16 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Please explain the details if that is at all possible

Japan is full of ethnic Japanese. Mongolia is full of ethnic Mongols. PapuaNewGuinea is full of ethnic Papuans. Chinese is full of ethnic Chinese.

Britain is full of.....well from my brief observations the ethnic Brits are largely displaced to rural communities, while cities are inhabited by and run by Africans/muslims/johnny foreigner.

I didnt believe the scale of the ethnic cleansing until I saw it. And this popilation replacement was only possible through the use of useful idiots(no names mentioned) and lefties censoring mention of the wiping out of nationsl identity and social cohesion.

Now back to the topic at hand if we may and no more trolling pls

2 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Now back to the topic at hand if we may and no more trolling pls

What is trolling about a legitimate question which you have only responded to with a load of pointless garbage?

7 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Japan is full of ethnic Japanese. Mongolia is full of ethnic Mongols. PapuaNewGuinea is full of ethnic Papuans. Chinese is full of ethnic Chinese.

Britain is full of.....well from my brief observations the ethnic Brits are largely displaced to rural communities, while cities are inhabited by and run by Africans/muslims/johnny foreigner.

I didnt believe the scale of the ethnic cleansing until I saw it. And this popilation replacement was only possible through the use of useful idiots(no names mentioned) and lefties censoring mention of the wiping out of nationsl identity and social cohesion.

Now back to the topic at hand if we may and no more trolling pls

Do you understand that you are actually the party who introduced this diversion into the conversation?

A post with a derogatory political neologism to belittle or mock individuals with differing political views has been removed.

Wow. Lets charge them with suicide rowboats.

Only a moron pays attention to the propaganda puke of the Iranian regime. Centcom doesnt.

Watching the sillyspew makes me imagine the NY Times quoting Goebels about Stalingrad, "we have them on the run"

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. Lets charge them with suicide rowboats.

Only a moron pays attention to the propaganda puke of the Iranian regime. Centcom doesnt.

Watching the sillyspew makes me imagine the NY Times quoting Goebels about Stalingrad, "we have them on the run"

So, you predict that shipments will continue to increase? That shippers will ignore the Iranian threats?

6 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Hopefully the extreme left will stop parrotting silly Iranian state propaganda now that egg is all over their faces. I knew critical thinking skills were low in youngsters these days, and yes, their beloved "credible sources" fake news msm carries some blame, but I think its safe to say Trump won this war. The strait is open. Oil prices are crashing.

Hooray DJT!

Is it open? You sure about that?

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Is it open? You sure about that?

Yep. Absolutely. Go get some oil.

6 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Oil prices are crashing.

Hooray DJT!

You mean they are lower than before DJT started that illegal war?

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Is it open? You sure about that?

It is closed!

Iran opens fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz as Supreme Leader says nation will inflict 'new bitter defeats on its enemies' - after Trump bombing threat | Daily Mail Online

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

It is closed!

Iran opens fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz as Supreme Leader says nation will inflict 'new bitter defeats on its enemies' - after Trump bombing threat | Daily Mail Online

Did your new "rainbow" ayatollah close it? Keep the dude far from cranes and tall buildings.

The lefty/fake news media/islamo-fascist alliance is a modern marvel and a delight to behold🤣

7 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Im in the UK right now..we play a game, spot the Englishman. Its hard to win😅

England is full of English people. It's really not hard to find one. Only the willfully ignorant can say something so stupid.

There are at least 45 million "white English" if that is your definition - and let's face it you don't count brown people.

32 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

England is full of English people. It's really not hard to find one. Only the willfully ignorant can say something so stupid.

There are at least 45 million "white English" if that is your definition - and let's face it you don't count brown people.

Debating the UK with you is as much fun as a trip to the Tate with Jonty Bravery. Good day sir, over & out.

15 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Debating the UK with you is as much fun as a trip to the Tate with Jonty Bravery. Good day sir, over & out.

Righty ho, this is your idea of an intelligent debate about the UK is it?

"Im in the UK right now..we play a game, spot the Englishman. Its hard to win😅"

43 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Righty ho, this is your idea of an intelligent debate about the UK is it?

"Im in the UK right now..we play a game, spot the Englishman. Its hard to win😅"

Sadly Thailand attracts it's fair share of English lumpenproletariat often becasue they have problems pulling their own birds or have faced a costly divorce - it invariably leads to personal bitterness and scapegoating. We should show kindness and pity to the afflicted - even if they are underserving - Christ would expect little else.

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was Trump that got the straights closed resulting in the oil price hike.

He doesn’t get plaudits for backing out of the mess he himself made.

You’re framing this as if the US arbitrarily “closed the strait”, but that skips both the legal context and the long pattern of behaviour that led here.

The Strait of Hormuz wasn’t suddenly “closed by the US” out of nowhere - the entire situation is a reaction to years of escalation from Iran, not the other way round.

Start with why sanctions even exist. The first UN sanctions go back to 2006 (UN Security Council Resolution 1696) because Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment. That wasn’t a minor disagreement - it was because the International Atomic Energy Agency couldn’t verify the programme was purely civilian. More sanctions followed in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010, all tied to the same issue - refusal to comply and increasing concern over nuclear capability

Then you get the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 - enrichment capped at 3.67%. That was the compromise. But Iran didn’t stick to it. The IAEA has since verified enrichment up to 60%, which is far beyond civilian energy use and gets you uncomfortably close to weapons-grade territory

Now layer on the shipping threats. Iran has been openly using Hormuz as leverage for years. They first threatened to close it on 27 December 2011 in response to sanctions, and repeated variations of the same threat in 2018 and 2019 whenever pressure increased

Fast forward to now, and it’s escalated from threats to actual action. Iran has fired on tankers and effectively shut down traffic through the strait, which carries roughly 20% of global oil supply

So when the US moves to block or control shipping, it’s not some random act of aggression - it’s a response to a situation where:

- Iran has a long track record of threatening to choke a global trade route.

- Iran is now actively attacking vessels and disrupting passage.

- Iran has moved far beyond agreed nuclear limits.

And legally, this matters. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a strait like Hormuz cannot be blocked or interfered with - transit passage must be maintained. Iran’s actions are already a breach of that framework. The US position is essentially: you don’t get to weaponise a global shipping lane and then complain when others step in to keep it open.

The key point people keep missing is motive. Iran didn’t start threatening Hormuz because of one politician - it did it because sanctions hit its oil exports, and the strait is the only real leverage it has. That’s been the pattern since 2011: pressure Iran economically, and it responds by threatening global energy supply.

So this isn’t “Trump caused an oil spike by closing the strait”. It’s a situation where Iran has repeatedly tried to use Hormuz as blackmail, has now escalated to actual attacks, and the US is trying to stop that turning into a permanent chokehold on global trade.

The uncomfortable truth is this - if you allow a state to combine nuclear escalation with control over a route that carries a fifth of the world’s oil, you don’t get stability… you get leverage on a global scale.

That’s what this is really about - and the issue should really have been dealt with decades ago.

If not dealt with now - Imagine 10 years from now - Iran with nuclear capability charging ships $2 Million for passage through an 'international waterway' - then see how people complain about the cost of goods.

7 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

The English/Scots/Irish and Welsh are not allowed in by the ruling (insert) "religiously bigoted group" ruining Scotland at present!

Ridiculous statement and deliberate falsehood intended to deceive non-British people who might otherwise not understand the powers of the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government does not have responsibility for immigration, which is reserved for the Home Office in London, and British Passports do not denote English, Welsh, Ulster nor Scottish nationality. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are nominally subject to the conditions of the Common Travel Area, which currently impose no visa requirement. There are no border controls on the A74M, A7 and A68. You will see police sometimes checking the papers of drivers arriving from Belfast or Larne into Cairnryan (long standing security procedures).

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Ridiculous statement and deliberate falsehood intended to deceive non-British people who might otherwise not understand the powers of the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government does not have responsibility for immigration, which is reserved for the Home Office in London, and British Passports do not denote English, Welsh, Ulster nor Scottish nationality. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are nominally subject to the conditions of the Common Travel Area, which currently impose no visa requirement. There are no border controls on the A74M, A7 and A68. You will see police sometimes checking the papers of drivers arriving from Belfast or Larne into Cairnryan (long standing security procedures).

Go and visit Glasgow and you will see what I mean!

18 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Hopefully the extreme left will stop parrotting silly Iranian state propaganda now that egg is all over their faces. I knew critical thinking skills were low in youngsters these days, and yes, their beloved "credible sources" fake news msm carries some blame, but I think its safe to say Trump won this war. The strait is open. Oil prices are crashing.

Hooray DJT!

Well, that didn't age any better than the typical obese, poorly educated, wrinkled old MAGA fanboy.

Off topic posts removed.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re framing this as if the US arbitrarily “closed the strait”, but that skips both the legal context and the long pattern of behaviour that led here.

The Strait of Hormuz wasn’t suddenly “closed by the US” out of nowhere - the entire situation is a reaction to years of escalation from Iran, not the other way round.

Start with why sanctions even exist. The first UN sanctions go back to 2006 (UN Security Council Resolution 1696) because Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment. That wasn’t a minor disagreement - it was because the International Atomic Energy Agency couldn’t verify the programme was purely civilian. More sanctions followed in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010, all tied to the same issue - refusal to comply and increasing concern over nuclear capability

Then you get the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 - enrichment capped at 3.67%. That was the compromise. But Iran didn’t stick to it. The IAEA has since verified enrichment up to 60%, which is far beyond civilian energy use and gets you uncomfortably close to weapons-grade territory

Now layer on the shipping threats. Iran has been openly using Hormuz as leverage for years. They first threatened to close it on 27 December 2011 in response to sanctions, and repeated variations of the same threat in 2018 and 2019 whenever pressure increased

Fast forward to now, and it’s escalated from threats to actual action. Iran has fired on tankers and effectively shut down traffic through the strait, which carries roughly 20% of global oil supply

So when the US moves to block or control shipping, it’s not some random act of aggression - it’s a response to a situation where:

- Iran has a long track record of threatening to choke a global trade route.

- Iran is now actively attacking vessels and disrupting passage.

- Iran has moved far beyond agreed nuclear limits.

And legally, this matters. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a strait like Hormuz cannot be blocked or interfered with - transit passage must be maintained. Iran’s actions are already a breach of that framework. The US position is essentially: you don’t get to weaponise a global shipping lane and then complain when others step in to keep it open.

The key point people keep missing is motive. Iran didn’t start threatening Hormuz because of one politician - it did it because sanctions hit its oil exports, and the strait is the only real leverage it has. That’s been the pattern since 2011: pressure Iran economically, and it responds by threatening global energy supply.

So this isn’t “Trump caused an oil spike by closing the strait”. It’s a situation where Iran has repeatedly tried to use Hormuz as blackmail, has now escalated to actual attacks, and the US is trying to stop that turning into a permanent chokehold on global trade.

The uncomfortable truth is this - if you allow a state to combine nuclear escalation with control over a route that carries a fifth of the world’s oil, you don’t get stability… you get leverage on a global scale.

That’s what this is really about - and the issue should really have been dealt with decades ago.

If not dealt with now - Imagine 10 years from now - Iran with nuclear capability charging ships $2 Million for passage through an 'international waterway' - then see how people complain about the cost of goods.

Whatever the accuracy of your historical recital may be, the fact is that this was supposed to be a period of truce. A blockade is an act of war.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

And legally, this matters. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a strait like Hormuz cannot be blocked or interfered with - transit passage must be maintained.

(But) Hegseth has publicly dismissed concerns about international law, claiming he would abide no “stupid rules of engagement” and no “politically correct wars”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/14/analysts-say-us-threat-of-no-quarter-for-iran-violates-international-law

7 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Whatever the accuracy of your historical recital may be, the fact is that this was supposed to be a period of truce. A blockade is an act of war.

7 hours ago, JerryM said:

(But) Hegseth has publicly dismissed concerns about international law, claiming he would abide no “stupid rules of engagement” and no “politically correct wars”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/14/analysts-say-us-threat-of-no-quarter-for-iran-violates-international-law

[his will be TLDR for some - because one-liners are easier - but this isn’t a simple conflict. Every move is messy, nuanced, unclean. You can’t form a serious opinion on something this strategic from a soundbite - that’s what the media peddles. Surely we’re better than that]

I actually agree with part of what you’re saying - the US blockade isn’t “clean”. And yes, technically it is an act of war. But you can’t just stop there and pretend Iran was honouring some neat little “truce”, because that’s just not what was happening.

A truce means free passage. Proper free passage. Ships moving through an international strait without being quietly pushed into Iran-vetted / controlled corridors near Qeshm and Larak, right up against their coastline, under IRGC oversight. You don’t announce “free shipping” to the world and then in practice funnel traffic into routes you control, where approval, “coordination” and potential inspections still apply - and where there have even been reports of payments being made to secure passage.

That’s not a truce - that’s saying one thing publicly and doing another behind the scenes. It’s not free shipping, it’s not a truce - it’s leverage. Iran were clearly being duplicitous here, and some people have just lapped that up because it fits their political allegiances in the US.

To back that up: there are multiple reports over the last few weeks that ships were being routed through narrow corridors near islands like Qeshm and Larak, where they can be monitored and, if needed, boarded.

There’s also been reporting of vessels needing IRGC approval to pass, and at least one reported case of a ship paying around $2 million to get through. Whether that’s happening to every single vessel or not almost doesn’t matter - the principle is the problem. You cannot have a major international shipping lane turned into a permission-based or pay-to-pass system.

And this isn’t some minor waterway. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly 20% of the world’s (better quality) oil supply - around 20 million barrels a day - and about 20% of global LNG. But it doesn’t stop there. A huge chunk of global petrochemicals move through it as well (plastics, industrial feedstocks), along with refined fuels like diesel and jet fuel, and critical bulk commodities linked to Gulf exports.

And here’s where people massively underestimate it - fertiliser. The Gulf is a major exporter of ammonia and urea (key fertiliser inputs), and those flows rely heavily on Hormuz. As we are seeing disrupt that, even for a few weeks, and you don’t just get higher prices - you get supply shocks into agriculture. That means farmers cutting usage, lower crop yields, and then food prices rising months down the line. It’s not immediate, but it’s brutal when it lands - its long term - and and power Iran simply cannot be permitted to have 'long term'.

Its the same with energy-intensive products like aluminium - the Gulf produces a significant share globally because of cheap energy. Restrict the strait, you hit those exports too. Then you’ve got LNG - critical for electricity generation in parts of Asia and Europe. Squeeze that, and you’re not just talking about prices - you’re talking about power security.

There’s only limited capacity to bypass Hormuz - nowhere near enough to compensate if flows are disrupted.

So if that flow gets squeezed, even partially, the knock-on effect is immediate - fuel prices, shipping costs, fertiliser, food, manufacturing, everything. It feeds into inflation globally. People talk about it like it’s abstract - it isn’t. It hits your heating bill, your groceries, your cost of living and it will for the long term if Iran gets a strangle hold.

So when people say “why is the US reacting?” - that’s why. Because if you allow one state to start controlling, pricing, or selectively restricting passage through Hormuz, you’re basically accepting that a huge chunk of global trade can be held to ransom whenever it suits them (Iran).

And let’s be honest - this didn’t just appear overnight. Iran has been threatening to close or control the strait for decades. That’s not even disputed. Ship seizures, confrontations, sanctions, proxy pressure - this has been building for years. So calling this a sudden overreaction by the US ignores a lot of history.

Now on the “international law” point - yes, that matters. And I actually agree that talk like “no quarter” and dismissing rules of engagement is reckless. That stuff doesn’t help anyone and it’s not defensible.

But at the same time, you don’t get to invoke international law only when the US responds, and ignore it when Iran is effectively turning an international strait into a controlled corridor. Transit passage through Hormuz is supposed to be continuous and unobstructed. No tolls, no selective access, no political gatekeeping. That’s the whole point of it being an international strait.

Zooming out a bit - this isn’t really about US politics which seems to blinker the opinions of many on this issue. Republican, Democrat, UK, EU, Gulf states, Asia - none of them can just sit back and accept this becoming normal. Because if it does, the next step isn’t stability - it’s escalation. Other regional powers start hedging, pushing for nuclear capability, preparing for worst-case scenarios. That’s how you end up with more proliferation, not less.

Criticise the US if you want. Fair enough - the methods are crude - but negotiations have repeadely failed and Iran cannot enrich U235 - they lied, they exceeed the agreed 3.67% U235 enriuchment - they reached 60% with > 400 kgs 60% Enruched U235 with no civilian need on the planet for that level of enrichment - weapons was the ONLY reason for this.

So - when accusing the US of breaking this truce, be consistent and call out Iran as well. Because this idea that there was a genuine “truce” with free shipping, and the US just randomly broke it… it doesn’t stack up to anyone capable of observing the true geo-political game at hand.

The “truce” was never a truce because shipping was never actually free. It was a headline. And behind it, the exact same game of poker was still being played - and it still is.

The US can’t show its full hand here - it simply can’t. China is watching everything. Capabilities, response times, thresholds. So what you’re seeing is a deliberately limited, slightly clumsy looking conflict - but that’s by design. It’s controlled, it’s restrained… for now.

But that only holds up to a point. If Iran keeps pushing - controlling routes, interfering with passage, testing limits - then eventually that restraint runs out. And when it does, the options become a lot more direct. Taking control of Qeshm, securing the strait by force, removing the capability entirely. And when that happens, the same people who’ve ignored everything leading up to it will suddenly be the loudest critics - blaming Trump, blaming Republicans, same old script.

But make no mistake - this should have been dealt with decades ago. The West has been kicking this can down the road for years. And “too late” isn’t some abstract idea - it’s a very real scenario.

Too late looks like Iran sitting on near weapons-grade uranium, crossing the threshold into full nuclear capability, while at the same time exerting control over the Strait of Hormuz. That’s not just regional influence - that’s leverage over a massive portion of global trade and energy.

And once that line is crossed, it doesn’t stop. Saudi, UAE, Turkey, others - they don’t just sit there. They push for their own nuclear capability. Treaties start to mean less. Proliferation spreads across one of the most unstable regions on the planet.

Then you’ve got the proxy layer. The Houthis already disrupting shipping routes. Now imagine that with access to more advanced weapons, even radiological material - dirty bombs, threats extending into the Gulf of Aden.

That’s not hypothetical escalation - that’s the direction if this keeps going unchecked.

And worst case? This doesn’t turn into a clean “World War III” scenario. It becomes a drawn-out, fragmented conflict across the Middle East. Infrastructure gets hit - ports, power, desalination. And people massively underestimate that last one - large parts of the region rely on desalination just to survive. You take that out, and whole areas become unliveable.

Then comes the fallout - mass displacement, evacuation, migration on a scale the world hasn’t seen. At the same time, global supply chains start to break. Fertiliser disrupted, food production drops months later, energy squeezed, prices surge everywhere. It doesn’t stay regional - it hits globally - mass famine.

And the irony? It’s not “winning”. It’s collapse. You don’t end up with control - you end up with a destabilised region and a world dealing with the consequences.

And all of it comes back to this moment - this decision point. Because if the US and the wider international community can’t turn around and say “no - you don’t get to control one of the most critical shipping lanes on earth”… then everything that follows is on that failure.

The alternative? Pretend this is all overreaction because Trump and Hegseth are not 'nice people' - and hope Iran’s 60% U235 enrichment was just a bargaining chip, hope they never intended to tighten control over Hormuz, hope their backing of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis means nothing.

Hope optimism is not a reality... if you’re wrong, even once… you don’t get a reset.

9 hours ago, Wingate said:

On 4/18/2026 at 6:52 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Hopefully the extreme left will stop parrotting silly Iranian state propaganda now that egg is all over their faces. I knew critical thinking skills were low in youngsters these days, and yes, their beloved "credible sources" fake news msm carries some blame, but I think its safe to say Trump won this war. The strait is open. Oil prices are crashing.

Hooray DJT!

Well, that didn't age any better than the typical obese, poorly educated, wrinkled old MAGA fanboy.

Agreed - it’s fundamentally naïve to claim that anyone has “won” here. The only meaningful outcome that even comes close to a win is this: Iran without a nuclear capability, the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and a complete, unconditional reopening of international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Beyond that, it means ending support for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, stepping back from proxy interference across the region, and re-engaging with the wider international community as a responsible state.

That’s not about ideology or humiliation - it’s about stability. Moving away from confrontation and coercion, and towards being part of a functioning global system, rather than a force trying to dominate the region through pressure and instability.

IMO - thats a Win for international community and the people of Iran themselves - allow them to rejoin the world and let Iran reach is wonderful potential.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

That’s not about ideology or humiliation - it’s about stability. Moving away from confrontation and coercion, and towards being part of a functioning global system, rather than a force trying to dominate the region through pressure and instability.

So you want exactly the opposite of what trump is doing.

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

That’s not about ideology or humiliation - it’s about stability. Moving away from confrontation and coercion, and towards being part of a functioning global system, rather than a force trying to dominate the region through pressure and instability.

So you want exactly the opposite of what trump is doing.

No - you've simplified and dumbed down a lengthy and nuanced post about the specific geopolitics and risks into a one liner and a misunderstanding....

Take a look at the video posted here if you want a better - factual - understanding of the immediate situation:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2058014758462661

It covers what was actually happening - not the 'Open all Shopping' lie - but the reality that shipping was opened long different lanes in Iranian waters and controlled by the IRGC.

The lanes were never opened in the first place - so there has to be a 'reaction' to force that that reversal.

Or - should the Western force (or Trump or whatever you want to call 'it') simply allow Iran to carry on as they are ?

Sad state of affairs that we are where we are today because of one man-child's frail ego.

Grok (AI):

Uploading Attachment...

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - you've simplified and dumbed down a lengthy and nuanced post about the specific geopolitics and risks into a one liner and a misunderstanding....

Take a look at the video posted here if you want a better - factual - understanding of the immediate situation:

It covers what was actually happening - not the 'Open all Shopping' lie - but the reality that shipping was opened long different lanes in Iranian waters and controlled by the IRGC.

The lanes were never opened in the first place - so there has to be a 'reaction' to force that that reversal.

Or - should the Western force (or Trump or whatever you want to call 'it') simply allow Iran to carry oM

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - you've simplified and dumbed down a lengthy and nuanced post about the specific geopolitics and risks into a one liner and a misunderstanding....

Take a look at the video posted here if you want a better - factual - understanding of the immediate situation:

It covers what was actually happening - not the 'Open all Shopping' lie - but the reality that shipping was opened long different lanes in Iranian waters and controlled by the IRGC.

The lanes were never opened in the first place - so there has to be a 'reaction' to force that that reversal.

Or - should the Western force (or Trump or whatever you want to call 'it') simply allow Iran to carry on as they are ?

Your post wasn't nuanced, leading to a one sided and simplified conclusion.

49 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Your post wasn't nuanced, leading to a one sided and simplified conclusion.

Perhaps that’s fair. I try to approach this without bias and with a broader perspective, though I accept that complete neutrality is difficult or almost impossible in practice. My views are shaped not only by what is reported in the media, but by first-hand experience and long-term exposure to the region.

I’ve spent considerable time in the Middle East and have been present in multiple countries during periods when Iranian missile activity was not just reported, but physically experienced. That perspective doesn’t make my view inherently superior - but it does mean that what many are only now encountering through headlines, I’ve been observing, in real terms, for well over a decade.

So yes, it’s possible that this experience introduces a degree of bias. But if so, it is not uniquely directed. I would hold the same concerns were any regional power - be it Iran, Saudi Arabia, or otherwise - to pursue nuclear capability while simultaneously threatening critical international shipping routes (i.e. the Red Sea).

So, I make a conscious effort to remain balanced. However, I struggle to arrive at a different conclusion on key points:

• Iran cannot be permitted the control or coercion of a strategic waterway such as the Strait of Hormuz - do do so (allow) carries global consequences

• Iran cannot be permitted to support of proxy militant groups as it destabilises the region and again carries global consequences

• Iran cannot be permitted to pursue and progress its nuclear enrichment programme,.

The question, then, is not simply one of criticism, but of responsibility: how should the international community respond to mitigate these risks? - What would you suggest ?

Not gaslighting here - but would you take the view that a nuclear-capable Iran does not represent a significant threat, and that there is no realistic intention to leverage control over vital shipping routes?

For the sake of clarity, I’m setting aside the deeper historical and sectarian context - centuries of regional tension, including Sunni-Shia dynamics - and focusing purely on these present-day strategic concerns.

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

[his will be TLDR for some - because one-liners are easier - but this isn’t a simple conflict.

The thing about one-liners is that people will actually read the one-liner.