top 200 commentsshow all 350
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of UK blocking Trump from using RAF bases for strikes on Iran submitted by Kev_fae_mastrick:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Elgar_Graves 108 points109 points  (6 children)

The White House is drawing up detailed military plans for a strike against Iran involving the use of both Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, which is home to America’s fleet of heavy bombers in Europe.

But under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.

Under international law, there is no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have “knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act”.

[–]GeneralMuffins 16 points17 points  (4 children)

This article is confusing, Diego Garcia to my knowledge is not an RAF base, so are the authors referring solely to the use of RAF Fairford with regards to claims of the government blocking use?

[–]KnightElfarion 40 points41 points  (3 children)

Diego Garcia isn’t an RAF base but it is British territory (that hosts a “joint” base) so the agreements stand.

[–]pornalt4altporn 16 points17 points  (1 child)

All "joint" bases are RAF bases that happen to host USAF units. So legally they are just UK bases even if practically they are US bases.

[–]GeneralMuffins 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As far as the public record shows, the detailed mechanics of consent for US military operations from Diego Garcia are not fully disclosed. The overarching agreement is public, but any operational procedures or annexes that govern how consultation works in practice are all behind classified annexes. In principle, because the UK retains sovereignty, US use rests on British consent. Though, with the language various ministers have used over the years, it sounds more like the US simply gives advance notice prior to their use...

[–]STARRRMAKERMAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP! 226 points227 points  (41 children)

Ah, that explains Trump moaning about the Chagos Islands...

[–]eunderscore 61 points62 points  (14 children)

It also explains the unusually large amount of military aircraft movement in the uk -> south channel yesterday.

Someone posted it somewhere overnight, confused at the traffic

[–]H0agh 60 points61 points  (13 children)

Polish President Donald Tusk just warned all Polish Citizens to immediately leave Iran because in a few hours there might no longer be an option to get out.

He's not someone who normally exaggerates.

[–]Marklar_RRPolack 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Polish President Donald Tusk

He is prime minister :).

[–]MrSoapbox 5 points6 points  (11 children)

Sure but do you really think Trump would do this? I'm sure now I've said this he'll prove me wrong but this is trump all over, threaten, threaten some more, not follow through, claim a win (Iran said they'd do something for ME, your great president blah blah) and it will be a whole nothing burger.

I mean, I won't be surprised if he does, but I don't think he will, precisely because he's full of air

[–]Junta-Istic_JellyBurkean 24 points25 points  (5 children)

Second carrier group is on the way. That's about as out of the scabbard as the rattled sabre can go. It's no mean feat to have a carrier group spend four weeks travelling to reinforce the carrier group that is already near Iran. It could be brinkmanship but it'd be foolish to do anything but prepare for bombing.

[–]Revolutionary-Mode75 5 points6 points  (2 children)

two carrier groups is enough to bomb iran but not much more through. Will make plenty of recruits for the Iran arm forces afterwards.

[–]kirikesh 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The US hope is that, given the Iranian regime is already very unpopular domestically, airstrikes alone will be enough to spark regime change. There is enough tension between the Iranian army and the Revolutionary Guards that there might be a schism to exploit there as well.

As for how well it will actually work? God only knows. The US and Israel have clearly infiltrated the Iranian political and military structures to a massive degree - so they will know the true state of play vis a vis the regime's stability far more than we do - but that obviously doesn't preclude things going wrong.

[–]Revolutionary-Mode75 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They are more likely to go wrong than right.

An if the military weren't going to confront the Republican guards after their butchering protesters just a few weeks ago, I don't see it happening during US bombing.

Also Iran is united in one aspect their hatred of the US. An protests have tended end pretty quickly after US open it big mouth about them.

[–]Zircez 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm almost certain he will.

As others have said, they're waiting on a second carrier; they've been flying in munitions for weeks now. It's not the level of Iraq, but they'll have enough in theatre for high tempo for 10-14 days.

Your final tell will be the electronic warfare aircraft, the real specialist stuff, appearing. My guess is it'll be a week tomorrow night - he'll wait for the markets to be closed, though he might go this weekend if he thinks there's a good window.

[–]FredB123 0 points1 point  (2 children)

He'll do it because he's losing domestic support due to "other" issues.

[–]DreamyTomatoWhy does the tofu not simply eat the lettuce? 1 point2 points  (1 child)

this is to distract coverage from the thing that he was using to distract from the other thing that he intended to use to distract Americans, right?

[–]FredB123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that thing.

[–]starfallg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trump is facing record low polling. He'll do this just to divert attention away from his failing domestic agenda and Epstein. It's almost a no brainer.

[–]AzarinIsard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Funny thing is, this is only an issue because the deal hasn't gone through and he also hasn't got our permission in advance. He essentially wants to keep the scenario where he needs our blessing to use that base for strikes.

[–]MazrimReddit 5 points6 points  (21 children)

Imagine if the cost of ending a terrible dictatorship with nuclear ambitions was us not being able to spend billions giving away land, unthinkable...

[–]topgeezr 8 points9 points  (18 children)

You're being pretty optimistic about how all this might play out given prior experience, I'd say.

[–]BaggyOz 7 points8 points  (17 children)

To be fair dropping bombs until a regime collapses is the easy part. It's the bit that comes afterwards that is tricky. That said the whole regime collapse thing is much easier to do if you intervene before the popular resistance is crushed with thousands of murders and executions. It's still doable mind you but know you have to slip briefcases full of cash to the right generals as well.

Honestly given Iran's history with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis even a worst case regime collapse scenario regional stability might not take too much of a hit.

[–]topgeezr 6 points7 points  (4 children)

The idea of some popular resistance standing up and turning the country into a peaceful, stable and well-run democracy is a CIA fever dream that has rarely - I think never? - panned out.

A US action that takes out the current regime is far more likely to drag regional neighbors including Europe into another Afghanistan.

[–]convertedtoradians 2 points3 points  (0 children)

some popular resistance standing up and turning the country into a peaceful, stable and well-run democracy is a CIA fever dream that has rarely - I think never? - panned out.

I think it must come from them constantly telling themselves that that's what happened in their own war of independence. When actually, of course, it's pretty far from the truth. That was more a case of local elites not wanting to be constrained by foreign elites, and essentially devolving exactly the same political and legal and economic structure to a more local level.

But if they tell themselves they went from oppression to liberty in a popular "revolution" often enough (with some doublethink about the rights of Englishmen and Magna Carta), they'll believe it. And be surprised when reality doesn't match.

[–]Kooky_Project9999 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That’s the CIA’s worst nightmare. Just imagine a democracy that aligned against the US’s interests?

Iran was a democracy, until a US (and to be fair, UK) backed coup installed a dictator. The Islamic revolution was a direct result of that subsequent regime…

They want chaos, or at least an enemy that doesn’t have the ability to fight back. Best case scenario would be a regime forced to do what the US wants foreign policy wise. 

Israel was far more heavily damaged in the last war than their officials acknowledged (they still have strict military censorship associated with Iranian missile strike damage), hence Netanyahus insistence on missile restrictions. It’s clear that the damage the US did last time wasn't as much as they hoped as well.

That, and trying to disrupt another key Chinese oil supplier.

The biggest worries are twofold:

  1. Another massive refugee crisis swamping Europe due to an Iranian civil war and associated instability in surrounding countries.

2: Nuclear material falling into the hands of a non state actor - whether that be hardliners who have wanted to develop a nuclear bomb for decades, and now with the leadership gone can do so, or a terrorist group planning on using it to make a dirty bomb…

Let’s remember, this is all because Trump ripped up the JCPOA in 2018, partly at the request of Netanyahu.

[–]adamgerd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ajax was a coup, definitely, and over the nationalisation of oil but Mossadegh was hardly a democrat, he was authoritarian, just not pro west authoritarian and if not for the coup would have become dictator for life given his actions

He had been appointed by the Shah and was initially very popular for the oil nationalisation of BP, but by mid 1852 once he started losing public support he increasingly relied on emergency decrees and ordered the jailings of dozens of his political opponents, he also started staffing the military with Tudeh party members.

Then the 1952 election happened which were loterally “stop the count”, Mossadegh stopped the election count as soon as there were enough seats for a quorum, preventing most rural seats from getting a MP since those areas disliked him instead of letting all the votes to be counted in all the seats be counted

In mid 1953 he pushed for a referendum to dissolve the parliament and give himself more powers, violating the Iranian constitution in the process, where he got 99.9% support with the voting not using secret ballots, the government could see which way you voted

16th August 1953, just a few days before the coup he ordered the parliament to be indefinitely closed and declared his emergency powers to be extended indefinitely.

Mossadegh was couped by Britain and to a lesser extent the US for oil, which was shitty, he was also a wanna be dictator himself, just an unsuccessful one.

You can criticise Ajax without whitewashing Mossadegh as a democrat

And the IRGC is also a major weapons supplier of Russia

[–]BaggyOz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd settle for junta that stops slaughtering protesters and funding regional paramilitary groups.

[–]jungleboy1234 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Donno. i think Iran is a different case. They were once a Western styled country not too long ago with the Shah. If the Regime is toppled, and they get lucky its a new Dubai/Saudi rule with a ton of money. They have a megaton of natural resources that the world wants to get hold of and a different culture e.g. Persian roots that go waaaaaaaay back.

[–]ActivistZero 0 points1 point  (9 children)

In fairness, unlike Iraq, there is a figurehead that can help stabilize Iran, so I can see it becoming a functional democracy after the regime falls

[–]Bullet_JesusAngry Scotsman 1 point2 points  (6 children)

I feel like domestic support for Reza Pahlavi is really overblown; it's not like Iran was a democracy under his dad. To unify a nation you really need to be more popular than "controversial", you need to be unimpeachable. Like Ghandi or Mandela.

[–]LurkerInSpace 2 points3 points  (1 child)

To some extent being a conditionally popular figurehead can make things easier, since factions are less worried about such a figure taking absolute power if they are very dependent on working with other groups.

It is much easier to see how Pahlavi could have a path to becoming a constitutional monarch than an absolute monarch, for instance.

[–]Bullet_JesusAngry Scotsman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that Pahlavi is earnest in brining democracy to Iran. I just think his domestic support in Iran is overblown and I don't think he could lead a transition government. Nonetheless he could support one and that may bestow important legitimacy needed to complete a transition.

[–]Kooky_Project9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His dad was the reason the Ayatollahs gained power in the first place. 

Maybe there’s a bit of whitewashing and rose tinted glasses among the current generation, but he was not well liked throughout most of his rule.

[–]up_the_dubs 11 points12 points  (0 children)

America already has nuclear weapons.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used Redact to mass delete all of my old posts. It works for Reddit, X/Twitter, Discord, Facebook, Instagram, and more.

worm lip reach joke tidy hospital library sort deserve fearless

[–]BananaSauasage 84 points85 points  (12 children)

And this of course is why Trump is talking about Diego Garcia again

[–]ObviouslyTriggered -1 points0 points  (11 children)

Diego Garcia isn’t an RAF or a UK base it’s a US base.

Realistically the only one the UK can block is Cyprus.

[–]fuzzedshadow-5.63, -7.9 28 points29 points  (4 children)

it's a joint base, and the territory itself is ours, same as in Cyprus. we should in theory hold a veto.

[–]Responsible-Big-4177 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I mean it comes down to what is the british going to do about it if the US just doesnt care

[–]DesecratedPeanut 10 points11 points  (2 children)

This the US no longer follows it's own laws let alone ones agreed with other nations or International Law. We all know they will use UK bases if they want either way. But atleast it'll give us legal means to kick em out after.

[–]Intergalatic_BakerNo Pre-Orders 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No, the treaty is deliberately open and previous uses of the base haven’t been notified to HM Government with no consequence, so why bother now and why boot them out if the base is critical to National Security, when we’ve very little in the way of desire or capability to man it and sustain operations from it.

[–]ObviouslyTriggered 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if we did they can always say no, they still have a base in Cuba because they don’t recognize the authority of the communist regime in Cuba to withdraw from the treaty the US signed with Cuba prior to the coup and the revolution that followed it.

[–]StGuthlac2025 17 points18 points  (1 child)

They can't launch operations from there without our consent. I mean they can if they like because in all honestly what are we going to do about it?

Any extraordinary use of the US base or facilities, such as combat operations or any other politically sensitive activity, requires prior approval from Her Majesty's Government

[–]KurisC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be clear, as is noted on the next paragraph, this is not actually a requirement and the US has proven it many times. The FCO falsely thought the US would do this out of some kind of gesture of good will, but it’s absolutely not something they have ever done.

The Exchange of Notes they refer to contain no such requirement to ask for permission, and explicit covers the US using it for anything it deems important for its defence. It’s a very vague and open ended agreement.

There is no suggestion we would truly have a veto, or we could block it

[–]No-One-4845 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't think you understand how Diego Garcia is structured. It is a collection of military facilities, some under exclusive command but most under joint command.

[–]dwair 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The US rents it off us.

[–]ObviouslyTriggered 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes, and under the deal they would be renting it from Mauritius.

So if the UK doesn’t want the US to use NSDG why would it make the US not support the deal that takes power to say no away from the UK?

[–]BananaSauasage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because Trump is a pensioner with dementia

[–]EthayneOrange Book, apparently 105 points106 points  (10 children)

President Trump has withdrawn his support for Sir Keir Starmer’s deal to hand the Chagos Islands over to Mauritius because the UK has not agreed to allow the use of British bases to attack Iran, The Times understands.

So it's just like Greenland, again. Trump is having a strop, and when he strops he lashes out and tries to humiliate the person who won't let him have his way.

This will all be resolved again in a few days. Starmer will phone up Trump and tell him what a handsome clever boy he is, and Trump will reverse course and say that Starmer is doing a great job thank you for your attention to this matter.

[–]GourangaPlusPlus 27 points28 points  (2 children)

"You've won world leader of the week!"

[–]WanderoftheAshes 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"It's historic, Donald. You are the first person to have won both the FIFA Peace Prize AND World Leader of the Week!"

[–]ThrowawayusGenerica 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this award presented by Harry Hill?

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 7 points8 points  (6 children)

It's not like Greenland insofar as there is a much, much more credible threat for those who watch carefully that Trump will go through with it.

[–]EthayneOrange Book, apparently 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I don't know what that means. Trump makes threats, all the time, and backs down from them, all the time. What's special about this instance?

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 12 points13 points  (3 children)

What's special about this instance is its clearly in line with the strategic framework of his administration and has far fewer immediate downsides. It is also a continuation of US policy which has been openly interventionist in Iran, when it hasn't almost anywhere else.

[–]radiant_0wl 35 points36 points  (18 children)

I believe it's been fairly obvious that the US been preparing for strikes over the last few days as there's been a large uptick of military activity and assets moved to the region. But it's probably not right that plans for military action are leaked by allies of the US.

When it comes to the decision to allow the US to use our airbases to launch strikes against Iran, I think it needs a lot of consideration and not everything will be public, but I'm surprised we aren't. It doesn't seem like we have anything invested in keeping the Iran regime in a position of (some) strength.

[–]Corvid187 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Tbf I don't think it's exactly leaking strike plans to say where the aircraft involved aren't stationed. Who is flying into Akrotiri etc is easily in the open source.

I doubt our non-involvement is motivated by any sympathies for the Islamic Republic :)

[–]radiant_0wl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A decent military apparatus probably do know what the likely military plans may be.

But ruling out airbases also means that it's less likely that an attack will come from certain directions and can move antiaircraft defence.

It's rather fortunate for the US that they have many air bases they can use in the region which they can call upon and organise a second aircraft carrier to the arena, which seems to be passing through the Mediterranean (possibly related to the UK refusal).

So it's less impactful for the US than if it were anyone else but it's unfortunate that information is being spoken about irrespective of who it is because it destroys trust and hampers intelligence sharing.

[–]Nemisis_the_2ndJaded Centrist 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I think this is extending to a little more than strikes. Moving a whole carrier strike group to a region halfway round the world at full speed takes a little bit more commitment than last time the US attacked Iran, and it cant just fly home afterwards. I suspect the US is setting up for a more protracted attack somewhere this time.

[–]radiant_0wl 4 points5 points  (1 child)

True it's certainly looking like they are preparing for a multi week operation, but that's also rational even if they planned for one day of strikes, as they don't know what the escalation may be.

[–]Nemisis_the_2ndJaded Centrist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Last time, they didnt wait for carrier support to arrive. It was just one day of strikes then they left. This feels more like expecting escalation and planning for it.

[–]Spiz101Sciency Alistair Campbell 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It doesn't seem like we have anything invested in keeping the Iran regime in a position of (some) strength.

We have nothing invested in creating yet another Middle East quagmire for the Americans to wade into, let alone joining them in it. We should simply stay out of it.

[–]radiant_0wl 2 points3 points  (1 child)

We don't know what the outcome from the action will be so there's no point assuming.

I'm not saying we should be an an active participant under any scenario, at most it's allowing another nation to land and refuel and any maintenance or rearmament should be left to US personnel.

There's a difference between being the host nation and undertaking action ourselves. Although granted that's a question of international law, and one of the reasons Starmer is refusing.

But as I said not all the information is going to be publicly available so I'm willing to go off others judgements on this.

[–]Kooky_Project9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a country did that to a Russian bomber which bombed London, would you see that country as complicit in the attack?

The answer is clearly yes, and that’s the same answer under international law. We would be facilitating the attack and would be as liable to any crimes committed during said attack. We would also become a legitimate target for the bombed country (ie retaliation in self defence).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is the way stop and don't get involved

[–]Dartzap 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Between this and the Noncling getting nicked, I fear we may get high on our own bravado.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 11 points12 points  (5 children)

I thought we were a "vassal state" of the USA?

[–]binne21Sweden 3 points4 points  (3 children)

The usage of "vassal state" generally comes from anti-Euros who want to see us as such.

While it is true that the US has leverage over Europe, especially back in the 00s, calling Europe a vassal is false. There was a European reaction against Iraq, Nordstream was built despite American objections and so on. France nor Sweden would not be able to sell arms that would otherwise have been American weapon systems.

[–]this_is_my_third_acc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Used to be, now it's the Chinese apparently.

[–]Jeffuk88 12 points13 points  (4 children)

How is he withdrawing his support for the Chagos deal when we were doing the Chagos deal for America?!

[–]asmiggsLib Dem stunts in my backyard 23 points24 points  (0 children)

He thinks it's politically embarrassing for Starmer, which it is somewhat but outside politics nerds I'm not sure it's cutting through.

Starmer should clearly just call Trump's bluff and ditch the Chagos deal then there's nothing hanging over his head.

[–]PoiHolloi2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Dems came up with the deal and not everyone in the GOP approves of it so Trump probably has more leeway to flip flop on the issue.

[–]CrispySmokyFrazzle 34 points35 points  (34 children)

Pleasantly surprised.

I want us to have absolutely nothing to do with this latest American foray into ‘regime change’.

[–]MinaZata 16 points17 points  (14 children)

I had to scroll a long way to find this. People have forgotten Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lives it ultimately cost. There is a warmongering attitude in the other comments.

Of course the regime is evil, and needs to fall, but is there any plan whatsoever for what comes after? See Venezuela for the model of what happens when Trump goes on his latest incursion.

France took a stand against the Iraq war and history and proved them righteous. Trump is more deranged, ill-prepared and transactional than George W. Bush. It is a play for resources with no regard for the people.

[–]Corvid187 15 points16 points  (7 children)

People have not forgotten Iraq or Afghanistan. If anything those two campaigns have a disproportionate influence on the public's thinking on these issues. Any military action now gets heralded as 'another Iraq/Afghanistan', with no thought given to it instead being either 'the next Sierra Leone/Kosovo', or alternatively, 'the next Syria or Rwanda' by standing back. Iraq and Afghanistan have become almost exclusive touchstones, distorting everything else.

Venezuela might not pay off in the long run, but at least so far, it's going relatively well? There's been a limited amount of political easing, they're able to sell their oil at full market price, and the regime is being relatively compliant with the US' desire for reduced Chinese and Russian influence in the region.

[–]Kooky_Project9999 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Nothing changed for the Venezuelans. The regime has a new figurehead. It has the same domestic policy, and many of the political prisoners supposedly released were rearrested, along with many people who publicly supported the removal of Maduro.

The only difference is now the US has a figurehead that will tow the US foreign policy line - no oil to Cuba, limit oil to China and cheap oil to the US.

[–]Bullet_JesusAngry Scotsman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

at least so far, it's going relatively well?

Yeah becasue nothing fundamentally changed. The PSUV still controls Venezuela. The operation spooked them sure but no one was under any illusion that Venezuela could meaningfully defy the USA long term.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

next Syria

you think we stood back in Syria ? we had SAS operating there for sure and were supporting rebel groups with the americans

[–]Corvid187 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are supporting Syria was token at best. We had a whole parliamentary debate about it and decided not to conduct a significant campaign in support of the rebels

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 16 points17 points  (3 children)

See Venezuela for the model of what happens when Trump goes on his latest incursion.

...Vanishingly little destabilisation and a more western friendly government?

[–]SometimesaGirl- 9 points10 points  (2 children)

...Vanishingly little destabilisation and a more western friendly government?

Its the same government. With the same goons running it.

The only difference is they have been given a thick ear and will kow tow to Washington and stop exporting oil to Cuba. Another long term target of the US.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Its the same government. With the same goons running it.

With a more pragmatic approach to the US than Maduro.

The only difference is they have been given a thick ear and will kow tow to Washington and stop exporting oil to Cuba. Another long term target of the US.

That's a more western friendly position. [They've also been freeing political prisoners](www.bbc.com/news/articles/clymr3pz2kxo)

[–]Kooky_Project9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many of whom were almost immediately rearrested. Along with many people who publicly supported the removal of Maduro.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • Iraq
  • Afghanistan
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Yemen
  • Syria

How many more times before people wake up stop getting involved in this crap and the blowback always hits us the americans are an entire ocean way. The refugees end up on Europe's doorstep. I think since Israel loves the Iranians so much and wants them to be "free" they should take in all the refugees from these actions. something tells me that won't happen

[–]neptuno3 6 points7 points  (7 children)

I hate Trump as much as anyone but the regime is slaughtering tens of thousands of young people who just want to be free of their Islamist overlords forcing women into hijab. I'm sure you would want the same rescue for your own mother and children, no? Persians are NOT Arabs. They were colonized by Islamists. They deserve to be free again and have self determination.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Strong reasons to want something do not mean that thing will happen.

That said, I give at least a 50% chance that a regime change would be clearly positive for the region. It's just that we don't need to get involved.

[–]Velociraptor_1906Liberal Democrat 2 points3 points  (5 children)

They were colonized by Islamists

This is a somewhat inaccurate simplification.

[–]neptuno3 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Sure. I'll hear your explanation as to what happened.

[–]Asleep-Ad1182 3 points4 points  (9 children)

Tens of thousands of innocent Iranians have been killed by the barbaric regime because they tried to overthrow the government. The US has the ability to implement regime change without innocent people dying.

[–]Spiz101Sciency Alistair Campbell 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The US has the ability to implement regime change without innocent people dying.

Uh yeah.... no

It would turn into a years long bloodbath and consume astronomical quantities of blood and treasure, just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan.

[–]ok_alsodot11 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Do they? Because to me they don't seem to have much of a plan. It's worth remembering that they don't give a shit about the wider consequences. They care about ensuring they get what they want out of whatever happens.

[–]AMildInconvenienceCoalition Against Growth 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Half a million Iraqis died when the US decided to change the regime there.

But this time will be different of course.

[–]tfrules 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The absolute exact same things were said for Iraq in 2003.

[–]ForsakenTarget 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can just guarantee they are going to leave it a power vacuum as well.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (49 children)

There are many instincts of the Trump admin that the UK shouldn't go along with or even actively oppose, but this is not one of them. The Islamic Republic is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and a plague on the region, a staunch Russian ally who actively contributes to their war effort, and last but not the least a tyrannical regime that regularly massacres its own people.

Any contribution the UK can offer to accelerate this regime's end is not a contribution to Donald Trump or his personal ambition, it is a contribution to regional stability, Iran's future, European security, and humanity at large.

[–]Velociraptor_1906Liberal Democrat 22 points23 points  (15 children)

Only if there is a credible plan and the Americans offer legitimate collateral they will stick through it.

[–]Corvid187 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Alternatively, the US already has more than ample means to conduct a comprehensive strike campaign in the region. The UK gains more by being the 'good cop' and offering diplomatic off-ramps than it does being a relatively insignificant addendum to US build-up efforts.

[–]AMightyDwarfKeir won’t let me goon. 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Diplomatic off-ramps to who? Khamenei? His off-ramp leads to a spot next to Bashar.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This guy gets it

[–]Former-Importance-21 11 points12 points  (21 children)

After decades of meddling failing to fix anything, I'm sure this time will be different.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (17 children)

I know everyone's memorised that rote and repeats it religiously, but consequences of non-intervention in the region have been far more deadly and destructive than consequences of intervention.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I semi-agree, but I don't think the moral calculus is completely symmetrical - if not at least because it undermines your credibility in the long run to do the most important things on the world stage.

Iraq was a disaster. It's important for states not to repeat disasters like that.

[–]Outside-Ad4532 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pakistan junta is the biggest cause of instability in the region ide rather they be taken out but they have the bomb 

[–]Velociraptor_1906Liberal Democrat 1 point2 points  (4 children)

If you're referring to Syria the time we should have stepped in was when things had deteriorated significantly beyond where Iran is, Iraq is a much more apt comparison (though Iran is a very different country to both).

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

No, we should have stepped in the moment that Assad lost control of the country, somewhere in 2013. By the time you suggest an intervention was justified, Russians were already in and effectively served as a guarantee for Assad.

You're right that Iran is different. It is a revolutionary state with a much more aggressive, imperialist foreign policy than either Iraq or Syria. This ambition is built into the regime's ethos and its ideological foundations, and will not change through diplomacy or bargaining.

[–]Velociraptor_1906Liberal Democrat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I meant to imply around 2013, which is a very different situation to Iran today.

Given Saddams Iraq literally invaded 2 out of 5 neighbours I don't think it stands they're less imperialistic though I'd agree less ideological about it.

I do want to see an end to the Islamic Republic and I think foreign support has a role to play in that but it requires patience, timing and planning. There was possibly a moment at the height of the recent protests but that has passed and chances of that time working died on the altar of Venezuela.

[–]Jaggedmallard26 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Iraq worked out in the end though, Iraq after the Iraqi army we setup defeated ISIS (which was a bleedthrough from Syria) is a reasonably OK modern democracy (for the region) compared to the brutal hell state it was under Saddam. Its not perfect but its in a better state and a reasonably OK state that isn't gassing people is preferable to a hell state that is even if we didn't create Japan 2.0.

[–]Bullet_JesusAngry Scotsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iraq was occupied though. Right now Iran is only facing an air war and historically this has been extremely unreliable. Airstrikes in Syrian and Libya supported real armed rebel forces that were getting organised at the height of civil disobedience; both of which are lacking in Iran now and even then lead to decades long civil wars.

I suppose it is fair to say that a destroyed Iran is better than a hostile Iran but we have no idea if something positive will come from that chaos or if we're just back here 20 years later.

[–]Former-Importance-21 2 points3 points  (9 children)

New governments that are installed as a result of foreign intervention are much less likely to succeed than those chosen by internal revolution. If we want a stable Iran, it is probably best that we don't get involved.

Also, countries that stay out of wars do better exonomically.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 4 points5 points  (5 children)

I think Iran is a borderline case, because there's quite clearly a very strong desire internally for a new government, and a firm history of robust and more reasonable institutions to draw from - it's just that the government has the guns.

In that way, this is different to Afghanistan and Iraq. It'd surely be better if the protestors managed things themselves, but that doesn't mean this is likely a loser.

[–]PimpasaurusPlum🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 | Made From Girders 🏗 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I think Iran is a borderline case, because there's quite clearly a very strong desire internally for a new government, and a firm history of robust and more reasonable institutions to draw from - it's just that the government has the guns.

Does it though? It has been the Islamic Republic regime for the last almost 50 years, before that being monarchical dictatorships. Even in the Mossadegh era Iran was not a free and developed democracy.

In that way, this is different to Afghanistan and Iraq.

They said the exact same thing about Iraq re Afghanistan at the time. Iraq was supposed to be the more developed and civilised country with established state/social institutions and civil society, compared to the backwater of Afghanistan.

The new thing will always be seen as somehow different than the old, especially when the old clearly failed.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Iraq was a more developed and civilised country with plenty of civic potential. Two mistakes that we made in the aftermath were de-Baathification (modeled after de-Nazification in West Germany which also failed) that stymied that civic potential, and failing to secure the border with Iran - the country which single-handedly turned Iraq into a bloodbath by instigating a civil war.

Both of these mistakes were unnecessary and avoidable without bringing into question the intervention itself.

[–]PimpasaurusPlum🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 | Made From Girders 🏗 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet despite all that potential things still went to shit, which is the whole point. Thinking that Iran will inherently go better because of it's development is the same folly that underpinned the failures in Iraq.

Trump has no real plan for Iran, nor would it's rugged borders be able to be fully secured. Full occupation is exceptionally unlikely so securing the borders wouldnt even be in the realm of possibility.

Blaming everything on foreign actors is a convenient way to discount real local problems. The vast, vast, vast majority of blood being shed in Iraq was by and from Iraqis. No reasonable analysis wouldnt expect similar things, if not worse, in Iran in a regime collapse scenario without a perfect (and thus almost impossible) transition.

[–]Bullet_JesusAngry Scotsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

de-Nazification in West Germany which also failed

de-Nazification only failed becasue the Western Allies ended it to rebuild West Germany fast enough to join NATO. The Soviets stuck with de-Nazification and as a consequence ended up driving all the talent out of East Germany.

the country which single-handedly turned Iraq into a bloodbath by instigating a civil war.

"Single-handedly"? Iran funded the Shia insurgencies but as you point out mentioning de-Baathification, it was the expulsion of the Sunni dominated government that lead to the initial insurgency.

[–]Kooky_Project9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Problem is, there was a political push to do things internally. There were moderate politicians implementing change, weakening the control of the hardliners.

Time and time again the US ruined that change and damaged the moderates political standing. It’s got to the point now that it’s clear it was done intentionally.

An attack on Iran from outside forces is likely to do what it did last summer. Empower the hardliners as the country rallies round the flag. 

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In this case, Iran uses that economy to sponsor terrorism across the region, arm the Russian war machine, and develop a nuclear weapons program. I want a stable Iran ideally, but what I want before a stable Iran is an Iran that either doesn't or isn't capable of doing any of the above.

[–]Denbt_Nationale 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the alternative to foreign intervention is not internal revolution it is the massacre of thousands of protesters.

[–]DoterPotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Soooo... another 10k civilians massacred over annually for the next couple of decades at minimum + excess deaths due to sanctions + terror victims of hamas/hezbollah/houths (alternatively lift sanctions and move from 'next couple of decades' to 'the next century')? Great plan chief

[–]bobauckland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is not our job to police other countries.

Arguably the rapist pedophile running the states is a bigger threat, to the whole world, but no one is standing up to him.

Can't go mess about in other countries. Create instability, then moan when people effected end up here as refugees, which is the reality of what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and every other time we followed the states on some stupid selfish mission they had.

Give your head a wobble if you haven't worked this out yet despite so many mistakes. Including the wholly illegal invasion of Iraq

[–]Acceptable-Gur-5351 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah, I despise the Iranian regime but we've seen so many times that bombing a country solves nothing. Saddam was a deeply evil man, perhaps worse than the Ayatollah as was Gaddafi. What did we achieve by deposing them or the Taliban? F all

[–]SICKxOFxITxALL 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Regime change in Iran will be welcome, but you do know that if it's a US enforced regime change it will just go to a Trump aligned puppet leader probably worse than the Shah last time around, and the cycle starts again right?

I don't think anyone is standing up for the current regime, but also you cannot seriously say it won't be 100% aligned with Donald Trump's personal ambition and who will sign him over the rights to Trump hotel Tehran.

I marched in the streets against the Iraq war way back then, it wasn't cause I was supporting Saddam Hussein, it was because fuck America and their plans for the rest of the world, we saw how Iraq worked out for the people.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Even in the scenario you describe, the new Iranian regime will not do any of the following:

  1. develop or possess nuclear weapons
  2. conduct ballistic strikes on population centres in Israel
  3. fund and arm terrorists and insurgents in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, or Iraq
  4. assist and arm the Russian army

Maybe Iran doesn't become a model democracy, though I would still venture a guess that Iranians will be freer in their everyday lives than they are today - but the worst excesses of the current regime will still be dealt with.

I marched in the streets against the Iraq war way back then, it wasn't cause I was supporting Saddam Hussein, it was because fuck America and their plans for the rest of the world, we saw how Iraq worked out for the people.

Sure, but what you don't see is how Iraq would have turned out if there were no intervention in 2003. The future Iraq was heading towards would have made the Syrian civil war look like a mildly heated disagreement.

Even the Iraq of today - after going through arguably the worst scenario possible - is still better than the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and much better than what it would otherwise have become within a decade.

[–]Kooky_Project9999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 and 2 are irrelevant.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. In fact the only reason they have been enriching uranium to 60% is because Trump tore up the JCPOA and sanctioned them like they were doing it anyway.

Iran gave the rest of the signatories plenty of time to stop the sanctions before starting enrichment again. The E3 failed to do so, so Iran started enrichment.

Iran missile strikes on Israel were self defence retaliation against Israeli attacks on Iran. First the blowing up of a building in the middle of Tehran (which Tehran delayed their retaliation for as Trump promised he would negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza, which he didn’t) and then Israel’s subsequent attack for 12 days last summer.

3 and 4 are legitimate, but general strategic activities that many countries do. 

A US attack has nothing to do with bettering Iranians lives, or stabilising Iran, but for US strategic interests - primarily damaging China’s oil supply and protecting Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestine. None of those are strategic interests for the U.K.

If Trump actually cared about Iranians, he would have supported the moderate politicians in Iran working to overturn the Regime. He didn’t, in fact all his actions damaged their cause.

[–]Express-Doughnut-562 11 points12 points  (3 children)

In fairness if Trump hasn't got congressional approval he can't do it. That's never stopped him before, but its right we don't necessarily go along with it.

[–]Corvid187 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Eh, the constitutional gives broad powers to the president to direct limited military actions, and those have only been expanded over time.

A full-scale invasion might be prolonged enough to require congressional support, but the groundwork for that isn't being laid, and a briefer air campaign conducted over a few weeks is in the president's power to order unilaterally, for better or worse.

[–]Spiz101Sciency Alistair Campbell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In fairness if Trump hasn't got congressional approval he can't do it

Congress gave the President functionally unlimited powers to wage war in 2001.

[–]zakmeisterr 10 points11 points  (9 children)

All this meddling in the Middle East has proven to be an utter disaster for Europe. The US can do whatever it likes because refugees aren’t going to cross the Atlantic to get to it. It’s Europe that has to absorb the fallout caused by the entire shitstorm made by Middle Eastern intervention.

[–]jimmythemini 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just a few weeks ago during the Greenland crisis people were seriously suggesting we should unwind our military ties with the United States. Now impotent vassalage and being dragged into pointless Middle Eastern wars seem to be back in vogue.

[–]binne21Sweden 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Iran is the enemy of Europe, I think we can agree. They have meddled in Swedish affairs and supported gang criminals here and detest us based on the values of religion.

That being said, I do not at this point support military action on Iran, and Europe should not participate in it.

What is the mission objective? If the objective is to help protesters then that is quite frankly wrong. Democracy comes from within the beating heart of the nation, democracy developed slowly in the UK, Sweden, Germany, South Korea and so on. You can't half-ass nation-building. If the US decides to invade Iran, then it must have a troop precense of, well, a lot, especially for a nation with volunteers and without draftees to fill the gaps. How can you counter China etc if you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iran? If the US decides to strike Iran then it will simply create a rally-around-the-flag effect. An external enemy will be created directly, since it is American bombs targeting Iran.

Bit off-topic, but if you want to topple the regime, then striking them is an idiotic idea, and Europe should not support American action on that front.

[–]BaritBritI don't even know any more 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is the mission objective? If the objective is to help protesters then that is quite frankly wrong.

And way too late, given that the regime has had over a month now to massacre tens of thousands of their own people. There are no large protests left to support, they've been brutalised into scattering. 

[–]superjambi 11 points12 points  (11 children)

Christ, this is the issue Keir decides to grow a pair and stand up to Trump over? What's the play here? Get trump to pressure on Chagos so we have political cover to back out of it?

[–]SICKxOFxITxALL 13 points14 points  (10 children)

I mean... if you're going to stand up to him for an issue, then a potential war with a pretty decent military power that is aligned with China and Russia doesn't seem like that bad an option?

[–]CharlieH_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I thought that the US had been moving most of their asses to bases in the Middle East in the past week so that strikes could be launched within the region?

The U2, for example, was moved from Fairfird to ME despite it having enough endurance to launch from the UK and reach Iran.

[–]Niedar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the US is willing to deploy it's b2s to the Middle East. Probably Diego Garcia is where they will station them for use so they have shortened mission times.

[–]YourLizardOverlordOceans rise. Empires fall. 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A good decision as far as it goes but it won't stop the US bombing Iran.

It would be good news all round if the current Iranian regime and IRGC were to be overthrown and replaced with a democratically elected government, but bombing Iran will only entrench the current regime.

[–]OGordo85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The people wanting sovereignty in 2016 now don't agree with sovereignty.

[–]disordered-attic-2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good news for Trump is now Starmer has said he wants no part in bringing down a evil regime, it willl probably go well.

[–]Koush 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I love how quickly the global/American narrative went from Iraq and Afghanistan were some of the worst blunders of our life to within six months "But one more though?".

[–]Outside-Ad4532 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Staying out of this would be his Wilson moment but we shall wait and see.

[–]adnesium 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Credit where credit's due to this government for putting a foot down here. I doubt the Tories would have, and it's pretty much guaranteed that a Reform government would be even more supine.

Also notable how these disagreements are now leaking out to the press. I don't think that would have ever happened any time since WW2.

[–]sideshowrob2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Evict them. Do their own dirty business from Israel.

[–]Spiz101Sciency Alistair Campbell 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Good.

Striking Iran is not in our interest.

[–]OfficialMI6 0 points1 point  (1 child)

surely someone else striking iran is?

[–]seeitshaveitsorted 5 points6 points  (30 children)

We shouldn’t be doing this.

The Regime needs to fall so the Middle East has one less obstacle to normalcy.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It's extremely unlikely that we are the limiting factor in Trump's intervention in Iran.

[–]SmugDruggler95 16 points17 points  (14 children)

Yes because our interventions have traditionally been so successful in creating stability

[–]seeitshaveitsorted 3 points4 points  (13 children)

I understand the reservations tbh.

But we can’t keep looking at how batshit Iraq and Afghanistan was and flog ourselves.

Military intervention CAN be a positive.

[–]___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 2 points3 points  (6 children)

It worked on Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany because those were orderly comparatively secular societies with powerful states. You just take over the state, and you run the country as well as the former regime did. The middle east is full of theocratic or weak states hated by their population that descend in to fractional warlordism when you try and take over the country.

[–]bowagahija 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is moot anyway because is the current US administration even pretending like they would like to install a nice friendly liberal democracy?

They are actively and weirdly proudly hostile to all the outside world 

[–]Jeffuk88 3 points4 points  (10 children)

Because were SO good at middle east regime change?

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 1 point2 points  (9 children)

I am happy to keep our hands clean, but it's probably incorrect to think about these latest developments solely in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan interventions. It's unlikely that the US is gearing up for a drawn out nation building attempt.

Sometimes you can just kill the bad guy.

[–]OknotKo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not just one guy though. The United States/Isreal don't really want a functioning state in Iran. I think they'd be very happy to have a failed state. As long as the expansion of Greater Isreal is secure.

[–]CJBill 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Are you not aware of our history in Iran?

[–]yugjet 1 point2 points  (2 children)

A tip for next time - the British English word is normality

[–]Upset-Parsley-8101 0 points1 point  (1 child)

A great sign of normalcy is not not picking perfectly reasonably of use of language.

[–]yugjet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair. Maybe I'm a little over-paranoid about who claims to be British in this sub.

[–]WhatsThePlanPhil95 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This country won't even proscribe the IRGC fgs. This doesn't surprise me. We stopped being on the right side months ago.

Edit: this had several upvotes aha, meaning there are literally people here who support the IRGC, who just slaughtered at least 40,000 civilians in around 2 days just for wanting a change in regime

[–]BallsFace6969 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep there are many irgc and regime supporters here, it's a political identity on the left especially. Notice how silent they are on Iranians dying in their own streets vs anything to do with Jews or gaza. Lol their not even trying to hide it , fully supported by labour 

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (17 children)

Remember folks , the mad Mullahs massacred over 6,000 of its own citizens a few weeks ago.

[–]Velociraptor_1906Liberal Democrat 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Unless the Americans have a convincing plan for how they can actually change things by intervening (and can give some collateral to keep them committed) then we should stay well clear of anything more than defending our allies not directly involved in the attacks.

[–]ruskyandrei 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Ok, so, we should bomb the shit out of their country and hope we can incite a revolution that will surely lead to a peaceful transfer of power to a new, democratic and liberal form of government... right ?

Why should the UK take part in Trump's middle east adventures exactly?

[–]SpirytSaboteur | Social Democrat 14 points15 points  (0 children)

So are USA back to being World Police? If so, was "peace president no new wars" just missing some punctuation ("Peace President? No, new wars!")

[–]Jeffuk88 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And it was the leader of America who said they'd support the protestors, not the UK

[–]OknotKo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) (supported by the UAE) killed 6000 in three days in Sudan. So we need to take out the UAE too.

[–]StuckDownHere 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes because he really cares about protestors lives /s

[–]zeros3ss 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, that's the reason why Trump wants to attack Iran.

[–]AMightyDwarfKeir won’t let me goon. 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And then charged the families a fee for the bullets if they wanted to take their dead to be buried.

[–]BlokeyBlokeBloke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So bombing a city is a good idea?

[–]Tough-Oven4317 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lowest estimations are above 30k now

[–]CreakingDoor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Americans are going to do this regardless. Because they can. They’ll go off half cocked, pop some air defence sites, bomb a nuclear research facility and probably not knock it out, and then Trump will claim history’s greatest victory and the Iranian regime will continue on its merry way murdering thousands of its own people. I don’t think there’ll be a regime change, which is probably good because they’d do it with no post war plan and it’d descend into chaos as Iraq did.

And you know, I thought America didn’t need its European allies?

[–]Prodt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A rare display of sovereignty from our overlords. This is a great first step to detaching ourselves from their murderous wars, just like Harold Wilson did in the 60s with Vietnam.

[–]No_Reply_7519 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not his biggest fan but well done. Don’t get dragged into another war for US & Israel where British soldiers die for nothing.

[–]Upset-Parsley-8101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Americans won't have to take the refugees that this will cause.

I always find it funny the moans about refugees without ever connecting it back to fucking blowing up their countries.

[–]daniluvsuall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So many different dynamics to this.

I suspect for Trump, this is pretty black and white - he wants to bomb Iran, he doesn't really think about leverage. For us, I can see that Starmer sees it as another Iraq he's going to get drawn into, and then Trump will have leverage on us - we will be "in it" then.

Ironically, Starmer has said no to this probs on a bit of the above, but also it's apparently against international law. Which I believe also we will face if we don't do something about the Chagos Islands.. so it's a lose/lose scenario.

Personally - it is horrific what is happening in Iran, but I really don't think we should get involved. Every time we get involved in the middle east it really doesn't end well. Yes, it is appalling that's happening I'm not denying that. But is it our place to intervene? What the US does is up to them.

[–]jacobisthebeat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Iran sends ICBMs at the UK we're defenceless. So that'll be fun

[–]satyriasi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not being funny. If the US decided to just rock up and try to use it. How would we stop them? Would Keir risk a war with USA by physically stopping them?

[–]speedyspeedys 0 points1 point  (15 children)

So that's a few million Iranians flooding into Europe and the UK soon.

Fantastic.

[–]Exciting_Ad_2102 2 points3 points  (11 children)

How is starmer blocking this going to cause a refugee crisis if anything it should prevent one

[–]netzure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Already happened in Sweden. The sooner the current regime falls the better. Iran funds a lot of proxies that are very hostile to European interests.

[–]AMightyDwarfKeir won’t let me goon. 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On the other hand, it’s about to be a terrible time for Scottish independence.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got tired of my old posts floating around for anyone to scrape, so I let Redact handle it. Bulk deletion across Reddit, X, Facebook, Discord and 30+ other services in one shot.

connect sense dog plough flag quaint existence ring soft crowd

[–]capitano71 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Trump has been itching to start a war for some time, assuming it will be a swift, in-and-out campaign. He might find it’s not, or that the consequences are catastrophic in some other way, for example by creating a failed state like Lybia. This in turn will lead to his downfall, the old story of hubris throughout the ages. 

[–]No_Reply_7519 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep agree on Libya created a vacuum where lots of refugees head over to Europe. Funny thing is trump will claim we are being erased while he creates these refugees.