2 hours ago, nick supreme said:

I am genuinely encouraged to see the Labour Party championing the values of Muslim democracy. This commitment not only fosters inclusivity but also instills pride among Muslims everywhere in Keir Starmer's leadership.

Nothing to do with that. The government would take the same action if the US wanted to use British bases to carpet bomb Vietnam or Greenland. They would examine the imminant threat to the UK of Eskimos and street food sellers, and make the appropriate decision.

Strange all these alleged Trump supporters now calling for an illegal war. Maybe they are not who they seem.

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

When did Russia attack the UK?

Salisbury, London. Now back to your lunch in Moscow, Comrade. You still have to finish your shift over on Mumsnet.

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Didn't stop your hero Blair though, did it?

I seem to recall you were supportive of him sticking his nose into the Russia/Ukraine conflict though. More hypocrisy.

More ignorance from the Moscow stooge. Article 51 of the UN Charter. That provision allows a state that has been attacked to defend itself and to request assistance from other states. The UK has consistently framed its support as assistance given at the request of Ukraine in the exercise of its lawful right of self-defence against aggression by Russia.

14 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Incorrect. HMG is acting in accordance with British Law. Are you encouraging that the government shouldn act illegally for foreign demands?

There is no evidence, as you intimate, that the United Kingdom has entered into a Mutual Defence Pact with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such a charge is libelous, scurrilous, disgusting and something I expect frm a Communist sympathiser or a paid/unpaid stooeg of Russia or the People's Republic of China. People like you, with your cryptic communist tendancies, seek to undermine our way of life with your repetitive filth. You pretend to be conservative, but you are not. You are a snake in the grass.

What? This makes no sense.

46 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Incorrect. HMG is acting in accordance with British Law. Are you encouraging that the government shouldn act illegally for foreign demands?

There is no evidence, as you intimate, that the United Kingdom has entered into a Mutual Defence Pact with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such a charge is libelous, scurrilous, disgusting and something I expect frm a Communist sympathiser or a paid/unpaid stooeg of Russia or the People's Republic of China. People like you, with your cryptic communist tendancies, seek to undermine our way of life with your repetitive filth. You pretend to be conservative, but you are not. You are a snake in the grass.

You are William Ulsterman and I claim my £5000

7 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Agree but he's basically already gone. The end of woke progressivist parties in England is nigh.

The Labour party will be in government until at least 2029. In the interim, the Tory rejects that have joined Farage's AfE party will cause it to implode.

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's getting confusing. Right wing communists and left wing fascists?

Join me with the Red/Browns - who would be National Socialists before Hitler ruined it for us.

Only natural for Islamic nations to stand up for each other. Not sure why anyone would be surprised.

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

UK reportedly blocks Trump using British RAF bases for Iran strike

What I have read in the news is that some middle east countries have given trump a similar message.

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The same people running it now, less the top leadership.

What does that even mean? That the second tier of mullahs should take over? That's meant to be an improvement?

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who is running Venezuela now?

Good question but why is that relevant to a discussion about a future post-conflict Iran unless you expect the same people - whoever they might be - to run Iran and Venezuela simultaneously?

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There are none, why should there be?

Why should there be plans for democratic elections post-conflict in Iran? I would have thought that the answer was obvious unless you believe that swapping one autocracy for another is a good idea.

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Security for who?

Security for the Iranian people. If the US is going to depose the Iranian government don't you think that they have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of ordinary Iranians?

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How is security being handled now?

For better or worse security is currently being handled by the Iranian government which is currently in situ.

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What transition?

Presumably if the US affect a regime change there will need to be a transition to a new government or do you think that things will somehow fall seamlessly into place overnight?

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you know it was overlooked?

If the chaos that followed the war in Iraq was as a result of some master plan then I can only conclude that the objectives were flawed.

So far all you done is answer my questions with questions. How about discarding the deviation and having a go at addressing them directly? For ease of reference, I'll repost them here again:

What plans does the US have for Iran post-conflict?

In particular,

Who will run the country post-conflict? What are the plans for democratic elections post-conflict?

How will security be maintained in Iran in the interim?

What's the timetable for any transition to a future new administration?

A simple "I don't know" to each question is acceptable and honest.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

What I have read in the news is that some middle east countries have given trump a similar message.

Is Starmer now allowing middle east countries to dictate whether or not the US can use RAF bases?

11 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

The Labour party will be in government until at least 2029. In the interim, the Tory rejects that have joined Farage's AfE party will cause it to implode.

Talk about buyers regret. 3 more years of the most unpopular government. No way Starmer can keep holding the reigns.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is Starmer now allowing middle east countries to dictate whether or not the US can use RAF bases?

No!

The UK believes that as Trump could be deemed to be breaking international law by attacking IRAN the approval of the UK could also see the UK being held accountable.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

What does that even mean? That the second tier of mullahs should take over? That's meant to be an improvement?

Yes

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Good question but why is that relevant to a discussion about a future post-conflict Iran unless you expect the same people - whoever they might be - to run Iran and Venezuela simultaneously?

No.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Why should there be plans for democratic elections post-conflict in Iran? I would have thought that the answer was obvious unless you believe that swapping one autocracy for another is a good idea.

What is the obvious answer?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Security for the Iranian people. If the US is going to depose the Iranian government don't you think that they have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of ordinary Iranians?

Why do you mean by government?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

For better or worse security is currently being handled by the Iranian government which is currently in situ.

And mostly will remain as such.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Presumably if the US affect a regime change there will need to be a transition to a new government or do you think that things will somehow fall seamlessly into place overnight?

Why do you assume there has to be a new government?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

If the chaos that followed the war in Iraq was as a result of some master plan then I can only conclude that the objectives were flawed.

A lot of people abandoned the cause.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

So far all you done is answer my questions with questions. How about discarding the deviation and having a go at addressing them directly? For ease of reference, I'll repost them here again:

And so far, all you've done is make baseless assumptions.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

What plans does the US have for Iran post-conflict?

In particular,

Who will run the country post-conflict? What are the plans for democratic elections post-conflict?

How will security be maintained in Iran in the interim?

What's the timetable for any transition to a future new administration?

A simple "I don't know" to each question is acceptable and honest.

Why do you assume the entire government has to be removed to get rid of the nuclear program, stop the killing of protestors, and improve human rights? I do not the Trump Administration wants to get into the business of nation building.

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

No!

The UK believes that as Trump could be deemed to be breaking international law by attacking IRAN the approval of the UK could also see the UK being held accountable.

What international law is being broken?

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Iran is not threatening the UK.

Really?

"The Director General of MI5 recently stated that since the start of 2022 the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents. And it is targeting media organisations and journalists reporting on the violent oppression of the regime.

It is also no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of targeting Jewish and Israeli people internationally by the Iranian Intelligence Services.

It is clear that these plots are a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime to stifle criticism through intimidation and fear."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/protecting-national-security

With what I have read, the Americans already have a lot of firepower in the area, with one aircraft carrier and another one on it way, plus all they support vessels, plus submarines that we do not know about, is that enough?

Yes, Iran has a lot of missiles and drones; they have been stockpiling, they should be taken care of without to much of a problem.

Starmer is right, let Trump sort it out. It was he who pulled out of the original nuclear treaty with Iran, about the only treaty that nearly all the world's big powers have agreed on.

2 minutes ago, kickstart said:

With what I have read, the Americans already have a lot of firepower in the area, with one aircraft carrier and another one on it way, plus all they support vessels, plus submarines that we do not know about, is that enough?

Yes, Iran has a lot of missiles and drones; they have been stockpiling, they should be taken care of without to much of a problem.

Starmer is right, let Trump sort it out. It was he who pulled out of the original nuclear treaty with Iran, about the only treaty that nearly all the world's big powers have agreed on.

It was never a treaty.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and developing the intercontinental ballistic missile program.

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes

No.

What is the obvious answer?

Why do you mean by government?

And mostly will remain as such.

Why do you assume there has to be a new government?

A lot of people abandoned the cause.

And so far, all you've done is make baseless assumptions.

Why do you assume the entire government has to be removed to get rid of the nuclear program, stop the killing of protestors, and improve human rights? I do not the Trump Administration wants to get into the business of nation building.

The only assumption which I have made is that Trump is willing to see through his threat of "bad things" happening to Iran if it doesn't accede to his demands. I agree that might be 'baseless' as Trump may back down although that looks increasingly unlikely. What other baseless assumptions do you think that I have made?

Wrt your specific points:

1) You think that a second tier of religious fundamentalists will for some unstated reasons be more amenable to US demands than the top tier? Let's just say I'm a lot more skeptical than you.

2) I'm pleased that we can agree that a discussion about the Venezuelan government is tangential to any discussion of post-conflict Iran.

3) A benevolent dictatorship might be a good form of government but the problem is that benevolent dictators are pretty thin on the ground. Therefore, imo democracy - imperfect as it may be - is preferable to autocracy.

4) "A government is a noun referring to the governing body, organization, or system of individuals that exercises authority, control, and administration over a political unit, such as a state, nation, or city. It can be treated as a singular or plural collective noun, often capitalized when referring to a specific entity." (Source: Google AI)

5) If the Iranian government does not accede to Trump's demands and Trump does not back down, there will have to be regime change. What is the alternative? As I said in my last post, unless you think that there will be a seamless transition from the deposed government to a as yet unformed, undefined new government, somebody will have to do take on civil duties such as security in the interim. Given that the US will have instigated the regime change, I'd suggest that they have those responsibilities.

6) Post-war Iraq descended into chaos because, "a lot of people abandoned the cause". That needs a lot more explanation, not least a definition of what this (common, agreed) cause actually was.

7) If Trump doesn't want the responsibility of nation building then he should refrain from affecting regime change.

Would be interesting to see that carrier sunk. The ragheads can have interesting tricks.

The was a time before 2025 were I wouldn't have posted that...

Some low value posts and replies have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

Remember the embassy siege when the sas had to go into the embassy after they shot some cops and clear em out and it lie empty for years

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ve presented yet another one of your non sequitur.

I was not in favor of Trump unilaterally pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear weapons treaty with Iran.

I’m not in favor of any nation arming and funding any military groups in the Middle East.

OK so you are not in favour of arming or funding any military groups in the Middle east. Did you consider the impact of your position? Without the assistance of the US and other western countries, the legitimate governments of Jordan and Lebanon would be over run by Iranian backed radical groups. Egypt which receives US support is a major influence in the middle east and one of the reasons why there hasn't been a pan arab war in decades. The western support of the Gulf states military is vital for international peace and for energy security. The continued support of the Iraq government has kept a lid on the Iranian supported shiite militants who are trying to overthrow the government.

11 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Here we go again interfering in the Middle East under the guise of 'righting wrongs.' My substantive point remains: the UK needs to stay out of foreign adventures, especially in the Middle East. Have we learned nothing from the last 20 years? Israel has been in a cycle of conflict with its neighbours since its inception, and UK meddling hasn't changed that.

If we are in 'save the world' mode, why is the Congo ignored? Six million are dead there, yet it doesn't get a fraction of the 'credence' or intervention we see elsewhere. If we aren't prepared to focus on the world's deadliest humanitarian crises, we should have the humility to stay out of the ones we clearly don't understand. Of course the regime in Iran is repulsive nut it's not the UK's probelme as much as US/Isarel wished it were.

Hail Starmer for keeping out of it. That said he will be helping as much as he can behind the scenes . That's a given. Oh and we sold weapons and gas to Saddam whilst he was fighting Iran which left over a million dead so quit the moralising lectures please

Not righting a wrong. Preventing further wars and mass murder. Iran has been implicated in multiple regional wars and the funding of international terrorism, including attacks and murder of residents of the UK, Australia, Canada, France, USA and Lebanon. It has been asked to stop, and has refused. How else do you stop it?

11 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Here we go again interfering in the Middle East under the guise of 'righting wrongs.' My substantive point remains: the UK needs to stay out of foreign adventures, especially in the Middle East. Have we learned nothing from the last 20 years? Israel has been in a cycle of conflict with its neighbours since its inception, and UK meddling hasn't changed that.

If we are in 'save the world' mode, why is the Congo ignored? Six million are dead there, yet it doesn't get a fraction of the 'credence' or intervention we see elsewhere. If we aren't prepared to focus on the world's deadliest humanitarian crises, we should have the humility to stay out of the ones we clearly don't understand. Of course the regime in Iran is repulsive nut it's not the UK's probelme as much as US/Isarel wished it were.

Hail Starmer for keeping out of it. That said he will be helping as much as he can behind the scenes . That's a given. Oh and we sold weapons and gas to Saddam whilst he was fighting Iran which left over a million dead so quit the moralising lectures please

The use of poison gas by Iraq was a misuse of dual purpose chemicals. You conveniently ignore the fact that the main supplier of the chemicals was Germany and was subject to export controls. Germany is also a current trading partner of Iran. and is not in favour of action. What a surprise...... Back in the day, there was quite a case made to sell to countries like Iraq, as a refusal to do so was anti Arab and discriminatory.

5 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Not righting a wrong. Preventing further wars and mass murder. Iran has been implicated in multiple regional wars and the funding of international terrorism, including attacks and murder of residents of the UK, Australia, Canada, France, USA and Lebanon. It has been asked to stop, and has refused. How else do you stop it?

Oh, so now we care about preventing mass murder? Where was this energy for the million dead in Iraq from our sanctions? The Yemenis starving from Saudi bombs we sold them? Iran funds terrorism - agreed. Know who else does? Half our allies. But those don't threaten Israel, so suddenly we're humanitarians. Let Israel fight it's own wars with it's own money. Iran sits on the world's largest oil reserves and doesn't bow it's knee to Uncle Sam that's the real issue here.

2 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

Would be interesting to see that carrier sunk. The ragheads can have interesting tricks.

The was a time before 2025 were I wouldn't have posted that...

If a carrier goes down it will be the equivalent of a burning M1 Abrams in Ukraine from a $500 drone and something like 27 of the 31 sent have perished in that way. The whole world is watching top see if Trump goes kinetic and if that happens how assymetric warfare works in the 21st century. Hubris is a cruel mistress Blair had Kosovo , Sierra Leone and thought he was God - then came Iraq. Trump is on the same trajectory but Iran is probably 10x more deadly than Saddam and a hell of a lot smarter.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Not righting a wrong. Preventing further wars and mass murder. Iran has been implicated in multiple regional wars and the funding of international terrorism, including attacks and murder of residents of the UK, Australia, Canada, France, USA and Lebanon. It has been asked to stop, and has refused. How else do you stop it?

But that's not the reason for aircraft carriers in the Gulf.

7 hours ago, dinsdale said:

What? This makes no sense.

He's posting fasehoods about the United Kingdom, because he hates it so much, typical of a communist. They walked among us, pretending to be something else, until smoked out.

6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Talk about buyers regret. 3 more years of the most unpopular government. No way Starmer can keep holding the reigns.

Starmer might go, but I can't see the Labour majority being overturned before 2029. You would need 168 Labour by-elections, with Labour losing all of them. Even then, Labour will still be the largest party in parliament, and likely would enter into a pact with a minority party to avoid a confidence vote.