Forum Topic

Well Done Trump

For your decisive action overnight! 3 nuclear plants in Iran obliterated!

Sue Hammond ● 31d81 Comments

Mr Brigo'Yes, they were very grateful for the insight.'You must have been a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) recruit that slipped through the net !

John Hawkes ● 25d

Mr Ixer'It seems to be relevant to many that Russia started the conflict with Ukraine and Israel responded in self defence to the attack by Hamas. I'm not necessarily apportioning blame, just stating a fact.I'd agree that apportioning blame isn't necessarily a good way of getting an agreement for the future - the classic case being how Germany was treated after WWI which likely set the scene for WWII.'I am not sure whether you post this stuff to show how well read and clever you are or simply to divert attention from the real issues at stake.Israel felt and feels threatened by Iran that has a desire to annihilate it; is run by people who have stated that this is their aim; and was probably close to having nuclear weapons which they could well have used to do so.The facts stare you in the face but you still lay 6th Form Debating Society tricks.It's boring.If you are content for Iran to have these weapons for their above stated purpose, please say so.Otherwise we are not impressed.

John Hawkes ● 26d

Yes, they were very grateful for the insight.

Michael Brigo ● 26d

Mr Ixer'It was the Israeli forces which first attacked Iran, wasn't it?'I thought it was Israel and the US.And a good thing too for attempting to reduce the potential for the theocratic fascist dictatorship whose 'leadership' of Mad Mullahs has no qualms with talking about using the bomb and bringing about Armageddon.Why on earth do people like you seek out the most obscure piece of information which is probably untrue, in order to attempt to show equivalence between Israel and the West and the hell hole that is the Arabic Middle East.Whose side are you on ?

John Hawkes ● 26d

I'm on planet Earth, Robert. It seems to be relevant to many that Russia started the conflict with Ukraine and Israel responded in self defence to the attack by Hamas. I'm not necessarily apportioning blame, just stating a fact. I'd agree that appotioning blame isn't necessarily a good way of getting an agreement for the future - the classic case being how Germany was treated after WWI which likely set the scene for WWII.

Michael Ixer ● 26d

What planet are you on Michael.  Does it matter who started it first - we are not teachers in a school playground he hit me first scenario.  I think Iran/Israel, Ukraine/Russia has been going on so long that as soon as it was confirmed that Iran was enriching Uranium over and above it’s domestic needs it was agreed to neutralise it’s airspace to enable the nuclear sites damage.  Clearly neighbouring Arab states gave their blessing to allow Israeli planes to fly over their airspace because they don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons either.As opposed to everyone breathing a sigh of temporary relief we get this cherry picking nonsense.  Iran is now fully aware what it’s Middle Eastern neighbours and the world will tolerate.Only time will tell where we go from here in the region plus people should be questioning themselves why they feel so uncomfortable.Iran has been operating proxy wars in the Middle East via Hamas, Hezbollah et al. for years openly.

Robert Wheeler ● 26d

I don't think anyone would dispute it's good there's a ceasefire, particularly Iranian citizens. It was the Israeli forces which first attacked Iran, wasn't it?

Michael Ixer ● 26d

Mr Hawkes. Given the nature of the Iranian regime I think we might agree that's quite likely. 

Michael Ixer ● 26d

What is the point in all this cherry picking over words.  The world currently has a ceasefire and it makes me smile that people are more incensed because it involved the USA and Israel.  It says more about the critics than the result.Let’s face it this country is currently run by people who have never run a business or made strategic decisions so thank God the USA and Israel didn’t ask us to do anything.  Starmer could have offered our support and true to form U-turned at the last minute.I for one am pleased there is a temporary ceasefire and l am sure those involved are as well.

Robert Wheeler ● 26d

Mr Brigo'The White House acknowledged the existence of the assessment but said they disagreed with it.'Have you offered the White House your opinion on the matter ?

John Hawkes ● 26d

Mr Ixer'I personally find the targeting of scientists morally questionable; were they given any option to opt out of their work?.Are you suggesting that any pressure was placed upon them by the Iranian government ?Is that such an action they would take ?

John Hawkes ● 26d

Here you go, from an independent source, although I note that most people on this forum refuse to believe anything the UN says so it they may now have a quandary

Michael Brigo ● 26d

In reply to Michael Brigo, it is nit just the Whire House but the CIA who say that Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been 'severely damaged'. And my question still remains unanswered. Why would the Usraelis agree with the White House's assessment when they have the most to lose if the story is false?In reply to Michael Ixer, the Iranian nuclear scientists are not just academics but servants of a state which regularly calls for the destruction of Israel. If you were living in Tel Aviv rather than Putney, you might take a different view.

Steven Rose ● 26d

Yep, I can agree with that!

Michael Brigo ● 26d

Honestly who cares.  It achieved a ceasefire all be it temporarily.  I think if you were living in Teheran and not leafy SW London you would be pleased.Take the gains.

Robert Wheeler ● 26d

"The assessment was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.” Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes."“So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” this person added.The White House acknowledged the existence of the assessment but said they disagreed with it.

Michael Brigo ● 26d

I think, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, it's probably one of those known unknowns unless there's intelligence information from within Iran that's not public. If they hit it directly one would imagine the damage is serious; one wonders how it compares with the damage to the centrifuge done by the Stuxnet malware?One would have thought that the killing of scientists with expert knowledge might prove a setback to recovery, although I personally find the targeting of scientists morally questionable; were they given any option to opt out of their work? Still war is always of dubious morality. Still, if they were enriching uranium past 20% there's little double it was for military purposes?

Michael Ixer ● 26d

One dissident intelligence officer says this but the conclusion of the CIA is that the operation was a success. But we don't have to listen to the Americans. The Israelis believe that the Iranian nuclear project has been destroyed. They have the most to lose if the nuclear facilities of Iran were still intact. Why would they agree to a ceasefire if the threat from Iran was still there?

Steven Rose ● 26d

US intelligence says something along the lines of 'only like to have set the program back 2 or 3 months' and 'they likely moved a load of the uranium elsewhere before the strikes.'

Michael Brigo ● 26d

Why are you 'reasonably certain', Ed, that the US bombed 'empty structures'? Do you have any evidence that the whole attack was a charade? If it was just a charade, then the nuclear programme of Iran would still be intact. In this case, with the threat of a nuclear Iran still present, why would the Israelis agree to a ceasefire? Perhaps you think that Israel was only pretending to be afraid of Iran. Or do you disbelieve the view of the IAEA that Iran had obtained 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%? Or perhaps you think that Iran may have enriched uranium but only for peaceful purposes. Please explain.

Steven Rose ● 26d

Sue,I think with these events you have to look at outcomes.On that I think Trump deserves some praise - well as much as you can give any US president that is.It seems reasonably certain that the US probably bombed some empty structures and in return Iran bombed some empty US bases.The bombing removed the excuse Israel had for its actions and enabled the Israel-Iran conflict to end.No side was winning by any means but Israel defences (well Western defences) were near collapse.Perhaps that is what Israel wanted?Anyway Trump removed the Iranian threat that Israel was using as an excuse enabling Israel to agree to end the conflict.On the general Iran history, which we have to be informed by the USA as usual:The UK/US did other throw the moderate democratic Iranian government in the 50's on behalf of BP.Was that a Labour government?They also armed Saddam and lets not forget the wars that Labour raged in the middle east and lied and voted more than a dozen times to cover up.Many of those are still there in the commons and Labour supports will try and misdirect.How any Labour supporter can comment on the middle East after they have killed millions is beyond comprehension!

Ed Robinson ● 27d

Yes, I think the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and his cronies are possibly suffering from a severe bout of "groupthink" and delusion. I'm sure many in Iran would would like to get shot of the current oppressive regime - although even many who opposed the current ruler seem staunchly patriotic and are angry as Israel's and the US's actions. (I'm sure as a British patriot you'd understand that?)I think the current US administration also has to be careful about groupthink with everyone fawning to the President as though he's a supreme leader? Trying to shut down discussion about the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities (and being rude to journalists) seems counter productive as surely it's obvious more information is needed to assess the outcome of the raids. Personally, I'd be surprised if they hadn't moved some of the 60% enriched uranium for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they must have realised that such a targeted raid was probably imminent. Secondly, would one store such material in one Yes, I think the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and his cronies are possibly suffering from a severe bout of "groupthink" and delusion. I'm sure many in Iran would would like to get shot of the current oppressive regime - although even many who opposed the current ruler seem staunchly patriotic and are angry as Israel's and the US's actions. (I'm sure as a British patriot you'd understand that?)I think the current US administration also has to be careful about groupthink with everyone fawning to the President as though he's a supreme leader? Trying to shut down discussion about the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities (and being rude to journalists) seems counter productive as surely it's obvious more information is needed to assess the outcome of the raids? Personally, I'd be surprised if they hadn't moved some of the 60% enriched uranium for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they must have realised that such a targeted raid was probably imminent. Secondly, would one store such material in one place, in a confined underground space? My understanding is 60% enriched uranium is, in sufficient quantities, able to initiate a viable chain reaction necessary for a nuclear explosion (it's only enriched further to allow production of smaller devices that are more easy to deliver to a target). Hence, if there was the possibility of a bombing raid, wouldn't you disperse the material so in the event of a bomb blast the material couldn't inadvertently be impacted into a critical mass necessary to start a chain reaction? But I'm no nuclear scientist so who knows!Who knows, perhaps MAD is different in the middle east ...

Michael Ixer ● 27d

Mr IxerIt is possible of course that 'The «MAD» concept' does not apply when one party, Iran is ruled by theocratic racists that probably really are mad. "When Iran's supreme leader emerges from hiding he will find a very different nation"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j4g1ll8yqo'After spending nearly two weeks in a secret bunker somewhere in Iran during his country's war with Israel, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, might want to use the opportunity of the ceasefire to venture out.He is believed to be holed up, incommunicado, for the fear of being assassinated by Israel. Even top government officials apparently have had no contact with him.He would be well advised to be cautious, despite the fragile ceasefire that the US President Donald Trump and the Emir of Qatar brokered. Though President Trump reportedly told Israel not to kill Iran's supreme leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not rule it out.When – or indeed if – he does emerge from hiding, he will see a landscape of death and destruction. He will no doubt still appear on state TV claiming victory in the conflict. He will plot to restore his image. But he will face new realities – even a new era.The war has left the country significantly weakened and him a diminished man.Murmurs of dissent at the top.During the war, Israel quickly took control of much of Iran's airspace, and attacked its military infrastructure. Top commanders of the Revolutionary Guard and the army were swiftly killed.The extent of the damage to the military is still unclear and disputed, but the repeated bombings of the army and revolutionary guard bases and installations suggests substantial degradation of Iran's military power. Militarisation had long consumed a vast amount of the nation's resources.Iran's known nuclear facilities that earned the country nearly two decades of US and international sanctions, ****with an estimated cost of hundreds of billions of dollars****, are now damaged from the air strikes, although the full extent of this has been hard to assess.What was it all for, many are asking'.

John Hawkes ● 27d

So the US administration was hoodwinked into negotiations with the Iranians? Quite possible. Of course what we don't know is what influence the Russian administration is having on discussions. (They seem to influence Trump's view of Ukraine's so I would guess they have an opinion on tge middle east that they make known.) The US appears to have a channel of communications with them. I'd imagine Putin is concerned about the loss of arms from Ukraine? I'd also imagine the Saudis et al are torn - the Sunni/Shia divide means they're not keen on Iran but I guess they can't get too close to Israel? And I doubt they want a war on their doorstep.

Michael Ixer ● 28d

It's obvious, Michael, that the 'diplomatic negotiations' were a sham. Why did Iran enrich uranium to 60%? Either because the Iranians were in the process of building a nuclear weapon or they hoped to blackmail the West, using the threat of gaining nuclear capability, into dropping economic sanctions, which would allow Iran to pursue its strategic objectives in the Middle East, including the destruction of Israel  undeterred.

Steven Rose ● 28d

Doesn't the 《MAD》 concept, as defined during the cold war, apply to Iran and Israel? Iran must be aware that Israel has superior air power to overwhelm its defences, coupled with superior intelligence.  After all, it wasn't Iran that kicked off the recent spat. The US seemed to be in diplomatic negotiations before Netanyahu trashed those by initiating a strike on Iran; it's also interesting that the Iranian retaliation against the US ban in Qatar seemed to be a token measure, presumably for internal PR purposes.Just my reading of things; there is, of course, so much mis/dis-information that it's difficult to tell ...

Michael Ixer ● 28d

ooooh you're so scathing aren't you - did it take long to think of that?

Michael Brigo ● 28d

Why did you put "We know who you are" in quotes?

Michael Brigo ● 28d

Mr Rose'That is a rather superficial view. Both sides know exactly what they are fighting for. Iran wishes to destroy the Jewish state and Israel wishes to prevent a deadly enemy obtaining a nuclear weapon'.And we know many that post on this Forum agree with Iran and would relish its success."We know who you are" !

John Hawkes ● 28d

Mr Brigo'that said, dont really care.'Which aptly sums up what most on this Forum think of your posts.

John Hawkes ● 28d

Mr Brigo'Sorry to break it to your little warmongering heart.'My God.What a rude and insulting little man you are.Ms Grant, if you bothered to read her posts, has relatives impacted by the Middle East conflict and likely also by the Iranians.Your biggest problem if I understand your website, is how to  keep flattering the egos of bourgeois English women.Though I always ask my self, if your business is going so well, how come you have the time to post on this Forum so often.

John Hawkes ● 28d

Which by the US intelligence estimates was still 'years away from fruition"As someone else pointed out, the Israelis have been saying Iran was 'weeks away from getting a nuclear weapon' for approx 30 years.that said, dont really care.

Michael Brigo ● 29d

That is a rather superficial view. Both sides know exactly what they are fighting for. Iran wishes to destroy the Jewish state and Israel wishes to prevent a deadly enemy obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Steven Rose ● 29d

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and posts on a forum like a duck....

Michael Brigo ● 29d

Mr Brigo I am no 'war monger'. But thanks for such a (non) perceptive post.

Lucille Grant ● 29d

Trump has already said 'both sides violated the ceasefire but Israel was worse'Sorry to break it to your little warmongering heart.

Michael Brigo ● 29d

Yes, I'd agree that Trump may have summed it up aptly and bluntly with this quote ..."The president continues: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing."

Michael Ixer ● 29d

Iran broke the ceasefire with ballistic missile attacks an hour after Israel agreed to it. My cousin messaged me at 9.00 am to say they had been in the safe room since 5.00 am. Iran had no intention of agreeing to a ceasefire no matter what Trump wanted.So 'if the ceasefire holds and Trump holds' Iran on a tight leash... Fixed it for you, Mr Brigo.

Lucille Grant ● 29d

I'll tell you what from my point of view1) I can't believe anyone on this forum is going to be too upset about Iran being denied the chance to get nuclear weapons - I certainly am not bothered.2) My concern as expressed before was the risk of it getting out of control and this turning into something much worse.3) If the ceasefire holds and Trump holds Israel on a tight leash then you know what, I think he did alright actually.

Michael Brigo ● 29d

@Steven Rose 23/06/25 17:27:00All those suffering from TDS, of which there are many on this forum, cannot bring themselves to give Trump any praise.  In my opinion they have such a deep visceral hatred of the man it prevents them from acknowledging anything good that he does as the President.

Sue Hammond ● 29d

Mr Ixer'there are also politicians and religious leaders who profit from the power itgives them.'Absolutely spot on !

John Hawkes ● 29d

Yes, agreed, Ivonne; only a select few profit from war. An interesting quote from John Lennon: "Working class people around the world have no innate desire to go to war with each other. They have to be conned Into it by the sociopaths who will profit from it." Of course one can consider that as well as the teaditional profit in salaries and dividends there are also politicians and religious leaders who profit from the power itgives them.

Michael Ixer ● 30d

Oh, I should add Putin and Xi Jinping.  Uneven numbers much better!

Ivonne Holliday ● 30d

Hello again,Politics will be politics and politicians will always play it safe, if that is the name for it.  Trying to keep tariffs down and secure some sort of a deal with the US?  Some would perhaps call it sycophantic?As for condeming Trump for bombing Iran, it could be some people are still in shock or fear the possibility of an all out war.  I was very shocked and I do fear a war.  Hence my comment in another thread that I would lock Trump, the Supreme Leader and Netanyahu in one room and let them fight it out.  I really do not wish our young men going to war for them.

Ivonne Holliday ● 30d

David Lammy this morning refused several times to condemn Trump's actions as illegal. He merely repeated that the UK was not involved. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the government is secretly pleased that America has acted to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon but dare not say so publicly. Contributors to Putney Forum, on the other hand, while still muted in their criticism of Trump, like to display their street cred. So there have been remarks like, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in 2003, there is no proof that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, the intervention in Afghanistan  ended badly, Trump should given diplomacy a chance etc. But no one has condemned the bombing outright. My conclusion is that they too are not too bothered that the mad mullahs have now lost their nuclear facility.

Steven Rose ● 30d

Hello Steven,Thank you for clarifying you comments as it felt as you were addressing them to me directly.I think that you and others on this forum place people in boxes according to their opinions.  That is wrong.  Life is not black and white, red and blue (for the US), blue or red (for the UK).  Has it ever occurred to you that my views may be based on what I see as right and wrong regardless of political inclination?  Obviously not and perhaps you find this idea difficult to understand. For example, I do believe that people are free to protest - whether I agree with them or not.  But for a protest to deteriorate to thuggery, as the one on Saturday and the one today, is beyond unacceptable and a travesty to common sense.  Furthermore, the experience that Lucille Grant's friends had Saturday is, in my view, criminal (perverting children?).Also, please bear in mind that Trumps critics include Republicans and Democrats alike, it is not confined to one line of thinking.  The Iranian leadership is frightening beyond belief but that does not mean Iranian people are.Do you think that roses should only be red?Finally, I will only be very glad that the Iranian's nuclear facilities have been destroyed once they have been independently verified.  I do not think we should take Trump's interventions as gospel, not just yet. Thank you for reading this post.

Ivonne Holliday ● 30d

Ivonne, my comments were not directed at you personally. The point I was trying to make is that left of centre critics of Trump who would normally queue up to denounce any intervention of this kind as 'illegal', have been strangely muted. The reason is that the Iranians are generally regarded as bad guys who should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. So while they are opposed to Trump's intervention on principle, in practice they are secretly pleased that he has (hopefully) destroyed Iran's nuclear facility.

Steven Rose ● 30d

Mr Brigo please honour us with the proof that Iran has no nuclear weapons nor the means of building themAsking for a friend.

Lucille Grant ● 30d

Mr Brigo'What are you on about? Iran does not have nuclear weapons.Is it time for another lie down'.Thank you for again showing such concern for my well being.Guess such empathy is essential to the business you run.Slow down and read what I posted: John HawkesDate/Time: 23/06/25 13:52:00.Then you might grasp its context."GCE English Language O-level".'Read the question carefully before answering'.

John Hawkes ● 30d

Ms Bond'I think you are overheating trying to think and speak for everybody else and had better go and lie down in a cool room. Time has moved on and there are new victims'.You seem to be showing the faux concern for my well being that is usually adopted by Mr Brigo in a feeble attempt at humour.Why is that ?'Time has moved on and there are new victims'.Who are they and who were the previous ones ?I only speak for myself, and so my initial thoughts encompass the massacre of Jews attacked October 2023 by Hamas Palestinians.On your part it seems they can now be forgotten."Move along please. Nothing to see here".Who do you speak for and have in mind ?Is it the Iranians ?

John Hawkes ● 30d

"there are US inspired rumours than Iran has nuclear weapons and has given every indication it might use them"What are you on about? Iran does not have nuclear weapons.Is it time for another lie down?

Michael Brigo ● 30d

I think you are overheating trying to think and speak for everybody else and had better go and lie down in a cool room. Time has moved on and there are new victims.

Philippa Bond ● 30d

Mr Rose'The usual suspects would live to condemn's 8intervention in Iran as 'illegal'.I think your predictive text tool is a bit up the spout !However you are correct.The usual suspects (those that hold antipathetic if not worse attitudes over Israel's right to exist) seem now to have switched their line of attack from: "look what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank" to: "look what Israel is doing to Iranians just because there are US inspired rumours than Iran has nuclear weapons and has given every indication it might use them".Unfortunately the Iran regime is undemocratic, misogynistic, homophobic and strictly monotheistic.Something Israel is not and attributes one would have thought leftist progressives would have strongly condemned  and would have pressured and even tried to bring down, any state - Iran for instance - that could be described as such.Unless of course Messrs Ainsworth, Brigo, and Carter and MSs Holliday, Bond and Carter can put forward a convincing case that Iran is being unjustly judged as such.

John Hawkes ● 30d

Hello Steven,You asked the question:  "What is a legal war?"I tried to answer that question, not express an opinion. So please, do tell me, when and where did I say that Iran were saints?  Where and when did I question whether Iran was really developing a bomb or whether the nuclear material had been destroyed????  Whose main aim is to demostraste their own moral virtue???????????????  "sponsittmred" sponsored?

Ivonne Holliday ● 30d

Mr Rose',their main aim being to demonstrate their own moral virtue.I think we know who you are refering to !What a quandary for them.To revile and attack Israel means one has to praise and defend Iran 😂!"One must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing".attrib: Oscar Wilde

John Hawkes ● 30d

The usual suspects would live to condemn's 8intervention in Iran as 'illegal' but they can't bring themselves to do so as the Iranians are bad guys, nit because they have sponsittmred terrorism against Israek, but because they oppress women etc. So the critics confine themselves to questioning whether Iran was really developing a bomb or whether the nuclear material has been destroyed,their main aim being to demonstrate their own moral virtue.

Steven Rose ● 30d

Hello Steve,According to Qora:"A legal war is a military action which is sanctioned by the legislative body of the party that initiates it, within the context of what is legal in that country. If a president or military leader starts a war which is not approved by the legislative assembly of that country it could be considered illegal."https://www.quora.com/What-makes-a-war-legal#:~:text=A%20legal%20war%20is%20a,it%20could%20be%20considered%20illegal.But, under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, threatening or using force against another state is unlawful. In that sense, it is possible to say that under international law, war is illegal.

Ivonne Holliday ● 30d

Mr Rose'What is a legal war?'I would suspect that many on this Forum would believe the invasion of Israel by Hamas was an example of such !

John Hawkes ● 30d

What is a legal war?

Steven Rose ● 30d

Indeed. Nor can they be sent to aid the Houtis, Hizbollah or Hamas, Michael.

Lucille Grant ● 31d

As you wrote only 4 days ago on the 'It's 2003 all over again' thread:"Perhaps America/Trump has learned a harsh lesson from America's disastrous coalition between Bush and Blair that waged an illegal war in Iraq in 2003 on the false pretext that Iraq was harbouring WMDs.  The effects of this illegal war were devastating and ongoing.  It became Blair's shameful legacy."But perhaps it was by a different Sue Hammond....

Richard Carter ● 31d

Mr Ixer'I suppose there could be an interesting side affect of this. If the Israelis and US bombing mussios destroy the Iranian drone and missile manufacturing facilities, these weapon can't then be supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine?Bingo !Will please Mr Carter.

John Hawkes ● 31d

Mr Ixer"authoritive, extreme fundametal religious government" .'authoritive.....government' - isn't that what Starmer is striving for?But luckily without the execution of homosexuals and the misogynistic control of women !

John Hawkes ● 31d

I suppose there could be an interesting side affect of this. If the Israelis and US bombing mussios destroy the Iranian drone and missile manufacturing facilities, these weapon can't then be supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine?

Michael Ixer ● 31d

Starmer has thought long and hard about this crisis and made a momentous decision!  He is off to Tehran with a box of Typhoo and a packet of Rich Tea to start peace negotiations.  What a hero!

Sue Hammond ● 31d

Mr Hawkes: "authoritive, extreme fundametal religious government" ...Just a different way of phasing it?

Michael Ixer ● 31d

Mr Ixer'Mr Hawkes, isn't that basically what I said?'Not in my reading of it.

John Hawkes ● 31d

Mr Carter'in 2012, just to take one example, he said in closed talks reported by Israeli hat Iran was just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities....Months probably not but he was probably aware of what Iran was doing or plotting and 13 years is a short time when it comes to the design and development of nuclear weapons.Have you started a 'Go fund me' website to help them start nuclear weapon development again ?I can think of a few on this Forum who would chip in.

John Hawkes ● 31d

4 weeks ago the IAEA stated that Iran had 408.6 kilos of 60% enriched uranium, a 50% increase over February (potentially enough for 9 or 10 bombs). The only practical reason to have so much is as part of a weapons program, however some have said it may simply be a negotiating tactic. I would prefer that we dont take that chance.

Adam Tripp ● 31d

If the US hadn't acted we would be weeks or months away from a nuclear armed Iran."That certainly sounds very frightening, but the only problem is that Netanyahu has been playing the same violin since 1992; in 2012, just to take one example, he said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran was just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities....

Richard Carter ● 31d

Mr Hawkes, isn't that basically what I said?

Michael Ixer ● 31d

Mr Ixer'Iran's infrastructure is of a relatively high standard'Pity it is a theocratic dictatorship and as such its political and moral standards are more than questionable.

John Hawkes ● 31d

Mr Carter'Easy to crow over this action when Trump boasts that Iran's nuclear facilities have been “completely obliterated.” but previous experience suggests it'd be wiser to wait for the longer term before celebrating. "Mission accomplished".I am sure you are most upset that peace loving Iran has been attacked by 'the Great Satan' without warning and would side with the UK Attorney General."A source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer's thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK's potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran".Will he side against the US quite so bravely as he does against Israel ?So on which side of the political and moral fence will Kier Starmer sit ? Some might crow, but all (you ?) will give a sigh of relief that this Islamo Fascist theocratic dictatorship will be less able to spread its malign influence, directly or via proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah across the region and thence into Europe and even the UK aided by the Palestine Action group, backed up by the threat of the use of nuclear weapons.And don't say they would never use them.Iran is ruled by people whose religion glories in the prospect of martyrdom taking them into a sublime afterlife.Would it care if the denizens of West Putney were taken along with them ?

John Hawkes ● 31d

So, Sue, you'll be happy if the final outcome results in another flood of asylum seekers and refugees towards the EU and UK. Although it's got an authoritive, extreme fundametal religious government my impression is Iran's infrastructure is of a relatively high standard (well, it wouldn't be possible to get close to developing either nuclear energy or weapons otherwise); so be careful what you wish for.

Michael Ixer ● 31d

"And who's  to say they were wrong?"...imo NK having nukes is all the evidence that is required to say there are wrong. Years of diplomacy & negotiation gave NK all the time it needed. If the US hadn't acted we would be weeks or months away from a nuclear armed Iran, and then it would be too late to act (just like NK)

Adam Tripp ● 31d

Easy to crow over this action when Trump boasts that Iran's nuclear facilities have been “completely obliterated.” but previous experience suggests it'd be wiser to wait for the longer term before celebrating. "Mission accomplished" over Iraq didn't work out so well, did it? Or the bombing of Libya? And, as someone has written about Afghanistan, remember that it took the USA four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and 20 years to replace The Taliban with ..... The Taliban.

Richard Carter ● 31d

It's easy to direct cheap sneers at Starmer when that's what you'd do whatever he'd decided, but to pretend that he was "blindsided" is simply wrong: most world leaders cwere counselling caution rather than rushing into military action. And who's  to say they were wrong?

Richard Carter ● 31d

From today's Observer, 'inside Iran The regime’s propaganda machine has gone into overdrive. In a surreal twist, the IRIB news channel aired footage of the Bagheri Chitgar residential complex, which had been struck in north-west Tehran, and falsely presented it as part of Iran’s attack on Israel.It was unmistakably Iranian soil. And worse: the original video, published earlier on social media, included the sound of Persian being spoken. In the broadcast version, the audio had been muted, a sign this was not a mistake but deliberate misinformation, aimed at deceiving the public.'https://observer.co.uk/news/international/article/this-isnt-a-leader-this-is-a-man-in-hiding-the-myth-of-khamenei-is-over

Lucille Grant ● 31d

I do love your posts Sue : ) sky news is entirely focused on the possibility of retaliation against US and UK assets, I find this strange. I believe Iran is just as likely to target shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and more importantly the Saudi oil infrastructure.

Adam Tripp ● 31d

Starmer's statement this morning:"Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.“The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this this crisis"Starmer must have splinters in his ar$e from sitting on all those fences ...

Sue Hammond ● 31d

The whole world knew the US and Israel were going to strike Iran - but Keir Starmer was blindsided. And that's just the start of the humiliationOur ineffective, pathetic PM has been totally ignored by Trump so he can now stop strutting around the world attempting to be relevant.The article by Dan Hodges in yesterday's Mailonline 💯sums up irrelevant Starmer.  He is a national embarrassment and should resign.https://mol.im/a/14834485

Sue Hammond ● 31d