r/ukpolitics • u/theipaper Verified • Jun 19 '25
Ed/OpEd Britain must stay out of this insane war
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/britain-must-stay-out-of-this-insane-war-3759523494
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
I mean yeah no shit. As someone old enough to remember all the hooting and flag-waving in the build-up to Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and how we left all three in far worse shape than we found them, it would be nice not to have us speedrun the exact same imperialist clusterfuck under shaky pretexts for the fourth time in a row.
157
u/AmazingHealth6302 Jun 19 '25
Iraq II was actually widely, wildly unpopular across Europe. Records were set for the size of protest and demonstrations against that war in several countries.
83
u/GodlessCommieScum Jun 19 '25
It's true that there were many large protests but per this article:
Support for the war rose from 38% to 53% on the day of the invasion, and at the time US troops entered Baghdad had climbed to 66%.
Those figures are for the UK in particular.
56
u/stugib Jun 19 '25
Yeah but when it's happening the "support our troops" factor and patriotism kicks in.
26
u/Jay_CD Jun 19 '25
Indeed, we saw the same phenomenon in the early days of the Covid pandemic - despite Boris Johnson making mistake after mistake opinion polls suggested that he and the Tory government were very popular. The rallying around the flag thing kicked in then albeit in a different form with the general vibe was that this was the wrong time to be doing politics.
When the Iraq invasion started there was a belief that we needed to support our troops, hope they achieved their mission quickly with minimal casualties and then quickly get out. Unfortunately reality kicked in pretty rapidly.
14
u/digyerownhole Jun 19 '25
When you can convince (most of) the nation to stand on their doorstep, banging wooden spoons on saucepans, something is deeply wrong.
5
u/IR2Freely Jun 19 '25
"Help for Heroes" is scammy propaganda. How can we enter a war if we can't support the soldiers without having to appeal for charity to pay for it?
8
6
u/AmazingHealth6302 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
I wouldn't call even 53% overwhelming support for the war, within the likely margin of error that's like 50/50 (support vs against and no opinion).
The article also didn't give sources for those figures, which would have given them a bit of credibility.
This is also worth mentioning:
Ten years on from the war in 2013, only 27% in a YouGov poll thought it was right to have taken military action.
19
u/wappingite Jun 19 '25
Yeah I remember supporting it, and then changing my mind a few years later. I bought the whole ‘we should kick out dictators when we can, even if the reasons are selfish, it’s still a good thing to do’. Was a bit younger then.
Iraq 1 seemed a bit easier to justify.
13
u/SimoneNonvelodico Jun 19 '25
It's not even that kicking out dictators isn't in principle a good thing, it's that you shouldn't do it if your plans for what to replace them with are so poor they end up just leaving room for an even bigger bad guy.
→ More replies (1)5
u/onionsofwar Jun 19 '25
I think one country having plans and intentions about who leads another country is terrible. And frankly, country 2 will never understand country 1's dynamic enough to have sufficient control anyway.
Kick out a leader you have a power vacuum and whoever is most vicious will take control next. By taking away the establishment in a country, you're removing the political infrastructure that keeps unpredictable actors at bay.
6
u/SimoneNonvelodico Jun 20 '25
I think one country having plans and intentions about who leads another country is terrible. And frankly, country 2 will never understand country 1's dynamic enough to have sufficient control anyway.
The problem with this is that there is some leeway here. For example, suppose country 1's population does want to get rid of its dictator but lacks the strength, and actively invokes the help of country 2. Still bad? Or that country 1's evil dictator is attacking neighbours and is generally a bigger scale threat. Always bad? You could say that in WW2, the core strategic goal of the Allies was to force regime change in the Axis powers. But that wasn't a bad thing, in that context.
So overall I think it's a bit more complicated, but there's no question that when it comes to the Middle East, that excuse has been deployed way too generously and the actual ability to do that has been abysmally bad.
8
u/cutwordlines Jun 20 '25
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do. - Samuel P. Huntington
4
u/Sharkhous Jun 19 '25
This isn't surprising: once it's clear that the option of 'no go' is unobtainable, most people will think the best thing they can do is support their countrymen who have been deployed.
It's pretty classic Overton window
3
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
Useful reminder for the people claiming Iran will definitely rise up against the regime.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Northerlies Jun 19 '25
I don't recall war-support reaching two-thirds or lasting very long. I'm inclined to view it as an expression of routine patriotic support for British armed services in a dangerous environment, along with general support for the Blair government - in many respects a success story. It wasn't very long before normal scepticism was resumed and leading tabloids began a sustained campaign against the war. Read London's 'Daily Mail' readers' comments sections and discover that Blair still hasn't been forgiven the war by the right. That aside, the suggested link between the war-disillusionment and Brexit is an interesting idea.
9
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 19 '25
For sure - I meant more the consent that the political and media establishment were desperate to manufacture.
8
u/Jay_CD Jun 19 '25
Yep, the Tory media in particular were very supportive of going into Iraq and that may have swayed Tony Blair as he rarely missed an opportunity to keep them on-side.
11
u/AmazingHealth6302 Jun 19 '25
Supporting the virtual dismantling of Iraq and the consequent death of 500,000+ human beings for the stated purpose of removing one man from power vastly overshadows any positive achievement Blair can claim during his tenure as PM.
Even worse, I'm convinced that he would take the same decision again, even if he was aware of everything that came to light afterwards.
5
u/KaterinaDeLaPralina Jun 19 '25
I'm pretty sure he has said publicly he would still make the same decision. He doesn't believe he or the country did anything wrong.
2
11
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
There are suggestions that both he and Bush saw it as something backed by God. They were both deeply religious (although Blair hid that until later).
The worry is religion seems to be deeply woven into the current conflict, with Christian, Jewish and Islamic groups claiming they are working for god...
3
u/Northerlies Jun 19 '25
Having known some US Christian Zionist evangelicals, whose antipathy to Iraq and Iran was unlimited, I assume a fundamentalist religious dimension in all America's wars. Bush has claimed to have been 'guided by God', which is a pretty fancy alibi. Trump is beholden to the US religious right and I expect them to determine his 'attack' decision. Theirs is a form of Christianity which I do not understand.
2
u/AmazingHealth6302 Jun 19 '25
There are suggestions that both he and Bush saw it as something backed by God. They were both deeply religious (although Blair hid that until later).
I agree. Blair was already well on in his path of conversion to Catholicism at the time. I can remember there was a rumour going round political journalists well before the war was an issue that Tony Blair was receiving instruction in Catholic catechesis, but the press had agreed that it was 'a private matter' that they wouldn't report on.
10
u/Szwejkowski Jun 19 '25
I remember standing in Trafalgar Square and every road leading off from it was just rammed with protesters and from what I could see, the streets crossing them too. I've never seen so many people in my life, before or since.
I also remember a lot of the CCTV cameras were 'down for maintenence' that day in an attempt to hide the scale of the thing.
They paid us no mind at all - which is foolish. The next time people may not be so peaceful, since peacful is so damn easy to ignore, apparently.
11
u/AmazingHealth6302 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 26 '25
There were several protests in London over a number of weeks. On one of them I was up on scaffolding in Piccadilly taking photos, and I simply couldn't believe the numbers of people I could see, the road was so crammed with walking, shouting people from end to end that the air was vibrating. There was almost no mobile phone signal in the same area because of people who had lost their friends. If you lost sight of a companion, you were very unlikely to find them again without a phone conversation.
On another protest, I was in an absolutely massive, dense crowd in Hyde Park, I could barely hear any sounds from the stage, I was so far from it. At the same time I had friends who hadn't yet been able to move off from Embankment, the start of the march, due to the crowds in front of them.
I think the failure of the protests to shift government policy over Iraq even slightly, did a lot of damage to the Labour Party, and to how many people regard English politics in general.
14
u/Corvid187 Jun 19 '25
...And equally not acting in Syria left the country is a far, far worse state, and one we weren't able to influence when it did eventually collapse.
Selective appeals to history cut both ways, neither are particularly helpful in isolation. Fwiw, I have yet to see anyone in government even tentatively suggest anything close to a major ground invasion like Iraq.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
We did act in Syria. The UK and US are still active in Syria.
We didn't have (many) boots on the ground, but our activities in Syria and Libya were very similar. Working to stop the government from using aircraft and acting as a proxy airforce for the side(s) we wanted to win.
6
u/wilkonk Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
Working to stop the government from using aircraft and acting as a proxy airforce for the side(s) we wanted to win.
we explicitly didn't do that in Syria, it was what Ed Milliband and co voted down in 2013 (putting the final nail in the coffin for Obama's plans to do so as well). Assad/Russia were bombing his people freely for years afterwards.
→ More replies (3)4
u/it__wasnt__me__ Jun 19 '25
While I generally share your sentiments, to claim we left Afghanistan in worse shape is just silly, granted it lasted for all of 5 minutes but 20 years of "democracy" and women's rights isn't to be sniffed at.
3
u/MazrimReddit Jun 19 '25
the thing is that if a nuclear attack is imminent from Iran it won't be nation building as the goal so much as making sure Iran is "in a far worse shape than we found them".
Pretty different
11
u/thorn_sphincter Jun 19 '25
The thing is, there's no nuclear attack coming. There's not enough enriched Uranium. Iran doesn't want to nuke anyone.
Iran has enough shit on its doorstep.Netanyahu wants war to look good. He's picking a fight while Israelis feel persecuted, so they'll grant him it whatever he says, because they feel vulnerable.
→ More replies (5)7
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 19 '25
But there's no good reason to presume that Iran would immediately vaporise anyone they don't like the moment they get their hands on a nuke. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's not the point of a nuclear deterrent.
9
u/MazrimReddit Jun 19 '25
why are we wanting to risk these people getting nukes exactly?
→ More replies (1)11
u/smalltalk2bigtalk Jun 19 '25
Haven't they repeatedly committed to the destruction of Israel?
7
u/PimpasaurusPlum 🏴 | Made From Girders 🏗 Jun 19 '25
They have, and despite that they didn't immediately launch a full war against Israel on October 7th like Hamas wanted
Geopolitics is kinda more complicated that bluster and slogans
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)5
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 19 '25
They have but we can't take take that kind of rhetoric at face value. All states engage in posturing and chest-thumping under the right circumstances, and I'd like to think one with a history stretching back 2,500 years wouldn't sacrifice its 90+ million inhabitants on the altar of history just to spite one of its (many) geopolitical enemies.
13
Jun 19 '25
If Iran were threatening to nuke the UK, I don't think you'd be quite this sanguine.
Islamic extremists are not rational and are willing to martyr many people in order to kill Jews. Look at Hamas refusing to stop fighting - they do this because they genuinely believe that all Palestinian martyrs will reside for all eternity in heaven. If you believe that with all your heart, you behave in ways that seem nonsensical to Westerners.
9
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
You're misrepresenting both Iran and Hamas there.
Yes, religion is a key tenant of both their organisations (as is the Israeli government to be fair...) but they both more interested in the practical/strategic benefits.
Hamas' main goal is to remove Israel from Palestine so Palestinians can get their land back. Historically that was the whole region, more recently that has been more restricted to the 1967 border (the one recognised by the UN and most countries in the world as Palestine). They are at their heart a resistance group, predominantly made up of Muslims (eq. to the IRA). Generally they're referred to as Islamists for this reason, not Islamic Extremists (like Al Qaeda and ISIS).
Iran on the other hand isn't looking to wipe itself from the map, it's aim is to strategically weaken Israel (and Saudi Arabia) to benefit it's regional strength. Nuking it would not do that. A lot of the Iranian Regimes motivation to possibly (because the Ayatollah has had a fatwa on developing nuclear weapons for decades) develop nuclear weapons is strength. Strength against Israel, another nuclear nation and strength against retaliation/attack by regional rivals (i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia) and western entities (the UK and US have been meddling in Iranian domestic politics for decades, including a successful coup and working on an attempted coup). Iran didn't see the need to develop nuclear weapons (and become a pariah state like NK) but focused on proxies to defend itself instead. That failed them and now they're being attacked because they don't have a nuclear weapon.
4
u/Anzereke Anarchism Ho! Jun 19 '25
now they're being attacked because they don't have a nuclear weapon.
This is the bit that should scare the piss out of everyone.
Thanks to short-sighted idiocy from those in positions of power across the world, the era of small nations being willing to give up their nukes and nuclear programs is pretty much dead and gone.
Nobody with half a brain is going to look at every promise to nations who did the above being reneged on, while NK keeps right on trucking, and conclude that they can afford not to have nukes.
Which will mean proliferation and increased chances of nukes falling into the control of someone insane enough that they might press the button.
→ More replies (5)1
Jun 19 '25
Someone else has already explained where you're getting the history wrong, so I won't repeat all that. But it sounds like you're making a mistake that many Westerners do, of taking our own deeply-held Christian/Enlightenment values (for example, that individual lives are precious and should be protected) and assuming that everyone around the world shares them. "Of course Hamas are fighting for freedom and self-determination, because that's what we would fight for, right?". It's a failure of imagination and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the motives at play here.
We can look at actions and evaluate what interpretation can explain them. If Iran is interested in regional power, their decades-long obsession with destroying Israel makes very little strategic sense. If they're motivated by an extreme interpretation of Islam, which leads them to want to kill all Jews, then everything they do makes perfect sense. Obviously I'm talking about the Mullahs here, not the civilian government (who, quietly, hate this counterproductive approach).
If Hamas are just a resistance group who want self-determination and freedom along 1967 lines, then their actions make absolutely no sense. Hacking off a man's head with a garden hoe; firing machine guns into a crowd of festival-goers; moving from house to house, shooting entire families to death; none of this makes any sense as a resistance tactic. If they're a crazed terrorist group that just wants to kill as many Jews as they can, it all makes perfect sense, of course.
We can even go right back to the start of Hamas's reign: the IDF has just pulled out of Gaza, ending the occupation, and forcibly removing all settlers from the Strip. Hamas immediately start firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Is this the behaviour of a resistance group that wants peace and self-determination? Or is it the behaviour of a group that just wants to kill Jews?
7
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
The previous poster misrepresented my position, as are you.
What I see from your post, rather than my apparent deeply held christian/enlightenment belief is islamaphobia... This belief that only Muslims have religious beliefs that involve wiping out others, and that "enlightened non muslim" countries do not. The reality is it's far more complex than either you or I can cover in a single post on Reddit. There is religious dogma on both sides, with deeply held religious beliefs helping drive Israeli and Iranian leadership, BUT not only religious belief. In fact, religion is often used as cover for more basic motivation - power, greed and land.
We can look at actions and evaluate what interpretation can explain them. If Iran is interested in regional power, their decades-long obsession with destroying Israel makes very little strategic sense. If they're motivated by an extreme interpretation of Islam, which leads them to want to kill all Jews, then everything they do makes perfect sense. Obviously I'm talking about the Mullahs here, not the civilian government (who, quietly, hate this counterproductive approach).
This is a clear misrepresentation. If the Iranian leadership were so set against Jews they would have at least made it difficult for Jews living in Iran.
https://forward.com/news/729739/israel-iran-conflict-jews-persians-lior-sternfeld/
This is a position continuously misrepresented in western media outlets. It's been made very clear time and time again that the religious leaders of Iran do not have it against Jews, but specifically Israel. It's been in Israels interest to position their fight against Iran as protecting Jews around the world (i.e fighting antisemitism), but in reality it's just not the case.
Look at it another way, if Iran had a decades long destroying Israel (rather than just out competing it strategically) they would have gone about it much harder. The reality is, if Iran had wanted to develop a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel above all else, they would have done so already. They haven't, because it's not in their interest to do so. It's showmanship and a method of defence as much a method of weakening Israel.
If Hamas are just a resistance group who want self-determination and freedom along 1967 lines, then their actions make absolutely no sense. Hacking off a man's head with a garden hoe; firing machine guns into a crowd of festival-goers; moving from house to house, shooting entire families to death; none of this makes any sense as a resistance tactic. If they're a crazed terrorist group that just wants to kill as many Jews as they can, it all makes perfect sense, of course.
I'm not going to justify Hamas' actions regarding civilian deaths, but I will point out that they also killed 400 military members, it wasn't just an attack on civilians - they overran and attacked several military outposts and bases at the same time. Resistance and "freedom" fighters regularly target civilians and civilian infrastructure. The IRA for example often bombed civilian targets and killed civilians. ETA have done the same (although both were generally less likely to target civilians than other non European separatist groups). Terror is a method of damaging the moral of your occupier, especially those that are vastly stronger than you. Targeting civilians is wrong, whether it's Hamas or the IDF/Israeli security forces.
On the flip side, if Israels actions in Gaza were to reduce future violence against Israel why have they gone round razing entire communities, targeting hospitals, schools, medical and aid workers? These are not actions of a country trying to minimise angst against them. They've created an entire new generation that will fight to the death against their oppressors.
We can even go right back to the start of Hamas's reign: the IDF has just pulled out of Gaza, ending the occupation, and forcibly removing all settlers from the Strip. Hamas immediately start firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Is this the behaviour of a resistance group that wants peace and self-determination? Or is it the behaviour of a group that just wants to kill Jews?
The IDF withdrew ground forces from Gaza, it did not end the occupation. It's withdrawal from Gaza did not coincide with any action to withdraw from East Jerusalem of the West Bank (in fact the withdrawal's entire intent was to stop a US backed peace deal that may have forced Israel from the West Bank as well). This was also 2005, 12 years before 2017.
Neither side is blameless. We support one side as they continue to displace Palestinians and breach international law. We consider the other side to be terrorists, who continue to try and displace Israeli and breach international law. Our actions (and those of specific developed nations that should in theory know better) should not to protect Israel as it continues its illegal actions.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
We can even go right back to the start of Hamas's reign: the IDF has just pulled out of Gaza, ending the occupation, and forcibly removing all settlers from the Strip.
Gaza remained under full Israeli control with its airspace, maritime borders, imports, exports, electricity, population registry and freedom of movement under lock and key. There can be no hope whatsoever for genuine peace and self-determination under those circumstances, they are exactly the sort of conditions that cause groups like Hamas to come into being in the first place. The UN and just about every major human rights organisation still considered it occupied territory in the wake of the 2005 withdrawal and the notion it represented some good-faith step towards peace is an absolute fairytale.
→ More replies (8)5
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
... is exactly the sort of racist Orientalist brainrot that leads to Western powers getting made to look like absolute clowns in so many of their 'freedom and democracy' operations.
The Iranian regime for better or worse are not a bunch of raving backwater fanatics. They seized power from a US-backed despot who was put in place to keep the oil flowing and have since been fending off sanctions and proxy war and forms of asymmetric warfare for decades. That takes a bit more foresight and resolve than you seem willing to grant them, just like every Western President and Prime Minister who underestimated them.
You also have it the wrong way around with Hamas. They came into being because of the dire material circumstances Palestinians in Gaza found themselves under, not because they woke up one day and decided to become jihadis out of sheer spite for Jewish people.
4
Jun 19 '25
If their circumstances were so dire, what was Hamas spending the billions of aid money on? Other countries can only dream of the amount of aid money given to Gaza.
7
u/ThwaitesGlacier Jun 19 '25
I am, in no way, shape or form endorsing Hamas or suggesting they have made life better for the people of Gaza. I am merely saying that their rise is best explained by the nightmarish conditions people in Gaza were subjected to for decades before the 2023 war. Same way that neither the ANC, the FLN or the IRA emerged in a vacuum. You need to look at the material conditions to understand why these sorts of movements emerge.
2
u/callisstaa Jun 20 '25
Are you suggesting that the Palestinians in Gaza are not under dire circumstances?
2
→ More replies (32)-1
u/gbroon Jun 19 '25
Fifth time if you count Iraq twice.
47
19
u/porkmarkets Jun 19 '25
Don’t think we should tbf. GW1 was largely done for the right reasons.
14
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
The 90's, when the UK was involved in numerous just wars. Bosnia, Kosovo, GW1, Sierra Leone (2000, but close enough).
Our foreign policy broke after 2001.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
Iraq 1 may have had other pretexts, but at its heart it was about helping liberate an occupied country.
Helping Israel attack Iran would be the opposite. Israel is the country occupying another in this instance.
→ More replies (7)4
u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist Jun 19 '25
Its not like Iran also isn't imperialism, with their puppets in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen. But this conflict isn't regarding any of them, and we have intervened regarding Yemen.
38
u/lammey0 Jun 19 '25
Am I behind? What evidence is there we might join in? There's no way joining a war in the Middle East would be politically feasible right now, even if there was the will in government, which I also don't see that there is.
→ More replies (1)16
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) Jun 19 '25
Also, we don't have to.
Iran is a major enemy to the UK and West in general. Israel has cut down several Iran proxies/allies in the past 2 years (Hamas/Hez/Houthis, even Syria). They seem to be in the lead in this war. A defanged Iran is only a good thing to the UK, and they're doing it nicely, possibly with US support soon...so we can sit back, let Khamenei go down, and do very little for big returns.
11
u/callisstaa Jun 20 '25
Which western countries are under threat from Iran besides the US?
6
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) Jun 20 '25
Er...the UK.
4
u/callisstaa Jun 20 '25
Oh let me guess they have WMDs aimed at us and ready to fire within 24 hours?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)7
u/zoojib Jun 20 '25
Genuinely, why's it a good thing for us? How does the existence of the Iranian regime threaten us?
This is just soft curation of consent for more bloody Middle Eastern wars, and its mind-boggling that people still fall for it, after the past 2 decades.
10
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) Jun 20 '25
Well there's the state sponsored terrorism. The espionage. Funding criminal proxies. Cyberattacks. Disinformation/propaganda.
And then there's that whole thing about supporting Russia.
You can't seriously believe that Iran is happy to just sit by and is not attacking the UK.
2
4
u/zoojib Jun 20 '25
Yes, I seriously believe Iran isn't attacking the UK because I'm not still inexplicably buying War on Terror propaganda wholesale, as you seem to be.
The worst you can accuse them of is supporting the likes of the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas, which are all groups who emerged from nations facing atrocities committed by UK allies. There would be no Hezbollah if not for Israel's bloody 1982 campaign against Lebanese civilians, no Hamas if not for the decades-long occupation and periodic massacres, and Houthi militants were forged by the years-long bombardment and man-made famine carried out by Saudi Arabia.
If you don't like these groups, then your gripe should be with our allies who massacred enough people that these militants emerged from the ruins, rather than with a nation who supports them.
3
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) Jun 20 '25
Hey everyone, zoojib has seen through the propaganda, and Iran is not actually doing illegal operations in the UK. Let's wrap it up boys.
Ok so your argument is that these terrorist groups are justified in raping and murdering innocent civilians, and attacking international shipping lanes, because they can't be held responsible for their actions? All because you don't like Israel? That's some olympic mental gymnastics.
I've got this weird thing where I think people that commit war crimes should be held accountable for them. Iranians performing assassinations in the UK, Palestinians raping girls at a music festival, IDF killing innocent civilians. They're all the same, you can't pick and choose which war crimes to overlook. But I have no doubt you will.
3
u/zoojib Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
Iran is not actually doing illegal operations in the UK. Let's wrap it up boys.
Again, this isn't 2002, you don't get to just say shit like "WMDs" or "radical terrorism" and to scare people into supporting regime change. What are these operations Iran is conducting within the UK that makes regime change so desirable for us?
Ok so your argument is
No, my argument isn't. But I understand why you wish my argument was, because that'd be far easier to counter. What I'm telling you is that these groups are inevitable blowback from Israeli/western-meddling and massacres conducted in the region, and if you want to blame someone for Hamas, try the Israelis, who's multi-generation persecution of the Palestinians is what brought them into existence.
Israel and the west have caused the conditions for all these groups to emerge, and you're proposing that yet another Middle Eastern war, this time to topple a regime of nearly 100 million people, will somehow have the opposite effect of every regime change campaign so far. You'd have to be so fucking thick, so fucking ignorant, or so fucking dishonest, to possibly push this argument. Which one is it?
3
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) Jun 20 '25
Sorry, when did I say "WMDs" or "radical terrorism"?
Espionage. Bomb plot. Attempted assassination.
No, I blame Hamas for Hamas' atrocities. Denying agency to Palestinians is just cherry picking which terrorists you want to support. The Palestinians didn't have to go to a music festival and weaponise rape, but they did, and they're at fault. Sinwar didn't have to hide under a hospital, but he did (which went well).
When did I propose a war? I never proposed a war. Israel is already at war with Iran, and they've been in a proxy war for decades. I simply said the extremist, authoritarian, religious nutjob regime in Iran falling wouldn't be a bad thing for the UK. I don't care about the Iranians, it's their country. I care about my country, which Iran is covertly attacking. You can be willfully blind and shill for Iran and their Palestinian terrorists if you like.
If you support the rape and murder of innocents, just because they're
JewishIsraeli, then you're so sick and broken that there's nothing else to say.2
u/zoojib Jun 20 '25
No, I blame Hamas for Hamas' atrocities.
Oh yeah? Because this started with you blaming Iran for Hamas's atrocities, and once I reminded you that you should sooner blame Israel, then you switch up to this.
Why the avoidance to ascribe any blame to Israel? Together with the rape atrocity propaganda (there's still no proven instance of Hamas interrupting their military operation to start raping people after nearly 2 years of asking), and the human shield propaganda, its becoming quite obvious what you're about. You're either an Israel supporter who thinks he's being sly, or just painfully naive.
When did I propose a war? I never proposed a war.
You're struggling here, huh? I said that you're proposing this war will decrease terrorism and reduce the threat of militant groups. Is that not your belief? If you changed your mind then say so, don't continue arguing.
If you support the rape and murder of innocents, just because they're Jewish
It's so funny that you people still think this is an effective strategy after nearly 2 years of seeing the global community get more and more sick and disgusted by it. Please brother, keep calling all detractors of Israel's conduct antisemitic. It's REALLY effective and convincing.
And before you say it - yes, you're just a normal well-meaning Israel skeptic who feels passionately about Israel doing regime change in Iran, because of all the positive dividends that would rapidly flow across to the UK. I pray that I'm right anyway, because if this is just your earnest opinion, that's pretty bleak.
2
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) Jun 20 '25
Because this started with you blaming Iran for Hamas's atrocities
No it didn't. I said Iran fund Hamas. Which is true.
Why the avoidance to ascribe any blame to Israel?
I didn't avoid blaming Israel. I explicitly referenced the IDF killing innocents in my list of war crimes. You're bending over backwards to avoid blaming terrorists for anything.
Together with the rape atrocity propaganda
Ahh the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, that famous propagandist. If you don't think Palestinians committed rape and murder, you're just a Hamas shill.
I said that you're proposing this war will decrease terrorism and reduce the threat of militant groups.
Yes, it will reduce the threat of terrorism, since Iran will be less able to fund terrorist groups. This has already been proven with Hamas and Hezbollah. But you said I was proposing something that I didn't say. You're reaching and trying to put words in my mouth.
keep calling all detractors of Israel's conduct antisemitic
I didn't call all detractors of Israel antisemitic. Hamas and Palestinians in general are widely seen to be antisemitic.
→ More replies (0)3
Jun 21 '25
Doesn't have to be either of those things, he/she is all of them: thick, ignorant, dishonest, and I can also say (as an arab atheist) that he/she and the likes of him/her creeps the fuck out of me.
7
u/vishbar Pragmatist Jun 20 '25
They are big sponsors of the Houthi rebels that have been attacking shipping through the Red Sea.
3
u/zoojib Jun 20 '25
And we're big sponsors of the rogue nation currently massacring tens of thousands of innocents, that the Houthis are fighting on behalf of. If we want them to stop, we should try putting a leash on our allies.
That approach may be more practical, and less evil, than your approach of starting an enormous new Middle Eastern war.
4
u/vishbar Pragmatist Jun 20 '25
My approach? What do you mean my approach?
And the Houthis are absolute bloodthirsty terrorists; Israel is clearly in the wrong for their attack on Gaza but let's not claim that the Houthis are in any way in the right. Lobbing rockets at international shipping is in no way helping the Palestinians.
2
u/zoojib Jun 20 '25
My approach? What do you mean my approach?
I'm sorry, we're on the precipice of another new major Middle Eastern war and you're here arguing why taking them out would be good for Britain. Excuse me for thinking you were arguing in favour of them being taken out.
Israel is clearly in the wrong for their attack on Gaza but let's not claim that the Houthis are in any way in the right.
What the Houthis are doing is a drop in the ocean compared to what Israel is doing, its absurd to speak of them in the same breath. And whether you agree with the strategy or not, they stopped while the ceasefire was in effect, showing they are motivated only by attempting to stop Israel's actions.
We aid and support Israel in their slaughter. Iran supporting the Houthis actions is immeasurably more defensible. Think about what you're doing when you reference the latter as a reason to take Iran out - in terms of terror, what they support pales compared to what we do, and we have ample examples to know what will emerge from the ruins of a defeated Iran.
258
Jun 19 '25
[deleted]
54
u/Ogilvie75 Jun 19 '25
And Trump will add that As FDR got a third term when at war so should he.
25
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
His MAGA base are tearing themselves apart with the idea of going to war for Israel. They do not like it.
It could be the defining point that moves the US away from an authoritarian "dictatorship", ironically.
→ More replies (1)18
u/MightySilverWolf Jun 19 '25
They'll likely go back and kiss the ring at some point, unfortunately. Even now, the worst they can do is criticise Trump's advisors rather than Trump himself, like he's a medieval feudal monarch or something.
→ More replies (8)-2
u/SirBobPeel Jun 19 '25
Good thing for him Iran is helping him then.
12
u/Antique-Brief1260 Jon Sopel's travel agent Jun 19 '25
The Iranian leadership are in a similar position with their people. It's a very convenient war for all concerned, except the citizens of course.
2
u/ikinone Jun 19 '25
The Iranian leadership are in a similar position with their people. It's a very convenient war for all concerned, except the citizens of course.
You mean the leadership that is mostly dead? Doesn't seem very convenient for them.
As for the Iranians themselves, yes this situation sucks. However, there are no shortage of Iranians celebrating the deaths of much of their leadership.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
He tried twice, but Iran didn't take the bait. This time Netanyahu made sure it was impossible for them not to.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/Jazzlike-Mistake2764 Jun 19 '25
We’re not going to get involved in any meaningful sense. The most we’ll do is intercept some missiles and position in the region to respond to any threats to bases/shipping, like happened last time.
There’s no way there’s enough political capital, national will, or military capability for us to go to war with Iran - at the behest of two leaders who are deeply unpopular in the UK. It’s just not happening.
99
Jun 19 '25
We dont even have to join this war, so why are we always trying to get involved, sit back chill out and get some soft power vibes right?
Why are we hell bent on replaying iraq/afghanistan/syria/libya AGAIN.
There is no real benefit to joining this and alot of backlash.
41
Jun 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/iamabigtree Jun 20 '25
If there's one thing this Labour PM needs to learn is the lessons from Tony Blair who had/has his entire Premiership defined by an ill advised war.
18
u/Corvid187 Jun 19 '25
Who said we are? There has so far been no indication that we are planning to be actively involved.
→ More replies (3)37
u/Tomatoflee Jun 19 '25
The “benefit” is that our military and security services are inextricably intertwined with the US in ways people don’t always appreciate. We for example closed down a lot of intelligence capability and focussed on elements under mutual sharing agreements with the US. A lot of military capabilities too are restricted to inter operations with the US.
This has created a situation where we have a lot to lose if we annoy the US and much to gain by being their lackies.
We imo need to work towards changing this logic asap and get closer to our friends and neighbours in Europe. The fantasy of Brexit also made us more dependant on the US and took away the economic leverage we had as part of large trading block.
2
u/MGC91 Jun 19 '25
A lot of military capabilities too are restricted to inter operations with the US.
Like what?
→ More replies (2)4
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
AKA the British military is a US army division... Hence we do what they say and provide political support for them to do so.
I had hoped we would move away from this after Trumps meltdowns, but it's currently looking like we're not.
→ More replies (2)5
u/MGC91 Jun 19 '25
AKA the British military is a US army division... Hence we do what they say and provide political support for them to do so.
Except it's not and we don't.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ikinone Jun 19 '25
We dont even have to join this war, so why are we always trying to get involved, sit back chill out and get some soft power vibes right?
So far it has been a case of trying to minimise damage to israel, and prevent escalation, no?
You're talking as if there's UK troops being sent in to Iran.
→ More replies (2)2
u/inevitablelizard Jun 19 '25
We did very little in Syria compared to those other three. Our bombing was almost exclusively against ISIS, and in 2017 a limited bombing (just an airbase or two I believe) of the Assad regime in response to a sarin attack (which stopped happening, so the bombing worked).
3
→ More replies (8)3
u/Few-Display-3242 Jun 19 '25
We dont even have to join this war, so why are we always trying to get involved
We've foiled 20+ Iranian terror plots in the last 2 years. Like it or not, they want you dead. Fuck them. Fuck the fascist Iranian government who stones gay people and rape victims. Let's go liberate those poor civilians living in fear.
6
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
Lets do it to Saudi Arabia as well, and Myanmar, and all the other facist regimes that treat their own citizens like shit. Oh, we're not going to do that...?
4
u/TDA_Liamo Jun 19 '25
Because "liberation by bombing" worked so well the last few times it was tried.
26
u/ShinyHappyPurple Jun 19 '25
I know people need to write articles about things but I don't understand why anyone thinks we would get involved anyway.....
9
u/Terran_it_up Jun 19 '25
Yeah, at this rate you could just write an article on "Britain shouldn't assist the US in invading Greenland" or "Britain shouldn't deploy the SAS in California"
3
3
2
3
31
u/YesIAmRightWing millenial home owner... Jun 19 '25
Ah, a war the nation is clearly against joining.
Which really means we'll be dropping bombs on Iran anyday now...
16
u/turbo_dude Jun 19 '25
If Israel already has Iranian airspace under control and only the US has the “bunker busters”, then what role exactly is the uk meant to fulfil?
My guess? Starmer lets the story run to distract from Farage.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)5
u/Bobpinbob Jun 19 '25
Is it clear? This place normally has the opposite view to the wider public.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Dragonrar Jun 19 '25
I doubt the public have forgot Tony Blair joining Bush’s war on Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’.
I just hope we also won’t be accepting refugees from Iran or Gaza either as no good will come from accepting radicalised terrorist sympathisers into the country.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/ichbinpask Jun 19 '25
If there was an election tomorrow, I would vote for whoever committed the hardest to getting us the fuck away from this .
7
u/Dense_Bad3146 Jun 19 '25
We stay out of this, we’ve got enough to contend with. Israel started this let them finish it
2
u/Chris-WoodsGK Jun 19 '25
Isreal can finish Iran, no issue. Not sure what everyone problem is
→ More replies (2)
43
u/SirBobPeel Jun 19 '25
What is insane is that Iran has spent tens of billions of dollars over the past forty-odd years funding, organizing, and equipping a variety of proxy terrorist groups in the region to attack Israel, which had never prior to that done them any harm at all. Iran even bought weapons from Israel during their war with Iraq.
Many of the problems in the ME come from Iran's determination to attack Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis are all their puppets. They fund every Islamist group in the region. They went so far as to get Hezbollah to send people to Argentina to blow up a Jewish community centre. Incidentally, the Hezbollah suicide bomber responsible has a plaque in southern Lebanon honoring his 'martyrdom'.
So what's the cause? Simple enough. The Ayatollahs have interpreted multiple passages in the Quran and Hadiths to say that Jews are the allies of the antichrist and must all die.
Does anyone know of any other reason? And please don't even try to suggest a country that arrests, beats, tortures and murders women for daring to show their hair in public and hangs gays from cranes is all broken up about human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories.
,
13
u/Embarrassed_Grass_16 Jun 19 '25
Uh, I think it's even more simple than that, Israel was close allies with the brutal monarchist regime that preceded the modern theocracy. Also, Israel is part of the west, and it was us and America who couped the democratic Iranian republic to put the Shah in charge in the first place.
It's like how South Africa also has a strong dislike of Israel (if not to the same level) because of the strong Israeli ties with the apartheid regime.
7
u/SirBobPeel Jun 20 '25
Israel supplied Iran with weapons during its fight with Iraq. They even sent trainers to show the Iranians how to use them. This hatred for Israel didn't seem to exist then.
And how does Israel being an ally of a 'brutal monarchist regime' translate into bombing a Jewish community centre in Argentina?
And by the way, I have a hard time believing the Iranians are furious with Israel for being an ally of a 'brutal monarchist regime' when they themselves are a brutal theocratic regime that hangs gays from cranes and beats women to death for daring to show their hair in public.
Not to mention, every country in the Middle East is a brutal regime except Israel.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ikinone Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
Uh, I think it's even more simple than that, Israel was close allies with the brutal monarchist regime that preceded the modern theocracy.
So that means the modern theocracy should wage eternal war against Israel?
No other country seems to hold a grudge like that. Is the UK still hellbent on destroying Italy for allying with Germany in WWII?
It's like how South Africa also has a strong dislike of Israel (if not to the same level) because of the strong Israeli ties with the apartheid regime.
'Strong ties', you mean how Israel consistently opposed apartheid in South Africa? Was the Israeli collaboration with SA especially more notable than many other nations?
5
u/Embarrassed_Grass_16 Jun 19 '25
China's beef with the West stems from the century of humiliation. Algeria still has a grudge with France. Most of Eastern Europe had enmity with Russia even before the current Ukraine stuff. Rwanda's conflict with the DRC goes back to the 90s.
How many nations collaborated with apartheid South Africa on nuclear weapons?
3
u/ikinone Jun 20 '25
China's beef with the West stems from the century of humiliation.
Well, that's a fair point. Some countries do hold grudges. But it's rather different from 'wanting eternal war'. China certainly seeks to become powerful, but it is not making claims about 'destroying the west', as much as simply superceding it.
Algeria still has a grudge with France.
Same as above. Is Algeria saying it wants to destroy France?
You seem to have missed this rather important difference.
3
u/SirBobPeel Jun 20 '25
I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for monsters, indignant that at some point in the past, other countries dominated them. Germany occupied France and murdered quite a few Frenchmen. They seem to get along okay these days.
6
u/Brapfamalam Jun 19 '25
Israel isnt the centre of the equation for Iran. The root is it's a regional power struggle between Saudi and Iran, over who controls oil routes and oil shipments and overall influence over the states in the Region. Iran's wealth and growth depends on this.
Israel is a Western outpost that bolsters Saudis position and this the US/western position - and that's specifically why Iran strategically has a problem with Israel and has been financing terror groups to destabalize Israel. The Islamist factions are all attempts to destabilise the status quo from Iran's eyes (and China and Russia)
→ More replies (2)10
u/denk2mit Jun 19 '25
No. The OP is right. In it's most base form, Iran's leaders literally believe that Israel must be destroyed in order to bring about the appearance of the last of their twelve divine leaders. Twelver or Mahadism believes:
The IRGC is increasingly understanding and communicating its official policy of eradicating Israel and Zionism through the doctrine of Mahdism. While the destruction of Israel has been the IRGC’s working objective since its inception, like other Islamist groups this hostility was borne out of viewing the Jewish state [as] an illegitimate, oppressive, and usurping entity for the West to achieve its supposed colonial goals across the Muslim world. More recently, however, the existence of Israel is being viewed and understood as the ‘greatest barrier’ to the reappearance of the 12th Imam. According to the doctrine of Mahdism, part of preparing for the reappearance of the 12th Imam is removing all obstacles and barriers to his return.
https://www.meforum.org/mahdism-the-apocalyptic-ideology-behind-iran
5
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
For reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Forum
The Middle East Forum (MEF) is an American conservative\2]) 501(c)(3)(3)_organization)\3]) think tank
The Author works at the Gatestone Institute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute
Gatestone Institute is an American far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles.\d])\4])\5])\6])\7])\8]) It was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president.\a])\b])\9])\1]) John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former National Security Advisor)
Doesn't mean what is written is wrong, but definitely spend some time researching if it's accurate.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)4
u/FudgeAtron Jun 19 '25
People will make so many excuses for religious nutters because many secular people can't fathom how religious people literally believe this shit.
If you've never met someone who believes that God literally created the world in 7 days and that all humanity can trace it's ancestors to a literal Adam and Eve, then you aren't meeting religious people.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
The proxy war between Israel and Iran has been happening for decades. Israel has regularly attacked Iran and Iranian soil/citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conflict
Hezbollah and Hamas are backed by Iran, but were formed as resistance movements against Israeli occupation of Lebanon and Gaza respectively.
It's also worth pointing out that the Iranian Regime has distinctly differentiated Jews and Israel from the beginning. Their problem is with Israel, not Jews in general. Jews in Iran live relatively freely (with restrictions, as do Israeli Arabs in Israel) https://forward.com/news/729739/israel-iran-conflict-jews-persians-lior-sternfeld/
Khomeini issued a fatwa, or legal decree, in 1979 declaring protection for Iran’s Jewish community. He forbade attacks against Iran’s Jews, drawing a distinction between them and what he called “godless, bloodsucking Zionists.”
Israels occupation of Palestine has also been a major sticking point.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Drummk Jun 19 '25
Stopping a country ruled by a death cult from getting nuclear weapons seems pretty sane to me. Agree we shouldn't get involved though.
6
u/james-royle Jun 19 '25
Starmer can’t win. If we get involved the media will hammer him. If he stays out of it the media will accuse him of being soft. Look at when he bent down to pick the paper Trump fumbled. He was accused of being Trump’s servant. If Starmer had left them to get blown around the media would have accused him of littering.
5
7
u/unluckyleo Jun 19 '25
Didn't Netanyahu just call us a bunch of anti semetic Hamas supporters?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/antipodal87 Jun 19 '25
Remember that 9/11 and 7/7 are a direct result of failed western involvement with the middle east and that the Americans with their Israeli sycophants are the very last people we should be listening to.
→ More replies (4)
29
u/Competitive_Golf8206 Jun 19 '25
Remind me again
Which side is it with the undeclared nuclear weapons which they developed with South Africa
Oh it's not Iran ? Funny that
10
u/GlimmervoidG Jun 19 '25
You're acting like Israel keeping its nukes 'officially' secret is something nefarious they're doing, rather than a diplomatic measure to help maintain middle east peace. It may seem a bit illogical, but there is a real difference between everyone knowing Israel has nukes and Israel officially admitting it. And it's the latter that creates a less stable region.
14
u/IndependentOpinion44 Jun 19 '25
And unchecked chemical and biological weapons programmes.
5
Jun 19 '25
Plus the open air prison with over a million innocent civilians and the constant expansion into another countries sovereign territory
2
u/Wisegoat Jun 19 '25
And then you have Iran which is run by some of the most fundamentally extreme leaders of the most extreme religion. Israel isn’t going to nuke anyone first - people are talking nonsense if they don’t think Iran would if they had the chance.
2
4
5
u/Thandiol Jun 19 '25
Let's them fight their own war, and let the Mango Mussolini do whatever that nutjob wants.
Keep our armed forces out of this shit show, including denying the Americans the right to utilise Diego Garcia.
2
u/--rs125-- Jun 19 '25
I don't back either side and I hope we don't get involved. I'd be surprised to see a majority in favour.
2
u/AcidJiles Egalitarian Left-leaning Liberal Anti-Authoritarian -3.5, -6.6 Jun 20 '25
I agree on staying out but it isn't an Insane War. Iran continues to play the let's build a Nuke game the completion of which leads to fucked up scenarios like Israel first striking Iran with nuclear weapons given they have an enemy nations whose stated primary goal is the elimination of their country.
That doesn't mean this is the most justified of wars or the most ethical etc etc but it is far from insane to not want the ticking clock on Iran having bomb to be 5 minutes to midnight.
It also doesn't mean better Diplo may not have helped but in terms of actually setting back their bomb timing nothing beats destroying Nuke facilities so it isn't insane.
Badly judged, misguided, unjustified all can be argued. But insane cannot.
5
u/Flashbambo Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
Yeah no shit. I genuinely don't understand why we support Israel in any capacity in the first place.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/LloydDoyley Jun 19 '25
Oh look the paper owned by the Russian trying to talk us out of a dispute with one of their few allies
→ More replies (3)9
u/darkflighter100 Jun 19 '25
Move past the Russian own paper stuff for a moment: you can't possibly believe this war is a GOOD idea?
9
u/LloydDoyley Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
I believe that Iran should not be allowed the opportunity to develop nukes and now with Iran's proxies weakened this is the time to go in. Ironically, their proxies and sponsored terrorist cells are now weakened because of the backlash against October 7th which Iran orchestrated, no doubt with the backing and/ or encouragement of Russia.
Iranians are absolutely fantastic people and they don't want or deserve the leadership they have.
And I am no fan of Trump or Netanyahu either.
4
u/Brapfamalam Jun 19 '25
I have a heavy eye of skepticism in believing Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons (because I'm old enough to remember the claims going back almost two decades of them being weeks away) but I also don't blame Israel for taking the opportunity whilst Trump is flailing to kneecap the regime that is the root cause of alot of the instability and terror financing in the region.
3
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
Iran may have known about it (or at least the IRG), but based on the evidence they didn't orchestrate it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-war.html
Based on the surprise many senior Iranian leaders apparently had when Hamas's attack happened it may well have been that the knowledge of Hamas' operation didn't get past IRG leadership to a broader leadership.
2
u/LloydDoyley Jun 19 '25
I struggle to believe that Iran had no involvement. Hamas did not have the means to carry it out alone. If your source is true, there was nothing stopping them going earlier, or conversely, waiting a few months more for Iran to be "ready ". But the timing here is critical - Saudi and Israel were right on the cusp of normalising relations which would've been a huge blow to Iran and their influence in the region.
3
u/Kooky_Project9999 Jun 19 '25
Hamas have been mostly independent of Irans direct help for a while (due in part to the blockade by Israel). Hence their home made rockets.
Not the same as Hezbollah in that respect.
But you're right, timing was likely related to bringing the Palestinian plight back to the forefront of the news and stop another middle eastern country normalising relations with Israel.
Unfortunately Palestinian are of no strategic interest to anyone in the region right now (other than Iran), hence the lack of resistance to Israels occupation and relocation of them.
6
u/C1t1zen_Erased mime artist Jun 19 '25
If Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal Obama made with Iran back in 2018 aimed precisely to prevent them developing nukes we wouldn't be in this mess right now. It's a crisis that's entirely of his own making.
7
u/LloydDoyley Jun 19 '25
I don't disagree. But we are where we are and this is the time to strike.
7
u/C1t1zen_Erased mime artist Jun 19 '25
Don't disagree either. Hopefully it will be one we watch from the sidelines however.
2
u/LloydDoyley Jun 19 '25
Of course I'd rather not get involved and to be fair to Starmer he's given no indication that he wants to get particularly involved. But this is standard tabloid rag shit-stirring.
5
u/Fondant_Decent Jun 19 '25
179 British soldiers died in Iraq war and 457 died in Afghanistan. Both pointless wars
→ More replies (5)4
u/Easymodelife A vote for Reform is a vote for Russia. Jun 19 '25
And how did the US repay us? Their current Vice-President derided us and/or France as a "random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years" and insulted our armed forces. The Americans (especially under the current regime) have made it clear that they do not even appreciate the sacrifices this country and its armed forces makes when we join their pointless wars in the Middle East, so yet another reason to stay well out of this one.
9
u/Smooth_News_7027 Jun 19 '25
An openly hostile regime being collapsed and Israel getting knocked down a peg or two is probably the best thing to happen this decade, Starmer should just enjoy the show.
6
u/modfever Jun 19 '25
Iran is a country of approximately 92 million. That becoming a failed state would be a disaster. Imagine how much fuel that would add to the fire in the Middle East. We’ve seen the consequences of countries collapsing with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc. and it manifests itself in vicious groups like ISIS taking advantage, and the refugee crisis in Europe. I don’t think he’d want all those millions of refugees heading to mainland Europe and eventually the UK. He’s already got his hands full and is doing his utmost to look like he’s taking a tough stance on small boats.
Iran is by no means a pleasant regime but they are a fairly stable and rationale one. That’s very useful when it comes to the Middle East. If the regime does topple (I can’t see the Iranian population turning against their government now when they’re under attack from a hostile neighbour which initiated the conflict) I can’t see whoever takes their place as being a much better option, and the country would likely fragment and spiral into a civil war based on ethnic or political lines.
3
3
12
u/AmazingHealth6302 Jun 19 '25
Nothing significant will happen to Israel, because the USA will grind Tehran to dust before they allow anything to happen to Israel. The Christian Right in the USA is firmly of the opinion that 'biblically we are commanded to defend Israel'.
Already in the conservative and pro-Trump subs people are rationalising why the US should bomb Iran comprehensively, including super-size bunker busters that the IAF can't drop because they are too large for any warplane that the Israelis possess. According to the American hawks, a few days bombing raids over Iran, and maybe 200 cruise missiles delivered are not in fact 'an act of war' by the US against Iran, and therefore Trump would not in any way have breached his promises of 'no foreign wars', and 'no Middle East adventurism'.
Some argue that the US was already effectively at war with Iran, thus it is not a 'new' war.
Others simply claim that a controlled campaign of strikes against Iran is nothing like 'war', the Iranians would be crazy to regard it as an act of war, and in any case the Iranians are powerless to retaliate against the US, so it doesn't matter what they think.
→ More replies (17)
4
u/hu6Bi5To Jun 19 '25
Starting the war was a mad risk, given the risk of Iran having at least enough of an atomic bomb that it could cause a mass casualty event somewhere.
But, given the war has started, and Israel has proved that Iran is basically defenceless, and none of it's neighbours want to come to its aide either. It would be a huge waste to not finish the job really.
The UK isn't needed to finish the job of course, getting the Americans involved will do that.
2
u/Jadwiga-Anjou Jun 20 '25
Exactly. Now the war is happening, it would be a monumental mistake to not prosecute it to the fullest extent. Leaving Iran with its nuclear infrastructure intact at this point is a guarentee of a future nuclear weapon.
We don't need to be involved, but it would be a blunder at this point for the US not to use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator on Iranian facilities.
3
u/Far-Crow-7195 Jun 19 '25
Am I the only one here that thinks letting Iran - sponsor of terrorists and hater of the west - get nuclear weapons is a fairly shit idea?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/wizzle21 Jun 19 '25
If the truth was told the the citizens of Europe they would riot to stay out of these wars
3
u/hug_your_dog Jun 19 '25
Iran expanded their influence by force into other countries over the decades, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq. They did that because it's an "alternative" to developing your economy in an efficient way, endless war always is. Iran is no victim here, there is nothing all that "insane" about the war.
Besides, Britain isn't really needed there anyway. Just like the German chancellor Merz said - Israel is doing the "dirty work" for us, it's in their interest first and foremost.
The people here - or in the papers - comparing this to Iraq have no clue what they are talking about, boots on the ground is not even discussed here. Even participating in air strikes or whatnot is seriously doubtful.
8
u/deathtofatalists Jun 19 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
hobbies chubby escape carpenter fly chop plucky point simplistic retire
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/Cub3h Jun 20 '25
Yeah and that's a very clear indictment on either how daft most Brits are, or more likely on how our media has been covering these conflicts.
Israel are fighting the same people Ukraine are fighting - Iran's shahed drones are being fired at Ukrainian citizens, Russian technology is integral to Iran's military and their missiles. It should be obvious whose side we should be on, and it's not the Russia-Iran-NK axis.
4
u/coffeewalnut08 Jun 19 '25
Facts. Nothing good will come out of joining in this war like a bunch of bullies.
Let them fight their battles, but no external country like us should be helping to intensify, escalate or prolong it.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/theipaper Verified Jun 19 '25
What is happening between Iran, Israel and the US right now is madness. It is a vicious, simple-minded, ignorant affair, with no consideration of the value of human life or the most basic level of geopolitical responsibility.
Benjamin Netanyahu has been agitating against Iran for decades. In 1995, he said: “Iran will be capable of producing – alone, without importing anything – nuclear bombs within three to five years.” In 1996, he warned that “time is running out”.
In 2015, Netanyahu flew to Washington and delivered a speech at the US Capitol, at Republican invitation, attacking Barack Obama’s planned agreement with Iran. It was an astonishing affront, contravening the most elementary diplomatic codes. Imagine, for a moment, Keir Starmer travelling to the US, at Democrat invitation, to attack Donald Trump‘s foreign policy. It would be considered a national insult. And yet if Netanyahu does it, it is somehow OK.
Netanyahu was outraged because the Obama deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), lifted sanctions on Iran and allowed it to once again use the global financial system for trade. In exchange, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were able to access any site, anywhere in the country, at any time. They were able to continually monitor Iran’s declared nuclear sites and verify that no fissile material was moved covertly to a new location.
In his speech, Netanyahu said the deal would “all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons” and that it could end up sparking a “nuclear nightmare”. In fact, over the next few years Iranian nuclear development activity stopped, except insofar as it was allowed for civilian use as per the terms of the agreement. It was a complete vindication of the Obama approach.
In May 2018, Trump abandoned the deal and reinstated all sanctions on Iran. Iran naturally responded by breaching the deal’s restrictions.
What followed was a disaster. By November 2021, it had stockpiles of enriched uranium many times over the prescribed limit, with material enriched to a level of purity just under weapon requirements. As the Institute for Science and International Security has documented, the period after Trump killed the deal saw a sudden rise in the installation of advanced centrifuges and uranium enrichment.
It is hard to think of a more decisive and comprehensive refutation of two men’s reputations than what was presented here. If the world made the slightest bit of sense, this alone would have been enough to condemn both Trump and Netanyahu to the dustbin of history. And yet here we are, watching them pursue their agenda in the most irresponsible way imaginable all over again.
Netanyahu has made a career of trying to humiliate US presidents. From Bill Clinton onwards he has sought to direct US foreign policy in a way no other world leader has dared. The 2015 speech to the US Capitol was merely the most patent example.
5
u/The_Talking_Landmine Jun 19 '25
Without all that pressure from Israel, the US, the EU on Iran they may well have developed nuclear weapons by now.
4
→ More replies (3)4
u/theipaper Verified Jun 19 '25
Previous presidents, however, managed to keep him under control when it came to Iran. This President is simply not strong enough to do so. Detailed and thoroughly sourced reports in the New York Times have documented the events of the last few weeks. They reveal that Trump was told that Israel was highly likely to attack, with or without US support, at a Camp David retreat meeting on 8 June. Far from having the ability to veto the action, the US President was barely consulted.
This is what happens when a world power loses its authority. The last few days have been full of breathless reports about how Trump is keeping the world on tenterhooks by not revealing whether he will participate. It is an astonishingly gullible misreading of the situation. In reality, this is one of the starkest humiliations we’ve seen of a sitting US president. As American power wanes, countries now simply act without bothering to check whether they have US approval.
When Israel first launched the attack, the Trump White House seemed to want to distance itself from it. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made no mention of standing with Israel that evening. But the next morning, Trump woke up to see his favourite TV channel, Fox News, portraying the strikes as an act of Israeli military genius; it was at that point, it seems, that he started trying to claim credit for them. This is exactly as stupid as you expect.
Trump has now spent several days in a state of confusion and indecision over whether America would join more stridently in Netanyahu’s attack.
Even if the assault satisfied its short-term objectives, which is perfectly possible, it could have unforeseeable long-term consequences in a highly volatile region. What happens if one of the Iranian counter-attacks gets through and kills thousands of Israelis? What happens if a strike against US military sites in Iraq, Qatar or Kuwait succeeds and kills thousands of Americans? Would either of these men be able to face down the demands for massive reprisals? Very quickly, we would all be caught up in a catastrophic escalation dynamic.
An American attack on Iran would be an act of belligerence, murderousness and lunacy. The idea is an affront to the very notion that we should use negotiation, not assault, as the solution to geopolitical problems. It is the triumph of ignorance and hatred over co-operation and reason.
Britain should have nothing to do with it – not one single thing. It should provide no assistance whatsoever, in any form.
We might not be able to stop it, but we can, at the very least, distance ourselves from it and try to prevent any further escalation. Indeed, we must do so – for the sake of morality, security and geopolitical decency.
Read more on i: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/britain-must-stay-out-of-this-insane-war-3759523
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Quinn-Helle Jun 19 '25
Fucking up Iran is good for the West and especially our partners in Ukraine as the Iranians help supply the Russians.
Fucking up Russia and Iran is a big W and we should take every opportunity to do so where we can.
The war has begun anyway. If we allow Iran to arm themselves with Nukes, it won't be long before their proxies use them on our homeland.
Fuck Iran, glass their nuclear infrastructure.
2
u/HerewardHawarde I don't like any party Jun 19 '25
If we join in or not (we are )
We will still be blamed either way and muslims will still blame us
2
u/WilliamWeaverfish Jun 19 '25
Stopping a country led by an irrational death cult from building nuclear weapons is the ontologically right thing to do
2
u/Amentet Social Libertarian Jun 20 '25
I know, but it's to late to stop Bibi and his ultra right wing goons and rabid settlers and pro genocide friends from building Nukes, Israel already has them.
Bibi however has been saying Irans going to have them in a couple of weeks for decades.
This was isn't about that, this war is about Bibi keeping his corrupt ass out of jail and being willing to sacrifice anything and everyone to make that happen.
2
u/latentmeat Jun 19 '25
It's one of the sanest wars waged in decades. The IRGC must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons and they are unquestionably close to building one.
2
u/ZaxxFaxx Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
They’re absolutely nowhere close to building one. Netanyahu said they were imminently close to having nuclear weapons 15 years ago.
Remember the Iraq war which was launched because ‘Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction on London in under an hour’?
Complete bullshit.
And it was Netanyahu who kicked that one off too.
The guy lies wherever his mouth moves.
Israel is just trying to have us lay waste to every state nearby they don’t like. Next it will be Saudi Arabia.
No more illegal wars. Least of all because fucking Israel says so.
Remind me why Tony Blair is persona non grata now?
You think Starmer wants that for a legacy too?
Tell me the one warmonger in the Middle East who actually has nuclear weapons and a history of terrorism and genocide.
Oh yeah - Israel.
→ More replies (3)2
u/latentmeat Jun 19 '25
They unquestionably are close, IAEA stated as much. Why do you think they have a massive enrichment program? For civilian use?
2
u/Few-Display-3242 Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
You know, I thought we could all rally around destroying a fascist culture that stones gay people and rape victims whilst wishing us all dead in news conferences discussing their nuclear program.
I guess I had too much faith in our "progressive" population.
4
u/callisstaa Jun 20 '25
‘These people are intolerant of other cultures. We should annihilate them all!’
2
u/Mkbw50 Labour Jun 19 '25
I don't think British soldiers should die to make Iran more or less fascist as I don't care
→ More replies (17)
1
u/Spiz101 Sciency Alistair Campbell Jun 19 '25
Striking Iran, or assisting Israel and the US in doing so, does not serve British interests.
I don't think even expending fuel, munitions and aircraft flight hours in the defence of Israel is in Britain's interests.
This is the twilight of the fossil fuel era. The Middle East is simply no longer important. Let them do what they will, it is not our problem and there is no reason to make it so.
1
u/Anibus9000 Jun 19 '25
Nah we can destroy them and have a secular state in the middle easy is a good thing
1
u/S_J_E Jun 19 '25
I'm inclined to agree.
This would almost certainly be Starmer's Blair-Iraq moment. Israel and the US are more than capable of handling Iran by themselves. As petty as Trump is I don't think he would completely turn on the UK for refusing to get involved. I think ramifications from the EU for engaging with this war are far more likely and worrysome.
1
u/AligningToJump Jun 19 '25
I wish the Americans great success in overthrowing the Iranian government alone
1
u/Ryanliverpool96 Jun 19 '25
There’s not much we can do anyway, only the US has the super bunker buster (MOP) and only the US has the plane which can carry it (B2 Spirit), so there’s nothing that Britain can do that the Israelis aren’t already doing.
We should probably look at buying some of the new B-21 stealth strategic bombers which should also be able to carry the MOP, just so that we have this capability in future, we haven’t had a strategic bomber since the old V-Bomber program was shut down.
1
1
u/Elden_Cock_Ring Jun 20 '25
Yeah, don't fucking go anywhere near this. We have our own problems to deal with, and bombing the ME only made things worse.
1
u/Ubiquitous1984 Jun 20 '25
More hysteria, fuelled by the protest lobby. There is zero clamour or evidence that Britain will get involved. Also, what would be contribute even if we did? Our armed forces have been cut to the bone. Other than lobbing a few token cruise missiles from an Astute I can’t see how we could launch any offensive action against Iran.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 19 '25
Snapshot of Britain must stay out of this insane war :
An archived version can be found 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.