement".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Regime change in iran, the people in iran is ready for freedom and democracy."

💪

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

thanks for the input although it just seems a generic political statement, but i would still like an answer from the person that my question was directed at. over to you notme ?

So you're asking a question of a poster who was simply giving context to that "generic political statement".

no"

What more do you need to know, bearing in mind the explanation above is very well laid out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 7 weeks ago

nearby

"Regime change in iran, the people in iran is ready for freedom and democracy."

Trump has failed to deliver

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Regime change in iran, the people in iran is ready for freedom and democracy.

Trump has failed to deliver "

It is a very short time frame in which the US and Israel have systematically removed hardware and infrastructure. I'm not sure an uprising would or could happen during such a campaign.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

A lot of Americans are calling it Vietnam II

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan 7 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

There won’t be a total victory unless there are boots on the ground.. and trump isn’t going to commit to that

Iran have thousands more drones than the us and Israel have in missiles to shoot them down…. The end game is when they get low and have to claim a graceful “ceasefire” claiming victory

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"A lot of Americans are calling it Vietnam II"

Who is that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

What more do you need to know, bearing in mind the explanation above is very well laid out.

you appear to be displaying pro-interventionist sentiments on the subject, please tell the forum, how do you think that this country will protect the shipping lanes in the straits of hormuz?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

"Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

Looks like escalation. We need deescalation.

The price of fuel and the turmoil that brings to an economy that is shrinking is the reason we will protect the shipping lanes.

how will we do that?

Badly more than likely

Milliband says UK considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East in an attempt to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

thanks for the input although it just seems a generic political statement, but i would still like an answer from the person that my question was directed at. over to you notme ?

So you're asking a question of a poster who was simply giving context to that "generic political statement".

What more do you need to know, bearing in mind the explanation above is very well laid out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Regime change in iran, the people in iran is ready for freedom and democracy."

The gulf states and Israel plus much of the rest of the world would welcome it too Shag..

But it simply won't happen with just bombing..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

There won’t be a total victory unless there are boots on the ground.. and trump isn’t going to commit to that

Iran have thousands more drones than the us and Israel have in missiles to shoot them down…. The end game is when they get low and have to claim a graceful “ceasefire” claiming victory "

Iran is like a team that's losing 20 - 0 in the 97th minute and you think they're going to win.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

What more do you need to know, bearing in mind the explanation above is very well laid out.

you appear to be displaying pro-interventionist sentiments on the subject, please tell the forum, how do you think that this country will protect the shipping lanes in the straits of hormuz?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

There won’t be a total victory unless there are boots on the ground.. and trump isn’t going to commit to that

Iran have thousands more drones than the us and Israel have in missiles to shoot them down…. The end game is when they get low and have to claim a graceful “ceasefire” claiming victory

Iran is like a team that's losing 20 - 0 in the 97th minute and you think they're going to win.

Its the wrong analogy..

Trump has changed what he sees as the end game, hes already said foolishly that they have won but not enough yet..

Iran, if the regime isn't toppled and if negotiations are scheduled on nuclear weapons etc to begin after a ceasefire will say we were negotiating before America abd Israel two of the most heavily armed countries on the planet dropped x amount of bombs and missiles and for what?

We were talking before..

A 'win' for them is surviving as a regime, replacing every high ranking person as they are killed..

Two weeks in and despite claims by the Americans of 90% reduction last week in Iran's missile capability they are still launching them..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ardnreddyMan 7 weeks ago

LIVINGSTON

Hopefully with trump dead or in jail you can't win this war this, will be his Vietnam

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alted!Man 7 weeks ago

cork

The US are claiming victory before anything has been won.

Mean while the ghe vast majority US forces are in hiding in the middle East away from their bases.

The western aligned countries normally call this using the civilian population as human shields as that is who they are hidding behind. The US are using the other middle East countries air defences to hide.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ools and the brainCouple 7 weeks ago

couple, us we him her.

I just wish it gets resolved quickly to stop the death's of innocent people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 15/03/26 17:19:09]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

What more do you need to know, bearing in mind the explanation above is very well laid out.

you appear to be displaying pro-interventionist sentiments on the subject, please tell the forum, how do you think that this country will protect the shipping lanes in the straits of hormuz?

You are simply repeating yourself, after being given all the answers above...

If you genuinely want information the BBC Miliband spells it out in simple terms, again this has been provided to you further up."

glad to see you checked which profile you were using before you wrote your reply this time.

i was hoping for to express you're own thoughts on the matter rather than statements from politicians or anything else. so, ill ask for a third time in hope of an answer ....

you appear to be displaying pro-interventionist sentiments on the subject, please tell the forum, how do you think that this country will protect the shipping lanes in the straits of hormuz?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 weeks ago

The Outer Rim

"[Removed by poster at 15/03/26 17:19:09]"

ooops ....you accidentally deleted your post. nevermind, i managed to quote it and post it above this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"I just wish it gets resolved quickly to stop the death's of innocent people. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rHotNottsMan 7 weeks ago

Dubai & Nottingham

"No such thing as a win in war. US will generate waves of terrorists, destroy lives by enforcing their awful culture on people. All illegally. "

You mean that awful culture of journalists not being imprisoned, YouTube not being banned and women allowed dress how they wish?

99.99999% of people in a Iran would rather have that American awful culture than their current culture.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ornucopiaMan 7 weeks ago

Bexley

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

It will be exactly the same as every country the US has gone into a absolute shit show that leaves lingering hatred and resentment that comes back to bite them on the arse in the future.

Japan, Germany, Korea, The Balkans ?"

Nobody wants to remember the better results!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ornucopiaMan 7 weeks ago

Bexley

...

Iran is like a team that's losing 20 - 0 in the 97th minute and you think they're going to win.

Maybe you could sell that simile to Trump's speech writer.

Trump might even wish he had thought it up himself.

Or has he already said it and it is getting widely quoted? !!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Hopefully with trump dead or in jail you can't win this war this, will be his Vietnam "

You want Iran to win then ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

"The US are claiming victory before anything has been won.

Mean while the ghe vast majority US forces are in hiding in the middle East away from their bases.

And trumpy is begging for help in the war he's won 🙄

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

It will be exactly the same as every country the US has gone into a absolute shit show that leaves lingering hatred and resentment that comes back to bite them on the arse in the future."

That must explain all the terrorist attacks on the US by Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese citizens. 🤔

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"No such thing as a win in war. US will generate waves of terrorists, destroy lives by enforcing their awful culture on people. "

Bit harsh on Taylor Swift mate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

A cry baby loser lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Trump wasn’t exactly coy about wanting regime change.

Desire is not capability. Iran has been totally humiliated on every level.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Trump wasn’t exactly coy about wanting regime change.

Desire is not capability. Iran has been totally humiliated on every level."

Like a boxer knocked down in the first round but they keep on slugging away..

They won't care about being humiliated, tbh they dont care about their citizens so why would they be bothered about humiliation..

Ironically it could be trump who is the one humiliated..

But he'll blame everyone else, probably Sadiq Khan..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

"Trump wasn’t exactly coy about wanting regime change.

Desire is not capability. Iran has been totally humiliated on every level."

And yet they hold all the cards.

Is that winning?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *4bimMan 7 weeks ago

Farnborough Hampshire

Israel calling up half million soldiers to push north into Lebanon and beyond.

This is going on for at least another month

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

The Netanyahu video is weird. Clearly AI (6 fingered hand and the flags in the background are too perfectly hung - the lighting is wrong).

Am not buying the rumour that he’s been killed though.

When AI figures out how to create hands, it’s going to be very convincing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Trump wasn’t exactly coy about wanting regime change.

Desire is not capability. Iran has been totally humiliated on every level.

And yet they hold all the cards.

Is that winning?"

All the cards ? 🤷

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"Trump wasn’t exactly coy about wanting regime change.

Desire is not capability. Iran has been totally humiliated on every level.

And yet they hold all the cards.

Is that winning?

All the cards ? 🤷"

I wouldn’t say Iran hold the cards, but the USA and Israel are fast reaching the point wheee they need to choose between boots on the ground or ceasefire (and then claiming victory)

You can’t change regimes with bombardment alone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erces LetiferMan 7 weeks ago

Somewhere off the edge of the map... 'ere there be monsters

@Re-Optimist says...

"Despite the wishes of Trump the only way this conflict will end is through negotiation. The sooner he recognises this the better."
What a strange, backwards comment. There's an issue with the whole negotiation route; you need both sides willing to sit at the table. The UN/U.S/West have been trying to 'negotiate' with Middle-East terrorists for decades, to no avail. Trump has repeatedly said that negotiations are the preferred route, but failing those force is necessary/will be used instead.

"Trump attacked Iran without a declaration of war- a sneak attack if you will.When the Japanese did the same at Pearl Harbour the yanks were rightly miffed.Attacking with a declaration of war can be viewed as a illegal if not cowardly act."
This is a false equivalence. In 1941 the Japanese Empire were simultaneously planning a secret, surprise attack/invasion behind the scenes whilst maintaining peace talks/negotiations with the USA on the world stage - a very deliberate and planned deception. Meanwhile, Trump has maintained the same messaging towards Iran since before 2016. He's been very public, very explicit, and very consistent in the USA's intentions towards Iran in the event of them proceeding with their nuclear programme, and much more recently has repeatedly threatened military action/intervention in response to the mass murder of protesters. Apples to oranges.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erces LetiferMan 7 weeks ago

Somewhere off the edge of the map... 'ere there be monsters

@Pontyboi76 says...

"US will destroy lives by enforcing their awful culture on people."
'Awful' culture? Please. Like what? And as opposed to what, exactly? The 'culture' that has been enforced by the Iranian regime on its own people for nearly 50 years, and the resulting 'culture' that has spread to the surrounding region and internationally as well? What a silly statement to make.
"All the facts, set in stone under international law. It's the basic stuff in UN treaties."
There is nothing "set in stone" about the so-called international law. A law is only as real or as valid as its enforcement mechanism. For global superpowers like the US, it may as well not exist. There's no World Police Force that's going to go and knock on Mr. Trumps front door and cart him down to the station by his ear for a right good telling off, y'know?
"You cannot just randomly attack a sovereign country."
Of course you can, especially if you're a First World superpower. Also, it's never "just random"... there's always a reason. Normally multiple. Every single time. Throughout all of history.
"The so does the US regime, its vile to its people, does not serve them."
What utter, complete, total bollocks. You are a clown for even attempting to compare the US government and its treatment of its citizens to that of Iran. Just so, so offensively misinformed it beggars belief. Christ.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erces LetiferMan 7 weeks ago

Somewhere off the edge of the map... 'ere there be monsters

@HistoryBuff80 says...

"It’s very much about the illegal attack undertaken by Isreal and the USA

Specifically the attacks breached the UN charter. - Article 2(4). They were not ratified by the UN

And the outcome is irrelevant"

No, what's irrelevant is having laws that you cannot enforce. Because the outcome/result is the same as if the law wasn't there/didn't exist. Sometimes what is right, or just, isn't the same thing as being 'legal'. Which brings us to;

"I understand in principle the support of these attacks - the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, undoubtedly. But the UN charter is clear.We can dance around morality and so forth, but that doesn’t change legality"

So you agree. Great.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

So you agree. Great."

Agree with what? That the war is illegal? Yeah I do.

If you’re in favour of indiscriminate bombing of nations you don’t like, you should accept being indiscriminately bombed by nations who don’t like you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"Of course you can, especially if you're a First World superpower. Also, it's never "just random"... there's always a reason."

So you’d accept China bombing the USA? Or the UK?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *4bimMan 7 weeks ago

Farnborough Hampshire

the worry is china.

if they see the US is busy elsewhere there could be nothing to stop them cutting off taiwan and invading.

what will the US do? nothing.

they only pick on countries without nuclear weapons and china will mass its fleet so the US cant break the blockage.

that would be the moment the world holds its breathe as we could be very close to all out nuclear war and remember the americans are the only ones in history to use them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

Those Epstein files must be CRAZY

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ornucopiaMan 7 weeks ago

Bexley

"the worry is china.

if they see the US is busy elsewhere there could be nothing to stop them cutting off taiwan and invading.

what will the US do? nothing.

they only pick on countries without nuclear weapons and china will mass its fleet so the US cant break the blockage.

that would be the moment the world holds its breathe as we could be very close to all out nuclear war and remember the americans are the only ones in history to use them"

Please don't give China ideas they might not have thought of.

Apparently they have spies in Britain...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erces LetiferMan 7 weeks ago

Somewhere off the edge of the map... 'ere there be monsters

"Agree with what?"

That what is right or just isn't the same as what is legal, and that the current Iranian regime deserves to be toppled. Obviously. My post was quite clear.

"If you’re in favour of indiscriminate bombing of nations you don’t like, you should accept being indiscriminately bombed by nations who don’t like you."

And why on earth would I be in favour of such a thing? And where on earth did you get that idea from? Because I know for a fact it wasn't from anything I posted...

Feel free to immolate as many strawmen as you like, but I'll save us both the time and effort here and now: it's not going to do anything or help you (in fact, if anything the discussion will probably devolve/go backwards).

"So you’d accept China bombing the USA? Or the UK?"

Do you understand the difference between a descriptor and a prescriptor? What has my acceptance go to do with anything? If China decides tomorrow it wants to bomb the US and/or the UK what is my 'non-acceptance' going to do against their missiles? You know what another word for non-acceptance is? Denial. How many people didn't "accept" the US capturing Maduro? Or blowing up their drug boats? Or bombing Iran? How many don't "accept" Israel's strikes against Hamas in Gaza? Did this... change anything? No, of course not. Acceptance or denial from random citizens doesn't change what can and cannot be done between nations on the world stage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"Agree with what?

That what is right or just isn't the same as what is legal, and that the current Iranian regime deserves to be toppled. Obviously. My post was quite clear.

If you’re in favour of indiscriminate bombing of nations you don’t like, you should accept being indiscriminately bombed by nations who don’t like you.

And why on earth would I be in favour of such a thing? And where on earth did you get that idea from? Because I know for a fact it wasn't from anything I posted...

So you’d accept China bombing the USA? Or the UK?

It’s not a strawman at all - you’re arguing that international law doesn’t matter. I believe it does - why? Because quite simply, how else do you even attempt to manage things?

I’m aware that Netanyahu, Trump and the actual war criminal Hegseth won’t face any action for their illegal war - but that doesn’t make it legal. It doesn’t make it right.

And just because I believe the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, doesn’t mean we should accept bombing them - why? Because it won’t topple them. It’ll destabilise the region, create martyrs, and increase risk in the west for another generation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erces LetiferMan 7 weeks ago

Somewhere off the edge of the map... 'ere there be monsters

"It’s not a strawman at all"

Yes it is. It's a literal, textbook example of a stawman.

- "Hey, you can't just attack another nation!"

- "Yes you can. Look. It's happening over there right now. And there. And there. Ooh and look it's happening over and over and over again just over there, too."

- "Omg! So you're in favor of countries just indiscriminately bombing each other!!"

- "Er... no, that's not what I said. At all..."

Again. Big difference between a descriptor and a prescriptor.

"you’re arguing that international law doesn’t matter."

No, I'm saying that international law doesn't apply to nations like the US, Israel, Russia, China... becuase it doesn't, because in order for a law to apply it needs an enforcement mechanism.

"I’m aware that Netanyahu, Trump and the actual war criminal Hegseth won’t face any action for their illegal war - but that doesn’t make it legal. It doesn’t make it right."

Legal or illegal, right or wrong, it makes the law irrelevant, which is what I've been saying.

"And just because I believe the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled, doesn’t mean we should accept bombing them"

And? I never equated those two things.

"It’ll destabilise the region, create martyrs, and increase risk in the west for another generation."

All things that have been happening over the last 50 years regardless... so... just leave them to it? Let them further build up their shield of ballistic missiles, drones, terrorisim funding/networking, nuclear armaments... all while brutally oppressing and massacring their own people, their neighbours, all the while chanting "death to the West"??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

Hey man, if you’re all in favour of repeating the same mistakes over and over again, then you do you. What could parboiling wrong by bombing

the shit out them and trying to enforce regime change, eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

Has anyone seen the Iranian 'leader' ? You'd imagine he might be needed for the great fight back ? 🤭

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

White House announces a coalition to take ships through the SOH, although not clear when would begin. Starmer has proposed Lord Mandelson as the First Sea Lord.🫡

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"Has anyone seen the Iranian 'leader' ? You'd imagine he might be needed for the great fight back ? 🤭"

According to War Criminal Pete Hegseth, he’s ’injured and likely disfigured’ though since there are no boots on the ground, it’s unclear how he knows this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Has anyone seen the Iranian 'leader' ? You'd imagine he might be needed for the great fight back ? 🤭

According to War Criminal Pete Hegseth, he’s ’injured and likely disfigured’ though since there are no boots on the ground, it’s unclear how he knows this. "

Why doesn't he just wear a burka and crack on. Poor show all round tbh.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izandpaulCouple 7 weeks ago

merseyside

My great concern and I very much hope I'm wrong is once the bombing stops the Iranians will take the battle to the streets of mainland US.

They wouldn't need thousands of technically advanced bombs to create terror and havoc within US.

Like I said I hope I'm wrong but the Iranians will have a long memory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 weeks ago

North West

In an interview with the Financial Times, Donald Trump said it would be "very bad for the future of Nato" if allies don't help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil shipping.

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man 7 weeks ago

milton keynes

"In an interview with the Financial Times, Donald Trump said it would be "very bad for the future of Nato" if allies don't help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil shipping.

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!"

Would that be the same Trump that said he didn't want countries joining a war that's already won and he doesn't need help from others. Have to wonder that if the war is already won why are missiles and drones falling on countries in the area. Also if he didn't need naval assets before, as he had already won, then why is he begging and threatening others into sending warships?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ellhungvweMan 7 weeks ago

Cheltenham

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!

He is starting to accept the reality of what he's done and wants to spread the blame maybe..

If Iran hits other countries ships who have been blac#mailed into trying to clear up then there will be a direct response from those countries..

He would rather see funerals in America's Nato allies than lose face..

As for China joining in, why would they? They can buy Russian oil too?

A bit of a mess Donald..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ellhungvweMan 7 weeks ago

Cheltenham

"As for China joining in, why would they? They can buy Russian oil too?

A bit of a mess Donald.."

Well over 80% of the oil from the Strait goes east to the Asian economies. They are highly dependent on it (which is why their markets tanked when the fighting started). China is relatively well diversified in its energy sourcing but other countries in the region are not. They _should_ be the ones who are actively working to keep the waters open. I am guessing they are not the countries Donald is thinking of though…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along."

If you'd really read my post so assiduously you'd know I've answered that question in detail at least once.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

"As for China joining in, why would they? They can buy Russian oil too?

A bit of a mess Donald..

They are quite diverse, I noted that several has tankers headed for UK and Europe have diverted to towards Asia, guess anyone with gas heating can expect to be come or pay double again 🤷‍♂️

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!"

The Strait of Hormuz (the central part) is international waters with very little traffic going to the US. Why wouldn't other countries and especially China want to ensure safe passage?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ellhungvweMan 7 weeks ago

Cheltenham

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along.

If you'd really read my post so assiduously you'd know I've answered that question in detail at least once.

I have read the thread and you don’t mention once what you think the end game is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along.

If you'd really read my post so assiduously you'd know I've answered that question in detail at least once.

I have read the thread and you don’t mention once what you think the end game is. "

This thread is for other people to give their opinions, as the OP rather suggests. You referred to 'multiple threads' suggesting you'd read my thoughts elsewhere.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along.

If you'd really read my post so assiduously you'd know I've answered that question in detail at least once.

I have read the thread and you don’t mention once what you think the end game is. "

The end game now is the US escaping the region with as few casualties as possible, the middle east going back exactly as it was and Iran will rebuild

TACO is already changing his focus to new tarrifs to pay for this "winning"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!

It would, but as usual I think its best to separate his loose talk (never helpful) with actual policy.

There are still Iranian drone and missile attacks but they are hugely reduced from the start of this conflict and hopefully that will continue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

Trump knows theres no quick win he can brag about on prime time..

If their was he would grab the glory..

He at least seems to be listening to his advisors who have told him such an operation comes with risks to ships and crews, not good for the mid terms and his declining poll ratings..

Out of his depth from the start ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable. "

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ellhungvweMan 7 weeks ago

Cheltenham

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along.

If you'd really read my post so assiduously you'd know I've answered that question in detail at least once.

I have read the thread and you don’t mention once what you think the end game is.

This thread is for other people to give their opinions, as the OP rather suggests. You referred to 'multiple threads' suggesting you'd read my thoughts elsewhere.

So based on the fact you have repeatedly said that bombing is all that’s needed and that the regime is finished your end game view is that there is nothing left to do. You therefore think ships should be sailing through the straits as there is no chance of any attack and the world can go back to normal. Please tell me where I have misrepresented your views.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Trump knows theres no quick win he can brag about on prime time..

If their was he would grab the glory..

He at least seems to be listening to his advisors who have told him such an operation comes with risks to ships and crews, not good for the mid terms and his declining poll ratings..

Out of his depth from the start .."

So you are happy for the Strait to be effectively controlled by Iran, which btw has threatened to close it multiple times under other Presidents ?

Or would it be better to establish clearly that this is not possible and remove the threat for the foreseeable future at least?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"With the Iranian regime and its proxies decimated in less than two weeks military victory for the US/Israeli alliance seems assured, but what should the end game be ?

I thought you knew what the end game was.

You have said on multiple threads that the goal of the war was well known despite everyone else asking “Why???”

Please tell us what the end game is given that you have known all along.

If you'd really read my post so assiduously you'd know I've answered that question in detail at least once.

I have read the thread and you don’t mention once what you think the end game is.

This thread is for other people to give their opinions, as the OP rather suggests. You referred to 'multiple threads' suggesting you'd read my thoughts elsewhere.

I also wrote a long post on the issue of the Strait in another thread. As you haven't read these post - no reason why you should, except your comments suggested you had - I'm not wasting time repeating them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable. "

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable. "

The idea in principle is of course what's best for the region and global energy etc but its a huge 'if'..

Ironically keeping the straits open gives Iran oil revenues which if the regime remains in power will be used to re arm and continue their (now deeper) hatred of the West and Israel..

A decade might be wishful thinking..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

You are going too far maybe?

Iran has been tone of he biggest disrupters on the world stage. If a weakened Iran leads to less volatility in the region the benefits of that will be felt globally.

We are all global traders, and upset in the supply chains brings about uncertainty as well as higher fuel bills and inflation.

Quietening down Iran is not the silver bullet but it is a help.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Trump knows theres no quick win he can brag about on prime time..

If their was he would grab the glory..

He at least seems to be listening to his advisors who have told him such an operation comes with risks to ships and crews, not good for the mid terms and his declining poll ratings..

Out of his depth from the start ..

So you are happy for the Strait to be effectively controlled by Iran, which btw has threatened to close it multiple times under other Presidents ?

Or would it be better to establish clearly that this is not possible and remove the threat for the foreseeable future at least?"

I'm not happy at all with just how we have got here and it goes back once again to disastrous foreign policies of mostly America..

An over dependence on fossil fuels is like a loose around our necks..

Its clearly very possible and its relatively easy for a country like Iran to do so at will and is happening now which Iran said they would do..

Hence this threat from trump who failed to bully Iran so hes now resorting to bullying Nato..

And all to save his ego and reputation..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

You are going too far maybe?

Iran has been tone of he biggest disrupters on the world stage. If a weakened Iran leads to less volatility in the region the benefits of that will be felt globally.

We are all global traders, and upset in the supply chains brings about uncertainty as well as higher fuel bills and inflation.

Quietening down Iran is not the silver bullet but it is a help. "

The question is: how does this quieten down Iran? Sure, short term of course. But long term nothing is achieved at all without regime change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

You are going too far maybe?

Iran has been tone of he biggest disrupters on the world stage. If a weakened Iran leads to less volatility in the region the benefits of that will be felt globally.

We are all global traders, and upset in the supply chains brings about uncertainty as well as higher fuel bills and inflation.

Quietening down Iran is not the silver bullet but it is a help.

The question is: how does this quieten down Iran? Sure, short term of course. But long term nothing is achieved at all without regime change."

The future is unpredictable, but the question would be is it best to do nothing and so not even a short term gain can be achieved, or take a short term gain of stability and work with the future?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

The idea in principle is of course what's best for the region and global energy etc but its a huge 'if'..

Ironically keeping the straits open gives Iran oil revenues which if the regime remains in power will be used to re arm and continue their (now deeper) hatred of the West and Israel..

A decade might be wishful thinking.."

Is Iran having revenue is better than Iran not having revenue?

Iran have stepped over a line in the region and they have a lot of relationship building to do. I would expect a long (ish) period of stability and that could be enough to be a globally positive outcome.

What happens over the coming years should be diplomacy that I would hope Iran would rather be part of, than isolated from.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

You are going too far maybe?

Iran has been tone of he biggest disrupters on the world stage. If a weakened Iran leads to less volatility in the region the benefits of that will be felt globally.

We are all global traders, and upset in the supply chains brings about uncertainty as well as higher fuel bills and inflation.

Quietening down Iran is not the silver bullet but it is a help.

The question is: how does this quieten down Iran? Sure, short term of course. But long term nothing is achieved at all without regime change.

The future is unpredictable, but the question would be is it best to do nothing and so not even a short term gain can be achieved, or take a short term gain of stability and work with the future?

Saying they were the only two options is an oversimplification though, since Iran were engaging in talks prior to the attacks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

You are going too far maybe?

Iran has been tone of he biggest disrupters on the world stage. If a weakened Iran leads to less volatility in the region the benefits of that will be felt globally.

We are all global traders, and upset in the supply chains brings about uncertainty as well as higher fuel bills and inflation.

Quietening down Iran is not the silver bullet but it is a help.

The question is: how does this quieten down Iran? Sure, short term of course. But long term nothing is achieved at all without regime change.

The future is unpredictable, but the question would be is it best to do nothing and so not even a short term gain can be achieved, or take a short term gain of stability and work with the future?

Saying they were the only two options is an oversimplification though, since Iran were engaging in talks prior to the attacks.

That isn't answering the question? If you believe there are more options what are they?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

How will it be stabilised? There’s no regime change and no boots on the ground at present.

Are Israel and the US going to provide peacekeeping troops on a long-term basis?

You are going too far maybe?

Iran has been tone of he biggest disrupters on the world stage. If a weakened Iran leads to less volatility in the region the benefits of that will be felt globally.

We are all global traders, and upset in the supply chains brings about uncertainty as well as higher fuel bills and inflation.

Quietening down Iran is not the silver bullet but it is a help.

The question is: how does this quieten down Iran? Sure, short term of course. But long term nothing is achieved at all without regime change.

The future is unpredictable, but the question would be is it best to do nothing and so not even a short term gain can be achieved, or take a short term gain of stability and work with the future?

Saying they were the only two options is an oversimplification though, since Iran were engaging in talks prior to the attacks.

That isn't answering the question? If you believe there are more options what are they? "

I thought it was obvious. Get back around the table as they were 2 weeks ago.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

If we believe (and not everyone will) that Iran is a major security risk to the region, an existential risk to Israel, and an economic risk to the world, then this leaves 3 options on how to deal with the Islamic Republic.

1. Carry on with sanctions and talks. This means zero chance of regime change of course but it still perhaps the least risky option.

2. The current strategy. Guaranteed to seriously weaken the regime. May lead to regime change or may lead to more repression (far too early to say IMO). Medium risk of economic shock through SoH closure.

3. Ground invasion and occupation. Guaranteed regime change although nor necessarily for the better. Huge losses of Iranian and US life as in Iraq. Very difficult to get out of successfully. SoH could still be closed during conflict. Highest risk strategy.

I don't see any option apart from variations on those three. US, Israel and its allies have tried No1 for decades with the result being Oct 7th attack, Hamas and Hezbollah both growing in strength, and strong evidence Iran has progressed towards nuclear weapons in breach of agreements.

I haven't seen anyone in the US seriously suggesting Option 3 so that seems a moot point.

Which leaves Option 2. Clearly many/most people here disagree with that, but I do struggle to see why it was or is such an unreasonable choice to make. More importantly, now it has been taken I want it to succeed, because failure is absolutely to the benefit of a regime which killed 50,000 peaceful protesters in a few weeks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

Which leaves Option 2. Clearly many/most people here disagree with that, but I do struggle to see why it was or is such an unreasonable choice to make. "

Unbelievable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

Which leaves Option 2. Clearly many/most people here disagree with that, but I do struggle to see why it was or is such an unreasonable choice to make.

Unbelievable

Thanks!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

Which leaves Option 2. Clearly many/most people here disagree with that, but I do struggle to see why it was or is such an unreasonable choice to make.

Unbelievable

Thanks! "

😂🤣😂😂

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

Which leaves Option 2. Clearly many/most people here disagree with that, but I do struggle to see why it was or is such an unreasonable choice to make.

Unbelievable

Thanks!

😂🤣😂😂"

See, we can get on ! 🤝

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

Which leaves Option 2. Clearly many/most people here disagree with that, but I do struggle to see why it was or is such an unreasonable choice to make.

Unbelievable

Thanks!

😂🤣😂😂

See, we can get on ! 🤝"

Truly oblivious 🙄

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 weeks ago

North West

The Strait of Hormuz (the central part) is international waters with very little traffic going to the US. Why wouldn't other countries and especially China want to ensure safe passage? "

It’s more a critique of the man.

Anybody normal would NOT be saying we don’t need your ships because we are winning bigly without them, then say a few days later oh yeah we actually need some of your ships.

He’s since come out with this nugget:

‘You could make the case that maybe we shouldn't be there at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil’

I mean, he could also say ‘we don’t need to stop Iran developing nukes just yet, because the USA is on the other side of the world & out of range for the foreseeable future’ couldn’t he?

Guy is a moron who isn’t fit to hold the office of POTUS (imho)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

The idea in principle is of course what's best for the region and global energy etc but its a huge 'if'..

Ironically keeping the straits open gives Iran oil revenues which if the regime remains in power will be used to re arm and continue their (now deeper) hatred of the West and Israel..

A decade might be wishful thinking..

Is Iran having revenue is better than Iran not having revenue?

What happens over the coming years should be diplomacy that I would hope Iran would rather be part of, than isolated from. "

Why would they now engage in diplomacy and negotiating when they were doing that and still were attacked and their leader killed..

And in the past had agreed to a policy of nuclear supervisions only to have it torn up..

Of course they are on a dangerous path and cant for regional security be allowed to have a nuclear weapon but any chance of the moderate having a greater influence is dead for a while..

And they could still be developing a nuclear weapon somewhere..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

The idea in principle is of course what's best for the region and global energy etc but its a huge 'if'..

Ironically keeping the straits open gives Iran oil revenues which if the regime remains in power will be used to re arm and continue their (now deeper) hatred of the West and Israel..

A decade might be wishful thinking..

Is Iran having revenue is better than Iran not having revenue?

What happens over the coming years should be diplomacy that I would hope Iran would rather be part of, than isolated from.

Why would they now engage in diplomacy and negotiating when they were doing that and still were attacked and their leader killed..

And in the past had agreed to a policy of nuclear supervisions only to have it torn up..

Of course they are on a dangerous path and cant for regional security be allowed to have a nuclear weapon but any chance of the moderate having a greater influence is dead for a while..

And they could still be developing a nuclear weapon somewhere.."

Sanctions worked in the past, sort of.

I have a feeling most people don't think Iran will change, or will get worse. It could go the other way and they relax their grip and decide being part of the decision making is better than being out of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

When all the nuclear weapons talk calms, can we get Isreal to sign the non-proliferation pact? Think we’d all agree they should, right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"When all the nuclear weapons talk calms, can we get Isreal to sign the non-proliferation pact? Think we’d all agree they should, right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

Starmer knocking it out of the park again just now.

If his domestic politics was as good as his foreign policy, he’d increase his majority rather than looking like a single term PM

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

The idea in principle is of course what's best for the region and global energy etc but its a huge 'if'..

Ironically keeping the straits open gives Iran oil revenues which if the regime remains in power will be used to re arm and continue their (now deeper) hatred of the West and Israel..

A decade might be wishful thinking..

Is Iran having revenue is better than Iran not having revenue?

What happens over the coming years should be diplomacy that I would hope Iran would rather be part of, than isolated from.

Why would they now engage in diplomacy and negotiating when they were doing that and still were attacked and their leader killed..

And in the past had agreed to a policy of nuclear supervisions only to have it torn up..

Of course they are on a dangerous path and cant for regional security be allowed to have a nuclear weapon but any chance of the moderate having a greater influence is dead for a while..

And they could still be developing a nuclear weapon somewhere..

Sanctions worked in the past, sort of.

It will probably change long term but it won't be by getting blown to shit by what they see as their main oppressor, it will come from within and unfortunately many more tens of thousands may die before it happens.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

"Starmer knocking it out of the park again just now.

If his domestic politics was as good as his foreign policy, he’d increase his majority rather than looking like a single term PM"

Agreed 👍👍👍

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"When all the nuclear weapons talk calms, can we get Isreal to sign the non-proliferation pact? Think we’d all agree they should, right?

Ah, now we get to it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"When all the nuclear weapons talk calms, can we get Isreal to sign the non-proliferation pact? Think we’d all agree they should, right?

Ah, now we get to it

Don’t you agree that all nuclear nations (or those nuclear hopeful) should be signatories? Makes sense, no?

Even Iran are/were.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"When all the nuclear weapons talk calms, can we get Isreal to sign the non-proliferation pact? Think we’d all agree they should, right?

Ah, now we get to it

Don’t you agree that all nuclear nations (or those nuclear hopeful) should be signatories? Makes sense, no?

Even Iran are/were."

I don't fixate on the worlds only Jewish state but that's just me.🤷

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *e-OptimistMan 7 weeks ago

Stalybridge

Despite probably having nuclear weapons since the mid 70s Israel will never admit it. The maybe/maybe not explanation given by them has worn thin now. Therefore they see no reason to sign a nuclear nonproliferation treaty as:-

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"When all the nuclear weapons talk calms, can we get Isreal to sign the non-proliferation pact? Think we’d all agree they should, right?

Ah, now we get to it

Don’t you agree that all nuclear nations (or those nuclear hopeful) should be signatories? Makes sense, no?

Even Iran are/were.

I don't fixate on the worlds only Jewish state but that's just me.🤷"

Well Israel are the only nation not party to the NPT that are presently involved in this conflict, are they not?

Or have India & Pakistan started threatening the Middle East too, and I’m unaware?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"If the outcome of this offensive leads to a more stable middle East, with Iran weakened along with their proxies, that would be a significant result for the next decade.

I think that is achievable.

The idea in principle is of course what's best for the region and global energy etc but its a huge 'if'..

Ironically keeping the straits open gives Iran oil revenues which if the regime remains in power will be used to re arm and continue their (now deeper) hatred of the West and Israel..

A decade might be wishful thinking..

Is Iran having revenue is better than Iran not having revenue?

What happens over the coming years should be diplomacy that I would hope Iran would rather be part of, than isolated from.

Why would they now engage in diplomacy and negotiating when they were doing that and still were attacked and their leader killed..

And in the past had agreed to a policy of nuclear supervisions only to have it torn up..

Of course they are on a dangerous path and cant for regional security be allowed to have a nuclear weapon but any chance of the moderate having a greater influence is dead for a while..

And they could still be developing a nuclear weapon somewhere..

Sanctions worked in the past, sort of.

At the moment they're under a state of siege from the air yet still managing to close the strait of Hormuz, they are a long way away from wanting to compromise even if the attacks stopped today..

In all likelihood by accounts the Ayatollah is more of a hawk than his Dad was and wasn't his first choice because of that and being too close to the hardliners in the IRGC..

All that's happened in the last 17 days is the regime are more entrenched in its aims..

And regime change isn't looking likely..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Despite probably having nuclear weapons since the mid 70s Israel will never admit it. The maybe/maybe not explanation given by them has worn thin now. Therefore they see no reason to sign a nuclear nonproliferation treaty as:-

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above."

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'.."

One might be tempted to say you're 'deflecting' but I wouldn't want to steal someone else's line.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'..

One might be tempted to say you're 'deflecting' but I wouldn't want to steal someone else's line.

You lost any credibility in using that word months ago..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

"I thought it was obvious. Get back around the table as they were 2 weeks ago."

Stepping back for a moment... Given Iran's trajectory of increasing proxy capability and warfare (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias and Houthis), their covert operations against Israel and other Western targets, their ballistic missile programme, their nuclear programme, etc., at what point (if any) would you support a preemptive attack on Iran, if at all? If you wouldn't, at what point would you support a reactive attack? And at what point should allies of affected countries be involved?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'..

One might be tempted to say you're 'deflecting' but I wouldn't want to steal someone else's line.

You lost any credibility in using that word months ago..

And yet you love my threads ! 🤝

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

And regime change isn't looking likely.."

You might be right.

But there has been almost no *meaningful* talk of regime change or any concrete actions other than softening up some targets. The US probably doesn't have too much of value to bring on this front (other than brute force and money/influence), but Israel has been planning this for decades. For Iran, this is deeply unsettling and they are on tenterhooks waiting for some unspecified threat. It will be interesting to see what Israel's play is on this front - and they will, eventually, make some play. Probably.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

"I thought it was obvious. Get back around the table as they were 2 weeks ago.

I would support a preemptive attack only with support from the UN as part of an allied effort.

Reactive attack is different, and irrelevant, since Iran didn’t strike first, and were engaging in talks with the USA.

Had Iran struck first, then they’re the ones engaging in an illegal war, and nations have a right to defended themselves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"I thought it was obvious. Get back around the table as they were 2 weeks ago.

Personally I would rather look them in the eyes during any such talks and say we will destroy any facilities where we suspect via international monitors or other means that you are subverting the monitoring and carrying on development of nuclear weapons..

You can probably never trust them fully to not try to do so..

But this isn't going to lead to anything other than an angrier more determined regime to go that route again or other equally devastating ways..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

I would support a preemptive attack only with support from the UN as part of an allied effort.

Do you feel that the Security Council would ever give a green light to attack Iran? And that wasn't really the question - let's put them to one side. It was at what point would a preemptive attack be justified - if you like you can imagine "at what point should the UN authorise a preemptive attack"?

Reactive attack is different, and irrelevant, since Iran didn’t strike first, and were engaging in talks with the USA.

Had Iran struck first, then they’re the ones engaging in an illegal war, and nations have a right to defended themselves.

Why would a strike by Hezbollah, who were co-founded by Iran, largely run by Iran and are a proxy for Iran, not qualify? If the source of the funding and armaments is Iran, why not attack that source?

What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'..

One might be tempted to say you're 'deflecting' but I wouldn't want to steal someone else's line.

You lost any credibility in using that word months ago..

And yet you love my threads ! 🤝"

Only the ones where you dont tell porkies..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'..

One might be tempted to say you're 'deflecting' but I wouldn't want to steal someone else's line.

You lost any credibility in using that word months ago..

And yet you love my threads ! 🤝

Only the ones where you dont tell porkies..

🤣🤣

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

I would support a preemptive attack only with support from the UN as part of an allied effort.

Reactive attack is different, and irrelevant, since Iran didn’t strike first, and were engaging in talks with the USA.

Had Iran struck first, then they’re the ones engaging in an illegal war, and nations have a right to defended themselves.

What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war?"

So why didn’t we attack Saudi after 9/11?

And morals are subjective, are they not? Laws are not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

A. They haven't got any (honest guv)

B. It's too late anyway

C. It's antisemitic to even suggest such a thing.

D. All of the above.

Mordechai Vanunu knows the price of talking about such 'secrets'..

One might be tempted to say you're 'deflecting' but I wouldn't want to steal someone else's line.

You lost any credibility in using that word months ago..

And yet you love my threads ! 🤝

Only the ones where you dont tell porkies..

🤣🤣"

🐖 🐷

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS 7 weeks ago
Forum Mod

Central

Will this be sorted, by the end of Trump's 2nd term?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

I would support a preemptive attack only with support from the UN as part of an allied effort.

Reactive attack is different, and irrelevant, since Iran didn’t strike first, and were engaging in talks with the USA.

Had Iran struck first, then they’re the ones engaging in an illegal war, and nations have a right to defended themselves.

What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war?

So why didn’t we attack Saudi after 9/11?

And morals are subjective, are they not? Laws are not. "

(1) You missed the actual question again.

(2) Saudi Arabia (add a state) did not direct Al Qaeda, but was rather a mostly passive sympathiser. There is a massive qualitative and quantitative difference between Iran and Saudi regarding terrorism, as was demonstrated on the other thread. Saudi never made it their single greatest goal to eradicate the United States.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago

I would support a preemptive attack only with support from the UN as part of an allied effort.

Reactive attack is different, and irrelevant, since Iran didn’t strike first, and were engaging in talks with the USA.

Had Iran struck first, then they’re the ones engaging in an illegal war, and nations have a right to defended themselves.

What is more important, the legality of a war, or the moral rightness of a war?

So why didn’t we attack Saudi after 9/11?

And morals are subjective, are they not? Laws are not.

(1) You missed the actual question again.

(2) Saudi Arabia (add a state) did not direct Al Qaeda, but was rather a mostly passive sympathiser.

Yes. Of course

We really need a ‘sarcasm’ font on here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky.."

Iran had expressed concerns before October 7 over the Israeli cooperation with Saudi.

Now if the view of Iran has shifted after attacks made on their neighbours, and if they begin to see Iran as a threat because of their attacks, is it unthinkable to increase their ties Israel?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky..

Iran had expressed concerns before October 7 over the Israeli cooperation with Saudi.

Now if the view of Iran has shifted after attacks made on their neighbours, and if they begin to see Iran as a threat because of their attacks, is it unthinkable to increase their ties Israel? "

The war in Gaza has damaged the process but relations between Israel and the Gulf nations have been improving for some time. As we as being a technological power house, Israel is no threat to those countries unless they threaten it. Iran on the other hand is a backward theocracy which has now shown its willingness to attack all its neighbours. Not really a great plan for the future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky..

Iran had expressed concerns before October 7 over the Israeli cooperation with Saudi.

Now if the view of Iran has shifted after attacks made on their neighbours, and if they begin to see Iran as a threat because of their attacks, is it unthinkable to increase their ties Israel? "

They have yes, for a while as Saudi especially as 'MBS' is closer to tge West than his father and will take over..

Its not unthinkable at all and part of that is irans proxies in the region causing instability..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 weeks ago

Border of London

(1) You missed the actual question again.

(2) Saudi Arabia (add a state) did not direct Al Qaeda, but was rather a mostly passive sympathiser.

Yes. Of course

We really need a ‘sarcasm’ font on here."

Genuinely not understanding what's going on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *e-OptimistMan 7 weeks ago

Stalybridge

Trump gibbering on CNN now - his brain is obviously fried.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky..

Iran had expressed concerns before October 7 over the Israeli cooperation with Saudi.

Now if the view of Iran has shifted after attacks made on their neighbours, and if they begin to see Iran as a threat because of their attacks, is it unthinkable to increase their ties Israel?

Iran only attacked US bases in neighboring countries after the US bombed the fuck out of them.

Do keep up 😘

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky..

Iran had expressed concerns before October 7 over the Israeli cooperation with Saudi.

Now if the view of Iran has shifted after attacks made on their neighbours, and if they begin to see Iran as a threat because of their attacks, is it unthinkable to increase their ties Israel?

Iran only attacked US bases in neighboring countries after the US bombed the fuck out of them.

Do keep up 😘"

Nope.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *winga2Man 7 weeks ago

Stranraer

"Iran now attacking Qatar, probably its closest regional ally. Absolutely desperate stuff.

Meanwhile Indian oil tankers safety through the Strait.

They look more desperate to drag in the other gulf States but do far they're staying put at defending their infrastructure..

I think TM alluded to the fact that joining a coalition with Israel would be very risky..

Iran had expressed concerns before October 7 over the Israeli cooperation with Saudi.

Now if the view of Iran has shifted after attacks made on their neighbours, and if they begin to see Iran as a threat because of their attacks, is it unthinkable to increase their ties Israel?

Iran only attacked US bases in neighboring countries after the US bombed the fuck out of them.

Do keep up 😘

Nope."

Source ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP 7 weeks ago

Oil Prices falling, Stock markets recovering. Looks like another bad day for the dolly doomsters.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

"Oil Prices falling, Stock markets recovering. Looks like another bad day for the dolly doomsters.

Alls well then

Err..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *e-OptimistMan 7 weeks ago

Stalybridge

Unfortunately a longer term view of the problem is needed. Oil prices came down last week for a day or two but went back up.

There are so many other problem areas caused by the recent botched not a war. The US and unfortunately the rest of the world will have a huge mess to sort out over the next decade(s). Trump will be long gone but the ramifications of his stupidity will blight many.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Unfortunately a longer term view of the problem is needed. Oil prices came down last week for a day or two but went back up.

I'm not sure how this argument stacks up against the years of problems Iran has caused?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple 7 weeks ago

near enough

"Oil Prices falling, Stock markets recovering. Looks like another bad day for the dolly doomsters.

Straight from the trump school of economics.

Never mind that

Us gasoline up $1 a gallon, I'm sure they're jumping for joy 🙄

Oil prices up 50%, stock market down 9% in 3 weeks

Not relevant in the smoke and mirrors of bullshit

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man 7 weeks ago

milton keynes

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!

It would, but as usual I think its best to separate his loose talk (never helpful) with actual policy.

There are still Iranian drone and missile attacks but they are hugely reduced from the start of this conflict and hopefully that will continue.

He does speak before engaging his brain but he said what he said and now backtracking. He goes from we don't need your help, to making threats for not helping. I also hope that the missiles and drones stop and yes they are hugely reduced but the fact they are actually still happening proves no one has won as yet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *e-OptimistMan 7 weeks ago

Stalybridge

Potential for global economic meltdown.

Long standing alliances threatened.

Sovereign nations threatened for not supporting illegal war.

Sneak attack conducted by global super power for dubious reasons.

Disregard for international law.

Competence of US military called into question. Bomb the shit out of anyone but can't see a way out or end strategy.

The success that is Trumpism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove2pleaseseukMan 7 weeks ago

Hastings

My best guess going on there past record, it will end in another mess for the world to pay for for year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple 7 weeks ago

in Lancashire

He added that he expects China to help secure the channel, and suggested he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping if the nation does not agree to assist.

Aboard Air Force One, the US president told reporters he was speaking to "about seven" countries about "policing" the strait, reiterating that he "will remember" if they do not help.

The front of this cnut!

It would, but as usual I think its best to separate his loose talk (never helpful) with actual policy.

There are still Iranian drone and missile attacks but they are hugely reduced from the start of this conflict and hopefully that will continue.

The Iranian regime have played him but its his own complete lack of diplomatic communication skills and his ego where he has to large himself up that has set him up to look a bit stupid in many things he has said..

He just can't accept that there are others who dont share his misguided sense of importance and will not jump when he says, especially after his threats about Greenland ..

He's in a mess of his own making but it will be someone else's fault..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 weeks ago

North West

Oil price coming down? Whoopie. Must be that FOUR DAYS worth of reserves they put onto the market.

Wouldn’t be hanging out the bunting just yet, it was $72 a barrel at the beginning of this conflict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)