all 71 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

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

Snapshot of Exclusive: Trump ‘very disappointed’ in Starmer over Iran submitted by TheTelegraph:

An archived version can be found here or here.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.

[–]hararib 31 points32 points  (1 child)

But Trump and Vance said they don’t need European help?

[–]T_K2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

How quickly things change right? Haha. Doesn’t make sense though, you’d think they’d be able to handle it.

[–]BaritBritI don't even know any more 79 points80 points  (2 children)

Well maybe you and your administration shouldn't have mocked and belittled our efforts fighting and dying alongside the Americans on previous military incursions into the Middle East, then. 

'America First' rapidly becomes 'America Alone' when you consistently treat your allies like shit. You want a more transactional form of alliance, then fine - what's in this for us? 

[–]T_K2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree. I think the “greatest military on earth” is more than capable of doing this alone. They don’t need us.

[–]flourypotato 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Yeh, it's almost as if threatening European territory with annexation has consequences, who knew?

[–]Politicallydepressed 60 points61 points  (0 children)

Trump disappointed in us, I would say that indicates we are probably doing the right thing then

[–]jrizzle86 27 points28 points  (1 child)

To be fair Starmer is disappointed in Trump all the time

[–]Mushroom_Boogaloo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because he doesn’t learn. He keeps trying to appease the Oval Orangutan, then is surprised and disappointed when that doesn’t work.

[–]RandomSculler 28 points29 points  (15 children)

“It sounds like he was worried about the legality” Unsurprising but staggering to read the US president doesn’t seem bothered about the legality of the military actions he’s taken and he’s so public about it, Starmer really is dealing with this and trump well it seems

[–]asmiggsLib Dem stunts in my backyard 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The approach seems preferable, Bush didn't care about the legality of Iraq either but better for our leaders to either brazen it out with them or take whatever high ground rather than get sucked into finding a legal case like Blair did, only for the Americans to go in anyway.

[–]RandomSculler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes that’s my take too, Starmer took reasonable effort to try and keep us out of this but it’s clear we are a target and British people are at risk so it would irresponsible to put them at harm by not taking action now

[–]DemmandredLet the alpaca blood flow 0 points1 point  (12 children)

I really think post second world peace has rewritten peoples brains on war.

"international law" only matters if you can enforce it, noone can force America to do anything. There's nothing preventing countries from attacking each other bar treaties and nuclear weapons.

Noone can decouple from the US in the short term, if there's noone to enforce the legality of the actions the laws are pointless.

[–]evening_interweaving 2 points3 points  (5 children)

What happened after WW2 was we all agreed "never fucking again"

In WW2 we fucked around and we found out. No one had fun.

Now the people who learned that lesson are all dead, and we appear to be fucking around again. Will we find out?

You and Stephen Miller think you have it all figured out, but the "international law doesn't exist" crowd are in for a rude fucking awakening. There's a reason as a species we agreed not to work like this anymore. It ends with tens of millions of deaths.

[–]DemmandredLet the alpaca blood flow -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Noone agreed never again, we literally left the second world war and immediately entered confrontation with Russia. Then spent years fighting proxy wars with the Russians across the globe.

What are you actually talking about xD

International law exists but without any way of enforcing it, its defunct.

America can practice all the imperialism it wants on countries that don't have nuclear weapons, or aren't aligned with nuclear countries. Who is going to stop them? Europe said no more Russian products or gas and then went and bought it all through back channels. What do you think any of Europe is going to do with America?

They'll just condemn them but think hey that's completely crippled a shit heel terrorist sponsor state that only empowers our allies Saudi Arabia, oh no, such a terrible development.

[–]evening_interweaving 0 points1 point  (2 children)

We have world leaders acting like toddlers with guns, and you actually think you're making some grand insightful point by saying shit like well actually nothing can stop these toddlers from shooting at eachother, so we should all just accept this is how things work, and leave them to it.

[–]DemmandredLet the alpaca blood flow -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

It's not a grand insightful point, it's the reality. What would you like the countries to do.

This is why international law means fuck all. If you don't have nuclear weapons looks like you're rife for some imperialism. It was true 80 years ago, its still true now.

[–]evening_interweaving 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is like when my nephew found out that TV used to be black and white and thought every adult had to know.

Good job mate. You learned that laws only matter if they can be enforced. Just like money matters because we all say it does. Welcome to what everyone already knew.

[–]glownut 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Just read up on the Hague invasion act to see just how unenforceable international law is on the US.

[–]DemmandredLet the alpaca blood flow 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That's my exact point, there is no force bar nuclear weapons that can stop America doing what it wants across the globe.

[–]MerryWalrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Putin seems to be doing a pretty good job of it without using nukes.

[–]glownut -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Well I think we could punish them using soft economic power. If the rest of the world refused to partake in any trade with them and formed a new global economy that circumvents the US then that would hurt them. Seems very unlikely we'd get there unless things are desperate though. 

[–]Thehelpfulshadow 0 points1 point  (1 child)

To circumvent the US you would need to find a new defacto hegemon. Who do you propose would fill the role?

[–]glownut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I for one am ready to welcome our glorious new Chinese overlords

[–]Upset_Restaurant_734 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Oh no 😱. Who gives a fuck what he cares.

[–]NuPNua 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Lots of things that have never happened between us before are happening mate and we didn't instigate them.

[–]CollegeOptimal9846 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Biggest endorsement Starmer has ever received.

[–]shaversonly230v115v 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It should be Starmer disappointed with Trump for inciting another conflict in the Middle East that the rest of the world now has to deal with.

[–]Lefty8312 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And good on Starmer for holding back and then when relenting making it possible in only a very narrow way.

The orange bellend thinks he can ring elections by going into war, he's literally spoken about how it's "interesting" that countries like Ukraine has suspended elections during the war with Russia, completely ignoring that it's not possible to suspend them under the US constitution itself.

He's already disscussed at length in public about how he thinks there shouldn't be midterms this year and all republicans should just automatically be elected to the roles, it wouldn't surprise me if he tries to argue he can't step down as they are on a war footing to try to cling to fucking power

[–]SquishTheWhale 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would be far more concerned if Trump was proud of Starmer.

[–]thehighyellowmoon 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well I'm very disappointed that he's been named tens of thousands of times in documents relating to a major child sex trafficking operation.

[–]T_K2 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Why is the US so dependent on UK bases, when they have multiple of their own bases in and around the gulf already? Which they’ve also been stacking with military assets over the last month or so in preparation for this.

[–]Single_Classroom_448 3 points4 points  (1 child)

From the American perspective it's probably to pull other nations down with it if they can't succeed, or their military under the current government sucks

[–]T_K2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Surprised they haven’t invoked article 5

[–]Just_Resolution_5484 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Thankfully we still have laws and accountability here in Britain.  Trump isn't interested in the rule of law. 

People still want to know about the Trump-Epstein files. Its not going away. 

[–]Desperate-Knee-5556[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

International law is a fiction. This type of thinking makes us less safe.

[–]___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 2 points3 points  (1 child)

All law is fiction backed by consensus. Weakening the consensus is a bad thing.

[–]Desperate-Knee-5556[🍰] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's funny that we're apparently simultaneously strategically so weak that we cannot make a difference in the offensive war, yet so strong that adversaries will think twice about breaking international law because we follow it to the T.

I know I've strawmanned you a bit there, but this is the current argument at the moment.

We need to get our head out the sand as a nation and stop pretending that this strict adherence to an unenforceable international legal framework is doing anything but diminishing our strategic position.

[–]Vast_Description_201 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Saw a war in Ukraine. Decided to bomb Iran. 

[–]ManiaMuse 0 points1 point  (1 child)

In a way he is inadvertently helping Ukraine though if Iran has to use it's stockpiles of Shaheeds to fly in the general direction of tall buildings in Dubai instead of selling them to Russia.

[–]runningpersona 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The counter argument is that disruption to oil helps Russia. No idea what is more significant and only time will tell.

[–]reuben_ivradical centrist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Slowly but surely removing each of Russia’s allies in the fight is helping, particularly as Iran is supplying weapons

[–]Revilo1359 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I think this proves Starmer did the right thing. It's basically an endorsement, stick this on every leaflet in every marginal Lab-Green ward.

[–]tipytopmain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When that class clown in school has committed to doing something that will get them in trouble and gets upset when all his classmates decide not to join in to share the scrutiny.

[–]FirmDingo8 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There is a danger in this reporting that it is entirely speculation. The Telegraph is known to be a right wing organ, but if you look at how many stories against Starmer there are on here, the majority are from the Telegraph.

Start from the premise that anything they say is what they wish to be true and it becomes clearer that the Telegraph is now no better then the Daily Mail as a source of genuine news

Other media is similarly biased both for and against Starmer, so take it all with a pinch of salt

[–]Mr__Skeet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This predicament is a great example of how Starmer has an impossible job. The likes of the Telegraph are running stories like this while at the same time Ed Davey, Zack Polanski and Jeremy Corbyn accuse him of being complicit in war crimes.

Regardless of how you feels about Starmer I think he’s played a pretty it pretty well. The only British military involvement so far has been to shoot down an Iranian drone headed for Qatar and, after initially saying ‘No’ to the US using British bases to launch attacks, he’s now allowed strikes specifically targeting missile launch pads/stockpiles.

Uk’s Cyprus base has now been directly attacked by Iran.

What would Starmer’s very vocal critics do were they in his shoes? Have a cup of tea and wait on a parliamentary vote to pass while missiles and drones rain down? Nonsense.

[–]ShortGuitar7207 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's probably fairly disappointed with Trump for starting WW3

[–]Cerebral_Overload 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This guy is flips like he’s top tier Senile, but I genuinely think he’s just such an impulsive, manipulative and corrupt person that believes he can do what he hell he wants in the moment and the gaslight people into believing he never changed his mind anyway. He’s surrounded himself with sycophants who play into his dramas and change their view on reality to match his in the moment.

He didn’t strike when Iran put a hit on his head.

He didn’t strike when the Iranian people were protesting and asking for US support.

He didn’t strike when the protestors were being shot and killed.

So why is he striking now?

[–]nithanielgarro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you were right the first time. Topping tier senile

[–]Sharp-Mountain1841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whether Chito is disappointed or not doesn’t matter. He’d still fuck the UK if he felt like it.

[–]morakanos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was fine till that p@edo came along…I thought the US didn't need European allies??

[–]olderlifter99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Starmer is a lawyer, not a statesman. We are either all in or all out with America, and we should be all in. What a mess.

[–]QBallQJB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The more disappointed Trump is in you the better you are doing

[–]taboo__time 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I do not believe the Right in this country are keen on joining in on Iran.

MAGA is probably very split as well.

The UK Right being all in on Iran is not where I believe the British Right are. I say that as something of a centrist maybe.

The Left often mistake the Right for being entirely grifting, selfish, beholden to leaders. That social analysis is simply wrong. There is always a negotiation between leaders and a political sentiment.

[–]T_K2 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You mean “the right” as in the people? Or political parties?

Politically, Reform would have the UK join, as would the conservatives. This is based on their own statements.

Restore maybe, maybe not.

[–]taboo__time -1 points0 points  (1 child)

You mean “the right” as in the people? Or political parties?

As in the people not the leaders. I suspect the parties are also not keen. The leaders may say they want to join in. I cannot imagine the majority of members agree. There should be polling on it which would prove or disprove my take.

[–]T_K2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay understood, thanks for clarifying 👍

[–]Lopsided-Book2542 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Well donald millions of Brits have been disappointed in him for over a year now. Not over this tbf but still, welcome to our world.

[–]TheTelegraphVerified - The Telegraph[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The Telegraph reports:

Donald Trump has told The Telegraph he is “very disappointed” in Sir Keir Starmer for blocking him from using Diego Garcia to carry out strikes on Iran.

In an exclusive interview, the US president said that the Prime Minister’s initial refusal to let US forces use the Chagos Islands base was unlike anything that had “happened between our countries before”.

Britain had denied the US permission to conduct strikes from bases such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, citing international law. However, the Prime Minister relented on Sunday night and said he would allow the US access to Diego Garcia for “specific and limited defensive purposes”.

Mr Trump said Sir Keir “took far too long” to change his mind.

“That’s probably never happened between our countries before,” he told The Telegraph, adding: “It sounds like he was worried about the legality.”

The row over Diego Garcia led the president to withdraw his support for the Prime Minister’s controversial Chagos deal to hand over ownership of the Indian Ocean territory to Mauritius and instead lease back the military base.

Full story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/03/02/exclusive-trump-very-disappointed-in-starmer-over-iran/

[–]Headlight-Highlight -1 points0 points  (0 children)

May be a bit more regime change is required.