Summerinsiam

They will be able to sustain the war militarily, possibly at the expense of Ukraine and South Korea. However, the Iranians are unconcerned by this as they are waging an asymmetrical campaign. Their targeting of the oil supply, the Gulf state's economies, and the economic pain around the world will be the biggest factor in forcing TACO Trump to abandon his illegal folly. It will not be the obvious military superiority of the US and Israelis that Iran was under no allusions about.

What about the thousands of children murdered in Gaza? Is that tragic too?

No, while children were undoubtedly killed in the attack, they did not explicitly kill babies. That was exposed as atrocity propaganda.

So true. While Trump is portrayed at the forefront of this illegal action, it is above all yet another Israeli war in the region, which it continues to destabilise with its endless militarism and unbridled pursuit of hegemony. Not only does it fulfill Israeli strategic objectives more than that of the Americans, even Rubio has confirmed that the strikes were initiated by the Israelis. Not content with his genocidal onslaught in Gaza, and terrified that the west would forge a diplomatic deal with Iran, Bibi is now fulfilling his lifelong 'dream' of making war on Iran with US involvement, having suckered Trump yet again. And to hell with the region, rules based order, and the rest of the world's economy.

Not according to the analysts, who are saying that even if the war ends tomorrow the price will not return to the lows of January. Traders will charge a premium to cover their costs, in the likelihood of an ongoing, on and off conflict. The world will be able to thank Trump, and his war mongering whisperer Netanyahu, for an unwelcome spike in inflation, higher prices and overall slower growth. If it drags on all bets are off.

I am well aware what Iran has been upto as you put it, and that it is a brutal, heinous regime. That does not detract from the fact that the attack had no legal justification, and in this regard is no different from the Russian attack on Ukraine. You obviously missed the point. The world cannot be governed like the wild west, by those with the biggest guns, and at the whim of the likes of Trump and Netanyahu. If you had any knowledge of history you would know what happened in Iraq, Libya and the rest, where US intervention has ended in disaster. History has proven that you cannot instigate regime change without boots on the ground. Its obvious that you have no knowledge of this.

An idiotic decision, that has the fingerprints of serial war monger and criminal Netanyahu all over it. It was clearly not pr-emptive but a war of choice, with no legal justification. They did it because they could. While it will likely result in a limited conflict until Iran exhausts its missile supply there is clearly no endgame. The Americans never seem to learn, with the clueless Trump now following Bush down the rabbit hole. Even if he is dead, it will be meaningless, as he named four successors and will likely be replaced by one of them or hardline members of the revolutionary guard. There will be no liberal democracy, just like there wasn't in Iraq or in Libya, which is still a failed state. But of course, Bibi, who thinks it will boost his re-election and keep him out of jail, and Trump and his useful idiots Rubio and Hegseth think they know better.

This allegation is not new and has been around for years. Never proven and likely an urban myth.

He is a hipocrite, who used his platform at Manchester United to effectively campaign for Farage, because he knows that as one of the super rich he would directly benefit from a Reform government. He is not a private person. If he wanted to score political points, he should have at least checked his statistics which were patently inaccurate, if not deliberately fake. What is true is that in 2020, when he moved his fortune to Monaco and avoided paying the British state (which he professes to love) an estimated four billion pounds, hard-working immigrants contributed an estimated twenty billion to the British economy.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

There will be no general election if Starmer is ousted as seems likely, just like there was not in the previous Tory govenment, with its constant procession of unelected leaders. Whoever replaces him will inherit a huge majority, and three more years to change direction and improve the fortunes of the country.

Well said. I have made this important point several times, to no avail. It is highly misleading and serves a political agenda.

Starmer is a dead man walking and he knows it. If Labour are wiped out in the May elections as expected, there will be a leadership challenge whether he likes it or not. There must be a change in direction and personnel if they are to stop voter defection to the Greens, and counter the existential threat that Reform pose to the future of the country.

Pathetic decision from Starmer and the N.E.C, which will undoubtedly come back to bite them if Labour loses the seat to either Reform or the Greens.

You forgot China and much of the non-aligned global south who refuse to swallow the west's hypocrisy and blatant double standards, concerning their discretionary application of the 'rules based international order.'

A complete non-starter as it has being repeatedly ruled out by the Russians. Just a desperate attempt by Starmer and Macron ( who will be out of power next year) to remain relevant, when the only voice that really matters is on the other side of the Atlantic.

Too true. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, with increasing numbers of people waking up to this act of national self-harm. The ridiculous claim, that is becuse it hasn't been implemented properly is mostly from those who are unable to admit they were wrong or at best misled. Reform has no real policies, save blaming immigrants for everything, while serving the interests of the rich, and the racist Farage is not a viable candidate for Prime Minister. The local councils they control have been a disaster and outside their flagshagger base, they are not treated as a serious proposition.

Yes, indeed. The House of Representative's January 6th committee alredy concluded that Trump used his speech to incite a riot.

Legal experts across the board concur that Trump has little chance of success with his absurd arguments and financial demands, but of course it has nothing to do with money. He is sueing the BBC for the same reason he is taking a number of news organisations (incluing the New York Times) to court: so that he can intimidate the media and alongside the likes of his pal Musk, subvert information and take control of the narrative. To its immense credit the BBC is having none of his self-serving bluster, narcissism, and bullying tatics.

Delusional nonsense

There is no equivocation between the two scenarios, despite you constantly inferring there is, in numerous posts on this topic. Any comparison is lazy, misleading and historically inaccurate, however neatly you think it fits your viewpoint. You think Putin is the new Hitler, right? Brush up on your history and please try harder.

Agreed. Also stop having endless, pointless meetings with Zelenskey and parroting his selfish, self-serving narrative. There will be no progress in a negotiated settlement until he is prepared to get real, and make difficult territorial concessions. The Russians have never veered from this position. It is just dangerous, disingenuous, hyperbole, designed to terrify the populace of Europe into swallowing an increase in defense spending, which they can ill afford. The crazy talk of conscription and the like has already been given the response that it deserved in several of these European countries. Young people are rightly not prepared to entertain such nonsense. While Russia is engaging in a hybrid war, no NATO member (including the Baltic Republics), is in danger of a Russian invasion. Indeed, most of the current enmity from Russia towards the west is a direct consequence of its fueling of the conflict and propagation of its misguided proxy war. Before the conflict such talk was unheard of.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 40/100 My Time 69 seconds  

Firstly, the article is misleading as it says 'could' and not 'will'. There is a huge difference. That aside, he has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and his threats are nuclear and not conventional. Without this he would never have invaded Ukraine to begin with. It was always his insurance, as a nuclear power can never really be completely defeated or coerced into doing something it does not want to. A fact well understood by Kim Jong Un and the Iranian theocracy. That's why Ukraine"s maximalist demands have always been delusional. It is highly unlikely he would ever attack a NATO country directly with conventional forces, despite Zelensky and Kallas's flawed self-serving rhetoric, and no amount of conventional rearmament and 'conscription' by the west will nullify the nuclear threat. It is widely understood that there can never be a conventional war between two nuclear armed combatants as it would eventually turn nuclear. The doctrine Of Mutually Assured Destruction has served its purpose well, up to now. Western military leaders know this, but now openly talk about it been a likely possibility. It is pure madness. When the silos open what will these conscripts do?

No, we don't need them. Long live the republic!