RayC

Now I know that it's a long thread and it's easy and understandable that some posts might be missed, but I must say I'm surprised that you haven't noticed the rebuttals of the OP and the article that it links to. There are rather a lot of them.

The effects of the Tories' austerity policies, Brexit, COVID and the Ukraine war on the economy continue to be felt to various degrees. The effect of the war in Iran a more immediate added problem.

By your own admission, Iran has been chanting, 'Death to America' for 47 years and yet ... nothing: Iran has been two weeks away from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons since 2018 (see the link posted by @nauseus ) and yet ... nothing: This war was undertaken because Iran presented an imminent threat to the US, and yet .... nothing. So what next now that the threat from Iran has presumably been nullified? A ground war to install a new US friendly regime or just leave Iran in tatters and tell them to get over it? A new adventure in Cuba because Trump has decided that country also needs to be 'cleansed' of its' existing regime for the benefit of mankind? Or maybe he'll just decide to make the world a better place by resuming his economic war on the rest of us?

In that case, I guess that I get the final word in our exchange. This Iranian regime may be similar to Nazi Germany, Mao's China and Stalin's Russia in having a disregard for human life in order to retain power. If so, then it shares that trait with a number of other recent dictators e.g Videla, Allende, Batista, Marcos, etc. Many of these dictators were recognised by the US, Indeed many were installed - at the expense of the democratically elected government - with the support of the US. You keep trying to claim the moral high ground for Trump/ the US in this war when it simply doesn't exist.

But going that avenue also has its' dangers: We can't prove X but we're pretty sure that it's happening, therefore we are going to war, force regime change, etc. No easy answers but I don't buy this idea being implied by some (not you) that Trump is some sort of knight in shining armour who is saving the world.

The price of Brent crude was $66/barrel on 26 February - the day before the war broke out - it is now $99/barrel, a 50% rise in the price. So yes, the Iran conflict is having - and will continue to have - an effect on inflation in the UK. It would be surprising if it didn't.

The Battle of Britain was a very important victory in the fight against Germany - imo an essential one without which the outcome of WW2 may well have been different - but it certainly did not in itself win the war.

Iran is at war. Having had its' military capabilities severely compromised it is using the other tools available to it i.e. economic. Why should that be a surprise? That is not appeasement or an endorsement of the Iranian regime, it is merely what I consider to be a statement of the obvious

Perhaps not but presumably that was because such inspections were outside of the terms of JCPOA. "Until July 2019, all official reports and statements from the United Nations, European Union, the IAEA, and the non-U.S. participating governments indicated that Iran had fulfilled its JCPOA and related Resolution 2231 requirements" (Source: Congress.gov)

Maybe but that hasn't stopped Trump claiming it now.

It is absolutely possible that the IAEA was hoodwinked but it falls on those making the accusation to prove it, something that imo the article to which you linked fails to do. The evidence provided is, at best, circumstantial e.g. the finding of written documentation and, at worse, irrelevant e.g. the views of the US public about JCPOA.

It's not appeasing aggression and murderous ways. I am simply apportioning blame for the current situation squarely on the shoulders of Donald Trump. As I said previously, imo the US leaving JCPOA in 2018 is the underlying reason why we are in the position we now find ourselves. There is no doubt that Iran's position hardened after the dissolution of JCPOA. Whether this would have been inevitable even if JCPOA was in operation is obviously unknown, but if it had then early action - up to and including military intervention - would have been justified and may well have had the support of Russia and China as signatories to JCPOA. The answer to how it got to this stage - i.e. an authoritarian fundamentalist government grabbing power - had little to do with leftists appeasing terror and much to do with US and UK interference; something that is true of the wider region. Perhaps history will be kind to Trump and conclude that he had no choice but to act now, and his actions in Iran ultimately benefitted the world. However, at this moment in time he certainly doesn't hold the moral high ground.

There have been any number of authoritarian regimes since the 1930s and the US has cherry picked which ones are 'good' (most right-wing South American juntas) and which ones are 'bad' (most left-wing administrations anywhere), so let's not pretend that the US's actions in Iran have much to do with a philosophical dislike of authoritarianism. The world has managed to live with Iran - albeit uncomfortably at times - since 1984 so what's changed? If as you say, it is the possibility that Iran now has enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon then the question must be asked, 'How did it get to this stage?' Imo a significant contributory factor was Trump withdrawing from JCPOA, an agreement which according to the independent monitoring authority was succeeding in its' objectives e.g. to prevent Iran from developing weapons grade uranium. This appears to be something that Trump supporters are unwilling and/or unable to acknowledge.

"Again, as with most of the other limited number of opinion pieces I start topics with, no one here will be able to dispute the assertions therein ..." Somewhat misplaced arrogance, old boy. (You really should pick your sources more carefully. Alister Heath is rarely reliable or correct). I will - once again - counter your assertions: Error 1: Heath contradicts himself. While lauding the US's destruction of Iran, he admits that, "I don’t know how this war will end", so leaving open the possibility that all this destruction and economic turmoil caused by it is all for nothing. What kind of victory is that? Error 2: Hardly a convincing argument. The author implies that Trump has some sort of Master Plan and that " .. the idea that Iran would move to block the Straits of Hormuz was the best-rehearsed risk in geopolitics". If that is the case then - given the ongoing problems in the Straits - that plan has gone horribly wrong. Error 3: The degrading - rather than removal - of Iran's military capabilities and of the regime is now counted as success? This is moving the goalposts: Total destruction of Iran's military capabilities and regime change were the original objectives. Error 4: The error was including this section. Heath's argument amounts to some of Trump's opponents use contradictory arguments against him, therefore Trump must be right: I think that the problem here is obvious. Error 5: If 'Error 4' was embarrassing, Error 5 plunges even lower depths of logic! The fight against Putin is justified, therefore the fight against the Iranian regime must also be justified!!! Part of this justification seems to depend on the cost of 'net zero'????? .... No, me neither. Error 6: No doubt anti-semites are against Trump's actions but that, in itself, is obviously and clearly no justification for a war: Heath suggests that Israel will stop this war when Trump says stop. There is little indication that will be the case. Error 7: An obvious rebuttal comes to mind. Unfortunately, there are no end of countries where human rights are abused. Why isn't military action taken against Myanmar for example? Or China? Or Russia? Obviously, any action against the latter two nations would get very messy but that shows the fragility of trying to play the 'moral' card to justify this war.

Perhaps Tottenham's Japanese fans are worried about their team's precarious PL status?😁

For an organisation that operates on a not-for-profit basis FIFA makes a lot of non-profit. Although dated (2015), this article gives an indication of how wealthy FIFA is: https://www.dw.com/en/fifas-controversial-business-model/a-18479441

Didn't Trump declare victory last week? I think that you may getting your numbering, 'estates' and 'columns' mixed up.

I don't doubt that the proportions have changed since 2022, but it is extremely unlikely that they have changed so much that Muslims are now the largest single religious group in London: If that were the case, I've absolutely no doubt that Rupert Lowe (among others) would have mentioned it. Returning to the topic: I've no idea if Iran possess a bomb capable of reaching London but even if London was a predominantly 'Muslim City' (it isn't), I doubt that it would offer any protection. Just ask the other Gulf States

Well, that depends on your definition of "Muslim City". I'd say it's when Muslims formed an overall majority, but I guess that you could argue it's when they form the largest single religious group. Either way, London is not currently a 'Muslim City'. Happy to help. Key Facts on Religion in London (2021 Census): Christian: 40.7% No Religion: 27.1% Muslim: 15.0% Hindu: 5.1% Other/Not Stated: 12.1%

With any luck Orban and Fidesz will be out of power by 13 April.

What or who are the Third Column? Guess shares are up. And?

For an adversary with "no cards to play", Iran isn't doing too badly in causing unease in the region and economic instability throughout the world, although I accept the counter argument that Trump can manage to create havoc without any assistance is a very strong one.

Apparently, according to some pundits, Trump does have a strategy. He is following the Madman theory: "The madman theory is a foreign policy strategy where a leader projects irrationality and volatility to make adversaries believe they might take extreme, unpredictable action—such as nuclear war—thereby forcing concessions. Popularized by Richard Nixon to end the Vietnam War, this approach aims to make threats more credible by appearing unconstrained by rational deterrence." (Source: Google AI) Imo one fundamental problem with this theory is that, "(It was) Popularized by Richard Nixon to end the Vietnam War ...". That's meant to be supporting evidence?

What happened? Have you been infused with the spirit of John Lennon ('Give Peace a Chance')? I thought that you were all in favour of bombing Iran into oblivion?

A bit of context might help. The UK could (probably) have got any deal that it wanted (for a price), but had no idea itself what it wanted because Brexit was so ill-conceived and lacked any sort of coherent plan other than a lame meaningless slogan: 'Brexit means Brexit'. During the negotiations, the UK tried to drive a wedge between the EU member states. The move failed but, fair enough, it was a negotiating ploy. Why then be surprised if the EU negotiators sought to exploit their advantages? Having ruled out remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union, the border on the island of Ireland presented an enormous problem: Obviously you can't have a border and not have a border simultaneously, but that seemingly obvious truism escaped Brexiter's notice, as did the possibility that the 'Good Friday Agreement' might be affected. The Brexiters' solutions? The RoI can adjust it's relationship within the EU. Needless to say, neither the RoI nor the EU agreed to that. Another "solution": Move the physical border! I think that this emoji says everything about that idea🤦. The responsibility for the whole farce that is Brexit - and its' negative effects on the UK - rests squarely with no one else than those who argued for it.