The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation and missiles and drones because everyone is afraid of a hostage situation?
I don't know how things are on the "centre-right" sites you frequent, but one reason we have what you please to call "intelligent" debate here is that we try to respond to what the other party said, rather than repeating our earlier points with more moral outrage. If you're looking for intelligent debate I suggest you try it.
It seems to me that you are falling for the Politicians' Fallacy: "Something had to be done! Trump did something. Therefore, Trump did what had to be done." But if the something Trump did was worse than doing nothing - it failed, it was always going to fail, it made things worse - the fact that "something" needed to be done is not a defence.
As Alan Cresswell pointed out, Obama had struck a deal which Trump abandoned.
Terrorism indeed.
I imagine Trump went ahead cos he was less afraid of bullies.
You have to stand up to bullies.
And yet Trump went ahead because he is a bully, having the largest conventional military in the world, and you're saying it's "unfair" that Iran stood up to him. If Australia had done something similar had it been attacked by China, would you be saying that Australia should just roll over?
Anyway, if Trump had been standing up to Iran he would have sent in the boots on the ground. He didn't.
The sequence of events was that Trump attacked Iran (because Netanyahu told him to); Iran closed the Persian Gulf; Trump agreed to negotiate the Iranian peace plan. (Not you note his own peace plan.) That is not Trump standing up to a bully. That is Trump chickening out. TACO.
In the meantime the anaemic response from those that it actually affects is staggering.
Everything is staggering if you can't be bothered to understand it.
Australia, for a start, is not a cruel authoritarian regime that declares death to the west and Israel and would not attack its neighbouring allies and hold hostage the global economy.
We are much better than that.
As for Trump being TACO, you really can't have your cake and eat it too.
Well, the talks have failed. Hardly surprising given how far apart the positions of those talking actually are.
It’s raised yet again for me the deep scepticism I felt at the time about what Trump was saying in advance about reasonable communication with someone in Iran with power and influence.
At best it must have been wishful thinking. At worst it was just a ploy to support whatever was going on in that confused mind.
What’s next?
Iran will restock, probably through the help of China and Russia (tried to link to a report from CNN about China help Iran but couldn't manage it).
The US may break the ceasefire because they can see this happening. But I doubt there will be boots on the ground because no one wants their children killed and decaptitating the nuclear and military arsenals to slow Iran down for a while is enough of a goal.
Israel will continue to fight Iran's proxies in self defence as is their right.
Eventually, countries may grow a spine and make the straight of hormuz safe again.
There's a VERY clued up guy on x/Twitter called Peter Apps on modern warfare.
He's a Brit with a new book out.
A review of his book:
Apps’ central thesis is that global conflict is no longer defined by clear declarations of war or singular battlefields. Instead, the world has entered an era of “grey-zone” warfare—characterised by cyberattacks, economic coercion, proxy conflicts, misinformation, and limited military engagements that stop short of full-scale war. Drawing on examples from Ukraine, the South China Sea, the Middle East, and NATO–Russia relations, Apps shows how major powers deliberately operate below the threshold that would trigger a conventional global response.
I think Iran is another proxy war like Ukraine.
And how about the Brits realising Russia were spying on their underwater cables and pipelines and could do eff all about it?
You may be interested in this piece from the NY Times (free link) which reports on the process by which the decision to go to war was reached.
Whimsical Christian
If you haven’t done so already, please look at the link Ruth provided for free. It explains many things.
What was it you wanted me to learn? I think the reason for the war is pretty obvious.
It's a retaliation for the October 7 attacks and somehow Israel managed to get the US involved.
That's the bit I still don't understand. The Zionist stuff and "and the US government is controlled by wealthy Jews stuff" just sounds like conspiracy theories to me.
But Iran as a long standing threat to the world and the Middle East so the US got involved when opportune makes sense as per previous US presidents saying something must be done about Iran and Trump the only one to have the guts to do it.
Don’t underestimate the Iranians. Trump and Bibi are dealing with a hydra: chop off one head and another appears. He’s made himself look even more of a fool with his bombast.
What could you learn from the link? Here are a couple of pointers.
CIA. Israel’s belief that regime change would follow military success was “farcical”.
Strait of Hormuz. Continued safe passage of oil was dependent on regime change
Trump could have taken that on board but he preferred to hear and accept the more optimistic bellicose noises from Israel and Hegseth.
That’s proved to be a strategic error.
I suppose the other thing is that the decision was made without any prior consultation with, or notification of, NATO. Yet Trump berates NATO for not being more active in supporting the USA re the Strait of Hormuz.
Truth is that if he’d consulted NATO they would have said don’t do it, not least because of the effective control even a damaged Iran can exercise over the Strait.
I don’t think he showed guts. Just strategic stupidity.
As @Alan Cresswell has accurately observed, the threat of even one drone or missile blowing up one tanker shows the power of even a damaged Iran.
There's a lovely viral meme at the moment with the past 7 presidents of the US saying Iran is a danger, we should do something about it, then Trump saying "okay".
This is a longstanding issue. Trump is the only one that had the guts to try do something about it.
You're forgetting that under Obama there was a deal agreed, that meant that Iran stopped work on nuclear weapons with international inspections confirming that, in return for a slight easing of economic sanctions. If Trump hadn't reneged on that deal then the Middle East could well be a much better place for all of us. Doing something doesn't necessarily only cover bombing other countries back to the stone age.
Why did Trump renege on the deal? I imagine there would have been good reasons. I believe the deal was controversial at the time and Israel was flat out against it as it put them at further risk.
The deal was negotiated under the Obama presidency, and Trump had a crusade against everything associated with Obama. It looks very much like his reason was that nothing associated with a Black President could possibly be good.
You have to imagine them because they don't actually exist. There is no evidence that Trump could win at draughts nevermind 4-dimensional geo-political chess. Why would you assume he had good reasons to do something when there is no sign of those reasons even 8 years later?
I'm a bit confused as to this business of mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran says that they can't be certain as to where at least some of them are (and others may have drifted), so how can Trump be certain that all mines can be removed (except in the weird parallel universe inside his head)?
Any mariners who navigate the Strait will be brave people indeed - who wants to be the first to be blown up? And yet, Iran is offering safe passage to the ships of its friends...
Naval experts among you will know whether or not these mines can be detected in time to avoid collision, explosion, and possible sinking...but I feel sorry for the crews of the ships still stuck in the area - apparently, the stress is really taking its toll as regards the mariners' mental health.
And yet Trump went ahead because he is a bully, having the largest conventional military in the world, and you're saying it's "unfair" that Iran stood up to him. If Australia had done something similar had it been attacked by China, would you be saying that Australia should just roll over?
Anyway, if Trump had been standing up to Iran he would have sent in the boots on the ground. He didn't.
The sequence of events was that Trump attacked Iran (because Netanyahu told him to); Iran closed the Persian Gulf; Trump agreed to negotiate the Iranian peace plan. (Not you note his own peace plan.) That is not Trump standing up to a bully. That is Trump chickening out. TACO.
Australia, for a start, is not a cruel authoritarian regime that declares death to the west and Israel and would not attack its neighbouring allies and hold hostage the global economy.
We are much better than that.
Australia would rather be conquered than hold hostage the world economy?
The doctrine of realism in international relations says that states do whatever they believe is necessary to survive. If they don't they don't survive. (Extreme realism would say that everything a state does is ultimately motivated by power and survival.) The extreme version is controversial but the moderate version is widely held by most foreign offices. In short, I find it unlikely that any nation, however democratic, would be restrained by the prospect of damage to the world economy if its survival were at stake.
As for Trump being TACO, you really can't have your cake and eat it too.
That implies that having cake and eating it are the only options. There are others. For example a state can do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Consider two axes: sensible vs foolish and guts vs no guts: That's four options.
Sensible, guts or no guts: doesn't start war that does more harm than good;
Foolish, no guts: starts stupid war, when they don't meet with immediate success they bluster, announce victory, and cast around for a way out that saves face;
Foolish, guts: starts stupid war, doubles down.
In the circumstances, given that Trump is acting stupidly anyway, it's probably better for the world that he has no guts than that he doubles down. But that doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reason.
He's set back their nuclear plans and military years if not decades. How is that not useful?
Trump and Israel "set back Iran's nuclear plans years if not decades" last year. Maybe it didn't actually work last time after all? But this time it definitely worked?
They've also probably produced thousands of new anti-western militants, with their attacks on Iran and Lebanon.
Which, from the point of view of those in charge, is a feature rather than a bug. Netanyahu has a long history of preferring his opponents to be extremists rather than reasonable people because it's easier to get away with slaughtering them and everyone in their neighbourhood.
@WhimsicalChristian - it's not the case that Britain did 'eff all' about the Russians poking about above our underwater cables and pipelines.
Word is they didn't hang around very long once they'd been rumbled.
Odd as it may sound, snooping at another country's infrastructure doesn't in and of itself comprise a violation of international law - yes, I was surprised at that too.
One of the things I noticed during my visit to Australia was how unbalanced the right-wing or centre-right media over there is when reporting UK news. My relatives lapped it up for goodness sake and I had to keep putting them straight and calling bollocks on it.
That doesn't mean I don't think we've allowed our navy to get into a parlous state or that we're managing everything just fine.
But it does mean I take exception to half-arsed and highly partial coverage from right the other side of the world who don't understand Europe, don't understand the UK and who don't make a great deal of effort to find out.
Some right-wing Aussies told me that the US and its European allies should have supplied Zelensky with Cruise Missiles which would have allowed him to demolish Moscow.
Yeah right.
As if Putin's warheads aren't aimed at Manchester. Has he got any aimed at Melbourne?
It's easy to pontificate when you're way over on the other side of the world.
Which isn't to say that Australia isn't affected by any of this, of course.
I see that Trump is talking about blockading the Strait to prevent further movement by those who have got through Hormuz, either because the oil is meant by friends of Iran or because they’ve paid a tariff to Iran.
Now how is that supposed to work? If the tankers refuse to stop is the US going to fire on them?
I see that Trump is talking about blockading the Strait to prevent further movement by those who have got through Hormuz, either because the oil is meant by friends of Iran or because they’ve paid a tariff to Iran.
Now how is that supposed to work? If the tankers refuse to stop is the US going to fire on them?
It all sounds a bit "I'm not stuck in here with you. You're stuck in here with ME", doesn't it?
It certainly looks as though Trump and Hegseth have painted themselves into a corner.
Unfortunately, they may decide to shoot their way out of it, by committing more war crimes (apparently just threatening to destroy civilian infrastructure is a war crime...).
I note that the UK is unwilling to assist the US in its 'blockade', but may well help with minesweeping:
Trump is once again breathing fire:
The US president also threatened to bomb Iran’s water treatment facilities, power plants and bridges, repeating an earlier threat, if Tehran does not agree to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, the key sticking point between the two sides.
Not wanting to claim knowing why Trump wants to blockade a strait that is already blockaded by the other side, but I think it has to do with China resupplying the Iranian military by sea.
Not wanting to claim knowing why Trump wants to blockade a strait that is already blockaded by the other side, but I think it has to do with China resupplying the Iranian military by sea.
If China could not supply Iran directly, then it could supply arms via Pakistan. It would be a faff shifting goods on by land, but China is Pakistan’s largest arms supplier.
Not wanting to claim knowing why Trump wants to blockade a strait that is already blockaded by the other side, but I think it has to do with China resupplying the Iranian military by sea.
If China could not supply Iran directly, then it could supply arms via Pakistan. It would be a faff shifting goods on by land, but China is Pakistan’s largest arms supplier.
Correct me if I am wrong, I do not see much of a good road from Pakistan to Iran, and even if China could supply Iran through Pakistan, it would not be all that hard to destroy the routes if Trump decided to step on the toes of an ally.
Correct me if I am wrong, I do not see much of a good road from Pakistan to Iran, and even if China could supply Iran through Pakistan, it would not be all that hard to destroy the routes if Trump decided to step on the toes of an ally.
Correct me if I am wrong, I do not see much of a good road from Pakistan to Iran, and even if China could supply Iran through Pakistan, it would not be all that hard to destroy the routes if Trump decided to step on the toes of an ally.
Map seems to show Taftan--Mirjaveh--Zahedan
Checked on the internet. The road condition is basically good. The border crossings can close suddenly. At least in Pakistan traffic depends on armed escorts
As you might have guessed, this border crossing is not for the faint of heart, as this isn’t the safest area in Pakistan.. All sensible governments in the world highly recommend you stay away from this area, and the amount of AKs around indicated this is for good reason. We don’t recommend you take this border crossing unless you’re driving your own vehicle or are traveling strictly overland. Solo women are recommended to find a male travel partner.
I'm a bit confused as to this business of mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran says that they can't be certain as to where at least some of them are (and others may have drifted), so how can Trump be certain that all mines can be removed (except in the weird parallel universe inside his head)?
It's probably relatively straight forward knowing where mines have been laid to know where there are definitely no mines - which appears to be the case for the parts of the Strait within Iranian territorial waters, so that Iran can offer safe transit for those ships of neutral nations and/or who pay a fee for safe passage. If both sides had laid mines this would be very difficult to assure, as it would need both sides to say where they had put mines.
But, despite the Strait being very narrow it's still a large area of water. Which does mean that removing all mines, and knowing that they have all been removed, is very challenging. What's probably going to happen is that minesweepers need to clear some particular areas to provide mine-free routes while not stating areas to either side of these passages are mine free, and to regularly patrol these passages to catch any mines that might drift into these areas (or, patrol just outside these areas for that purpose, and ultimately expand the safe areas).
To note the difficulties, during both world wars in Europe very large numbers of mines were laid in the English Channel and North Sea by both British and German navies as part of the blockades both sides tried to enforce (and, also for specific purposes such as mine fields laid either side of the D-Day armada to protect those ships from German naval forces). We still quite regularly have mines washed ashore along the coasts of nations bordering those seas.
I see that Trump is talking about blockading the Strait to prevent further movement by those who have got through Hormuz, either because the oil is meant by friends of Iran or because they’ve paid a tariff to Iran.
Now how is that supposed to work? If the tankers refuse to stop is the US going to fire on them?
Maybe the US Navy is busy issuing new skull and cross-bone flags to it's ships in the area.
Trump is once again breathing fire:
The US president also threatened to bomb Iran’s water treatment facilities, power plants and bridges, repeating an earlier threat, if Tehran does not agree to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, the key sticking point between the two sides.
(From today's Guardian).
Which is typical of Trump. The first day of negotiations didn't reach a conclusion, I don't think anyone with any experience of international negotiations ever considered a deal to be possible on that time scale. The top men on both sides sat down across the table, an achievement in itself, and laid out their conditions. Both decided that the conditions from the other side were unacceptable. That's basically the standard opening move in negotiations, and to a large extent theatrical for the benefit of the folks at home. Now, their staff members get down to probably months of wrangling over details to a point where each main condition of both sides is more or less unchanged but tweaked enough for the other side to accept. At that point the top men go back to Pakistan to go through the theatrical motions of seeming to negotiate, giving and accepting a few pre-agreed minor concessions and finally shaking hands and signing pieces of paper.
Only an idiot would consider that failure to reach an agreement in a few hours is a failure of negotiation. Certainly anyone who doesn't recognise that they need to let their staff get on with the months of work needed has no idea of the art of making a deal.
To note the difficulties, during both world wars in Europe very large numbers of mines were laid in the English Channel and North Sea by both British and German navies as part of the blockades both sides tried to enforce (and, also for specific purposes such as mine fields laid either side of the D-Day armada to protect those ships from German naval forces). We still quite regularly have mines washed ashore along the coasts of nations bordering those seas.
In the Hebrides too. We get a mine washed up every year or two, necessitating a visit from an explosives team for a controlled explosion.
Don’t underestimate the Iranians. Trump and Bibi are dealing with a hydra: chop off one head and another appears. He’s made himself look even more of a fool with his bombast.
You've got that right. Iran certainly doesn't play by the rules.
What would you suggest as a solution? Leaving Iran to develop nuclear weapons and its huge missile and drone arsenal isn't a solution.
What could you learn from the link? Here are a couple of pointers.
CIA. Israel’s belief that regime change would follow military success was “farcical”.
Strait of Hormuz. Continued safe passage of oil was dependent on regime change
Trump could have taken that on board but he preferred to hear and accept the more optimistic bellicose noises from Israel and Hegseth.
That’s proved to be a strategic error.
I suppose the other thing is that the decision was made without any prior consultation with, or notification of, NATO. Yet Trump berates NATO for not being more active in supporting the USA re the Strait of Hormuz.
Truth is that if he’d consulted NATO they would have said don’t do it, not least because of the effective control even a damaged Iran can exercise over the Strait.
I don’t think he showed guts. Just strategic stupidity.
As @Alan Cresswell has accurately observed, the threat of even one drone or missile blowing up one tanker shows the power of even a damaged Iran.
But you're missing the main point, which is how to deal with the largest state exporter of terror, not to mention terror within.
Of course NATO would say no as they have bugger all resources without the US) as would the UN (China and Russia would of course veto).
The UN were happy to see the genocide of some 800,000 Rwandans and just stand aside. It's a rubbish paper tiger.
( By the way, that article seems pretty suss. You've got leakage of national security issues going on there, to sell a book. I imagine if it were true, it wouldn't be publishable. Good article to sell a book tho.)
Don’t underestimate the Iranians. Trump and Bibi are dealing with a hydra: chop off one head and another appears. He’s made himself look even more of a fool with his bombast.
You've got that right. Iran certainly doesn't play by the rules.
What would you suggest as a solution? Leaving Iran to develop nuclear weapons and its huge missile and drone arsenal isn't a solution.
Which rules isn't Iran playing by? Is there a rule that says if you assassinate a political leader that countries government needs to immediately collapse? Is it that unfair that Iran has developed leadership in depth, such that if one of them is killed there's someone who almost automatically slips into their place to keep things running? Is there a rule that says a country can't have weapons to defend itself? Is there a rule that says only a select few countries are allowed nukes and missiles, and other nations should just accept that they should do what they're told by bullies?
And yet Trump went ahead because he is a bully, having the largest conventional military in the world, and you're saying it's "unfair" that Iran stood up to him. If Australia had done something similar had it been attacked by China, would you be saying that Australia should just roll over?
Anyway, if Trump had been standing up to Iran he would have sent in the boots on the ground. He didn't.
The sequence of events was that Trump attacked Iran (because Netanyahu told him to); Iran closed the Persian Gulf; Trump agreed to negotiate the Iranian peace plan. (Not you note his own peace plan.) That is not Trump standing up to a bully. That is Trump chickening out. TACO.
Australia, for a start, is not a cruel authoritarian regime that declares death to the west and Israel and would not attack its neighbouring allies and hold hostage the global economy.
We are much better than that.
Australia would rather be conquered than hold hostage the world economy?
The doctrine of realism in international relations says that states do whatever they believe is necessary to survive. If they don't they don't survive. (Extreme realism would say that everything a state does is ultimately motivated by power and survival.) The extreme version is controversial but the moderate version is widely held by most foreign offices. In short, I find it unlikely that any nation, however democratic, would be restrained by the prospect of damage to the world economy if its survival were at stake.
As for Trump being TACO, you really can't have your cake and eat it too.
That implies that having cake and eating it are the only options. There are others. For example a state can do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Consider two axes: sensible vs foolish and guts vs no guts: That's four options.
Sensible, guts or no guts: doesn't start war that does more harm than good;
Foolish, no guts: starts stupid war, when they don't meet with immediate success they bluster, announce victory, and cast around for a way out that saves face;
Foolish, guts: starts stupid war, doubles down.
In the circumstances, given that Trump is acting stupidly anyway, it's probably better for the world that he has no guts than that he doubles down. But that doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reason.
He's set back their nuclear plans and military years if not decades. How is that not useful?
Trump and Israel "set back Iran's nuclear plans years if not decades" last year. Maybe it didn't actually work last time after all? But this time it definitely worked?
Australia has strategic alliances with western countries that share its values. If we were attacked by China, the hope is those allies would come to our defence. Iran is an authoritarian regime that has no morals and can only get defence and supplies from "shadow fleets" from Russia and China and others that oppose the west.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
You're premises for your other options on the cake and eat it too discussion is heavily laden with the presumption Trump is an idiot.
So the TACO discussion is still you trying to have your cake and it too. Trump is an idiot to star the war and a coward for withdrawing. That's fine. But you can't have it both ways.
As for setting back Iran's nuclear plans last year. Yes I imagine it did some. But have you noticed they have a huge other arsenal that they are wreaking havoc with? That's part of the problem. Certainly from an Israeli perspective.
As for setting back Iran's nuclear plans last year. Yes I imagine it did some. But have you noticed they have a huge other arsenal that they are wreaking havoc with? That's part of the problem. Certainly from an Israeli perspective.
Which they weren't doing until they were attacked. The Israeli perspective is currently conducting ethnic cleansing in Southern Lebanon, which is a few steps beyond anything the Iranian government is doing.
Not wanting to claim knowing why Trump wants to blockade a strait that is already blockaded by the other side, but I think it has to do with China resupplying the Iranian military by sea.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
But as the CIA advised, the Israeli confidence that a military victory would lead to regime change was and is farcical. For nearly 50 years the internationally agreed response to Iran has been containment, not regime change. Looks like Trump might be heading back towards containment despite his bluster.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
I'm not sure it is a given. A good argument can be made that Israel is the main culprit, providing the definition of "terrorism" isn't limited to non-state actors. There are regular acts of terrorism committed in the West Bank by settler groups. The current bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon, and the destruction of Gaza over the last couple of years, meets many of the definitions of terrorism.
Don’t underestimate the Iranians. Trump and Bibi are dealing with a hydra: chop off one head and another appears. He’s made himself look even more of a fool with his bombast.
You've got that right. Iran certainly doesn't play by the rules.
What would you suggest as a solution? Leaving Iran to develop nuclear weapons and its huge missile and drone arsenal isn't a solution.
Actual negotiations by competent people rather than clueless Trumpists. Heck, not shredding the agreement back in 2018 would have sufficed. All of this stems from Trump's deranged envy of Obama (and before you try it, no I'm no fan of Obama either, but he at least is bright enough to understand consequences of actions).
That the Iranian regime is brutal and oppressive and supports and exports terrorism is a given.
If we need any 'own voice' testimonial about how bad Hezbollah can be speak to Lebanese Christians as I have done. Not that their record is particularly squeaky-clean either, but the world doesn't always neatly divide into good guys and bad guys.
The Iranian regime are bad guys.
Netanyahu is also a bad guy.
Trump is a bad guy.
I don't know where that leaves us other than between a rock and a hard place.
Trump has made a personal and vicious attack on Pope Leo. He posted on Truth Social (then deleted) a Messianic image of himself. I read a report that he had called the Iranian leadership “deranged scumbags” who he had the honour to kill.
Do you think this was gutsy behaviour by the President of the United States? Do you think it was truthful? Do you think it was wise?
That implies that having cake and eating it are the only options. There are others. For example a state can do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Consider two axes: sensible vs foolish and guts vs no guts: That's four options.
Sensible, guts or no guts: doesn't start war that does more harm than good;
Foolish, no guts: starts stupid war, when they don't meet with immediate success they bluster, announce victory, and cast around for a way out that saves face;
Foolish, guts: starts stupid war, doubles down.
In the circumstances, given that Trump is acting stupidly anyway, it's probably better for the world that he has no guts than that he doubles down. But that doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reason.
You're premises for your other options on the cake and eat it too discussion is heavily laden with the presumption Trump is an idiot.
So the TACO discussion is still you trying to have your cake and it too. Trump is an idiot to star the war and a coward for withdrawing. That's fine. But you can't have it both ways.
You're just repeating yourself while apparently ignoring what I said. You're going to have to explain in detail why you think it being idiotic to starting a way is incompatible with showing no guts for withdrawing.
The only way I see that it's having cake and eating it, is if you're claiming that starting a war, spending billions of dollars, killing hundreds of people, and throttling the world oil and fertiliser supplies, and then withdrawing, amounts to the same as not starting the war in the first place. It does not amount to the same.
And no, the thought that Trump was idiotic to start the war is not a presumption. (I don't believe I said Trump was an idiot. I said the war was stupid and foolish. Trump did a stupid and foolish thing. It's a subtle difference but important.) It's a claim that starting the war has achieved little to nothing of strategic value to the US, has done little to nothing to reduce the actual threat Iran poses to its neighbors, has done little to nothing to reduce Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons (judging by Iran's terms in the negotiations and the US reaction), has set back Iran's internal opposition by decades, and has prompted Iran to take de facto possession of the Strait of Hormuz which it had not done before, has cost the US billions of dollars, has weakened the US' commitments in areas where it does have strategic interests (such as Taiwan and Ukraine), and has weakened the relations of the US with its allies. That's not a presumption. That's a judgement of events.
By the way, see the thread I started in the Styx about the procedure for questioning hosting decisions here. If I have attacked you personally, rather than the way you conduct your arguments, then I apologise.
As for setting back Iran's nuclear plans last year. Yes I imagine it did some. But have you noticed they have a huge other arsenal that they are wreaking havoc with? That's part of the problem. Certainly from an Israeli perspective.
Which they weren't doing until they were attacked. The Israeli perspective is currently conducting ethnic cleansing in Southern Lebanon, which is a few steps beyond anything the Iranian government is doing.
I don't see any evidence for ethnic cleansing in Lebanon.
Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah.
As for setting back Iran's nuclear plans last year. Yes I imagine it did some. But have you noticed they have a huge other arsenal that they are wreaking havoc with? That's part of the problem. Certainly from an Israeli perspective.
Which they weren't doing until they were attacked. The Israeli perspective is currently conducting ethnic cleansing in Southern Lebanon, which is a few steps beyond anything the Iranian government is doing.
I don't see any evidence for ethnic cleansing in Lebanon.
Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah.
There's none so blind as them that will not see.
The IDF literally warned Christian families not to hide their Muslim neighbours on threat of having their homes bombed.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
But as the CIA advised, the Israeli confidence that a military victory would lead to regime change was and is farcical. For nearly 50 years the internationally agreed response to Iran has been containment, not regime change. Looks like Trump might be heading back towards containment despite his bluster.
I agree that regime change was farcical if that was indeed the plan. ( Like I said, that source is very suss).
I'm not sure regime change has ever worked anywhere in the world, has it?
You can weaken the regime but it's up to the people to make the change happen.
I think the old monarchy guy said "we're ready to move in if the Islamic guard surrenders" but that wasn't going to happen.
I imagine the regime is too brutal to allow any kind of democratic process to go ahead so people that could change things are afraid. Which is fair enough. The regime has a habit of killing your family if you're against them.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
I'm not sure it is a given. A good argument can be made that Israel is the main culprit, providing the definition of "terrorism" isn't limited to non-state actors. There are regular acts of terrorism committed in the West Bank by settler groups. The current bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon, and the destruction of Gaza over the last couple of years, meets many of the definitions of terrorism.
It all comes down to whether it is self defence or not doesn't it?
At least the Israeli government are regularly telling people in Lebanon to leave certain areas where they are targeting Hezbollah.
Comments
Australia, for a start, is not a cruel authoritarian regime that declares death to the west and Israel and would not attack its neighbouring allies and hold hostage the global economy.
We are much better than that.
As for Trump being TACO, you really can't have your cake and eat it too.
Iran will restock, probably through the help of China and Russia (tried to link to a report from CNN about China help Iran but couldn't manage it).
The US may break the ceasefire because they can see this happening. But I doubt there will be boots on the ground because no one wants their children killed and decaptitating the nuclear and military arsenals to slow Iran down for a while is enough of a goal.
Israel will continue to fight Iran's proxies in self defence as is their right.
Eventually, countries may grow a spine and make the straight of hormuz safe again.
He's a Brit with a new book out.
A review of his book:
Apps’ central thesis is that global conflict is no longer defined by clear declarations of war or singular battlefields. Instead, the world has entered an era of “grey-zone” warfare—characterised by cyberattacks, economic coercion, proxy conflicts, misinformation, and limited military engagements that stop short of full-scale war. Drawing on examples from Ukraine, the South China Sea, the Middle East, and NATO–Russia relations, Apps shows how major powers deliberately operate below the threshold that would trigger a conventional global response.
I think Iran is another proxy war like Ukraine.
And how about the Brits realising Russia were spying on their underwater cables and pipelines and could do eff all about it?
What was it you wanted me to learn? I think the reason for the war is pretty obvious.
It's a retaliation for the October 7 attacks and somehow Israel managed to get the US involved.
That's the bit I still don't understand. The Zionist stuff and "and the US government is controlled by wealthy Jews stuff" just sounds like conspiracy theories to me.
But Iran as a long standing threat to the world and the Middle East so the US got involved when opportune makes sense as per previous US presidents saying something must be done about Iran and Trump the only one to have the guts to do it.
Has he stopped Russia and China rearming Iran as soon as they want? And he had boasted that he had destroyed their nuclear capability last year.
What could you learn from the link? Here are a couple of pointers.
CIA. Israel’s belief that regime change would follow military success was “farcical”.
Strait of Hormuz. Continued safe passage of oil was dependent on regime change
Trump could have taken that on board but he preferred to hear and accept the more optimistic bellicose noises from Israel and Hegseth.
That’s proved to be a strategic error.
I suppose the other thing is that the decision was made without any prior consultation with, or notification of, NATO. Yet Trump berates NATO for not being more active in supporting the USA re the Strait of Hormuz.
Truth is that if he’d consulted NATO they would have said don’t do it, not least because of the effective control even a damaged Iran can exercise over the Strait.
I don’t think he showed guts. Just strategic stupidity.
As @Alan Cresswell has accurately observed, the threat of even one drone or missile blowing up one tanker shows the power of even a damaged Iran.
You have to imagine them because they don't actually exist. There is no evidence that Trump could win at draughts nevermind 4-dimensional geo-political chess. Why would you assume he had good reasons to do something when there is no sign of those reasons even 8 years later?
Any mariners who navigate the Strait will be brave people indeed - who wants to be the first to be blown up? And yet, Iran is offering safe passage to the ships of its friends...
Naval experts among you will know whether or not these mines can be detected in time to avoid collision, explosion, and possible sinking...but I feel sorry for the crews of the ships still stuck in the area - apparently, the stress is really taking its toll as regards the mariners' mental health.
The doctrine of realism in international relations says that states do whatever they believe is necessary to survive. If they don't they don't survive. (Extreme realism would say that everything a state does is ultimately motivated by power and survival.) The extreme version is controversial but the moderate version is widely held by most foreign offices. In short, I find it unlikely that any nation, however democratic, would be restrained by the prospect of damage to the world economy if its survival were at stake.
That implies that having cake and eating it are the only options. There are others. For example a state can do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Consider two axes: sensible vs foolish and guts vs no guts: That's four options.
Sensible, guts or no guts: doesn't start war that does more harm than good;
Foolish, no guts: starts stupid war, when they don't meet with immediate success they bluster, announce victory, and cast around for a way out that saves face;
Foolish, guts: starts stupid war, doubles down.
In the circumstances, given that Trump is acting stupidly anyway, it's probably better for the world that he has no guts than that he doubles down. But that doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reason.
Trump and Israel "set back Iran's nuclear plans years if not decades" last year. Maybe it didn't actually work last time after all? But this time it definitely worked?
Which, from the point of view of those in charge, is a feature rather than a bug. Netanyahu has a long history of preferring his opponents to be extremists rather than reasonable people because it's easier to get away with slaughtering them and everyone in their neighbourhood.
Word is they didn't hang around very long once they'd been rumbled.
Odd as it may sound, snooping at another country's infrastructure doesn't in and of itself comprise a violation of international law - yes, I was surprised at that too.
One of the things I noticed during my visit to Australia was how unbalanced the right-wing or centre-right media over there is when reporting UK news. My relatives lapped it up for goodness sake and I had to keep putting them straight and calling bollocks on it.
That doesn't mean I don't think we've allowed our navy to get into a parlous state or that we're managing everything just fine.
But it does mean I take exception to half-arsed and highly partial coverage from right the other side of the world who don't understand Europe, don't understand the UK and who don't make a great deal of effort to find out.
Some right-wing Aussies told me that the US and its European allies should have supplied Zelensky with Cruise Missiles which would have allowed him to demolish Moscow.
Yeah right.
As if Putin's warheads aren't aimed at Manchester. Has he got any aimed at Melbourne?
It's easy to pontificate when you're way over on the other side of the world.
Which isn't to say that Australia isn't affected by any of this, of course.
Now how is that supposed to work? If the tankers refuse to stop is the US going to fire on them?
It all sounds a bit "I'm not stuck in here with you. You're stuck in here with ME", doesn't it?
🤣🤣
Excellent!
Unfortunately, they may decide to shoot their way out of it, by committing more war crimes (apparently just threatening to destroy civilian infrastructure is a war crime...).
I note that the UK is unwilling to assist the US in its 'blockade', but may well help with minesweeping:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/12/wes-streeting-attacks-trump-outrageous-iran-war-rhetoric
The US president also threatened to bomb Iran’s water treatment facilities, power plants and bridges, repeating an earlier threat, if Tehran does not agree to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, the key sticking point between the two sides.
(From today's Guardian).
If China could not supply Iran directly, then it could supply arms via Pakistan. It would be a faff shifting goods on by land, but China is Pakistan’s largest arms supplier.
Correct me if I am wrong, I do not see much of a good road from Pakistan to Iran, and even if China could supply Iran through Pakistan, it would not be all that hard to destroy the routes if Trump decided to step on the toes of an ally.
Map seems to show Taftan--Mirjaveh--Zahedan
Checked on the internet. The road condition is basically good. The border crossings can close suddenly. At least in Pakistan traffic depends on armed escorts
https://www.lostwithpurpose.com/report-crossing-the-border-from-iran-to-pakistan-at-mirjaveh-taftan/?utm_source=copilot.com
I note the disclaimer
But, despite the Strait being very narrow it's still a large area of water. Which does mean that removing all mines, and knowing that they have all been removed, is very challenging. What's probably going to happen is that minesweepers need to clear some particular areas to provide mine-free routes while not stating areas to either side of these passages are mine free, and to regularly patrol these passages to catch any mines that might drift into these areas (or, patrol just outside these areas for that purpose, and ultimately expand the safe areas).
To note the difficulties, during both world wars in Europe very large numbers of mines were laid in the English Channel and North Sea by both British and German navies as part of the blockades both sides tried to enforce (and, also for specific purposes such as mine fields laid either side of the D-Day armada to protect those ships from German naval forces). We still quite regularly have mines washed ashore along the coasts of nations bordering those seas.
Only an idiot would consider that failure to reach an agreement in a few hours is a failure of negotiation. Certainly anyone who doesn't recognise that they need to let their staff get on with the months of work needed has no idea of the art of making a deal.
In the Hebrides too. We get a mine washed up every year or two, necessitating a visit from an explosives team for a controlled explosion.
You've got that right. Iran certainly doesn't play by the rules.
What would you suggest as a solution? Leaving Iran to develop nuclear weapons and its huge missile and drone arsenal isn't a solution.
But you're missing the main point, which is how to deal with the largest state exporter of terror, not to mention terror within.
Of course NATO would say no as they have bugger all resources without the US) as would the UN (China and Russia would of course veto).
The UN were happy to see the genocide of some 800,000 Rwandans and just stand aside. It's a rubbish paper tiger.
( By the way, that article seems pretty suss. You've got leakage of national security issues going on there, to sell a book. I imagine if it were true, it wouldn't be publishable. Good article to sell a book tho.)
Australia has strategic alliances with western countries that share its values. If we were attacked by China, the hope is those allies would come to our defence. Iran is an authoritarian regime that has no morals and can only get defence and supplies from "shadow fleets" from Russia and China and others that oppose the west.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
You're premises for your other options on the cake and eat it too discussion is heavily laden with the presumption Trump is an idiot.
So the TACO discussion is still you trying to have your cake and it too. Trump is an idiot to star the war and a coward for withdrawing. That's fine. But you can't have it both ways.
As for setting back Iran's nuclear plans last year. Yes I imagine it did some. But have you noticed they have a huge other arsenal that they are wreaking havoc with? That's part of the problem. Certainly from an Israeli perspective.
Which they weren't doing until they were attacked. The Israeli perspective is currently conducting ethnic cleansing in Southern Lebanon, which is a few steps beyond anything the Iranian government is doing.
Yup.
That's what the CNN and New York Times is saying.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
But as the CIA advised, the Israeli confidence that a military victory would lead to regime change was and is farcical. For nearly 50 years the internationally agreed response to Iran has been containment, not regime change. Looks like Trump might be heading back towards containment despite his bluster.
Actual negotiations by competent people rather than clueless Trumpists. Heck, not shredding the agreement back in 2018 would have sufficed. All of this stems from Trump's deranged envy of Obama (and before you try it, no I'm no fan of Obama either, but he at least is bright enough to understand consequences of actions).
That the Iranian regime is brutal and oppressive and supports and exports terrorism is a given.
If we need any 'own voice' testimonial about how bad Hezbollah can be speak to Lebanese Christians as I have done. Not that their record is particularly squeaky-clean either, but the world doesn't always neatly divide into good guys and bad guys.
The Iranian regime are bad guys.
Netanyahu is also a bad guy.
Trump is a bad guy.
I don't know where that leaves us other than between a rock and a hard place.
You have a point. I’m no fan of Israel. I’m pretty content with Gamaliel’s bad guy summary.
@WhimsicalChristian
Trump has made a personal and vicious attack on Pope Leo. He posted on Truth Social (then deleted) a Messianic image of himself. I read a report that he had called the Iranian leadership “deranged scumbags” who he had the honour to kill.
Do you think this was gutsy behaviour by the President of the United States? Do you think it was truthful? Do you think it was wise?
The only way I see that it's having cake and eating it, is if you're claiming that starting a war, spending billions of dollars, killing hundreds of people, and throttling the world oil and fertiliser supplies, and then withdrawing, amounts to the same as not starting the war in the first place. It does not amount to the same.
And no, the thought that Trump was idiotic to start the war is not a presumption. (I don't believe I said Trump was an idiot. I said the war was stupid and foolish. Trump did a stupid and foolish thing. It's a subtle difference but important.) It's a claim that starting the war has achieved little to nothing of strategic value to the US, has done little to nothing to reduce the actual threat Iran poses to its neighbors, has done little to nothing to reduce Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons (judging by Iran's terms in the negotiations and the US reaction), has set back Iran's internal opposition by decades, and has prompted Iran to take de facto possession of the Strait of Hormuz which it had not done before, has cost the US billions of dollars, has weakened the US' commitments in areas where it does have strategic interests (such as Taiwan and Ukraine), and has weakened the relations of the US with its allies. That's not a presumption. That's a judgement of events.
By the way, see the thread I started in the Styx about the procedure for questioning hosting decisions here. If I have attacked you personally, rather than the way you conduct your arguments, then I apologise.
I don't see any evidence for ethnic cleansing in Lebanon.
Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah.
There's none so blind as them that will not see.
The IDF literally warned Christian families not to hide their Muslim neighbours on threat of having their homes bombed.
I agree that regime change was farcical if that was indeed the plan. ( Like I said, that source is very suss).
I'm not sure regime change has ever worked anywhere in the world, has it?
You can weaken the regime but it's up to the people to make the change happen.
I think the old monarchy guy said "we're ready to move in if the Islamic guard surrenders" but that wasn't going to happen.
I imagine the regime is too brutal to allow any kind of democratic process to go ahead so people that could change things are afraid. Which is fair enough. The regime has a habit of killing your family if you're against them.
It all comes down to whether it is self defence or not doesn't it?
At least the Israeli government are regularly telling people in Lebanon to leave certain areas where they are targeting Hezbollah.