Could the US demand UK troops are deployed to the ME as part of a trade deal?

[Miljea]

Is that feasible?

Given that India wants visas for trade deals, could the US start putting conditions on us about supplying troops for the inevitable fight that's to come?

Are there any international laws in place to prevent that?

[ListeningQuietly]

vvv unlikely

[jasjas1973]

The US doesn't need too, we will back up the US led "coalition" regardless.
There are enough people in this country to support another ME war.

[bellinisurge]

After Iraq, I think we can't go to war without agreement of Parliament...

[Doubletrouble99]

No way are we getting involved, please god.

[Miljea]

But could a trade deal be predicated on it? The UK providing personnel?

[MysteryTripAgain]

War in ME is a great idea. About time oil prices went up and oil expats can get £1,000+ per day like 10 years ago. The rates at the moment, £750 per day, are shit.

[scaryteacher]

Miljea No - and there is no need for it. We are deployed there anyway and will ramp up and down as necessary.

[Kraai]

Mystery oh dear I hadn't realised they'd sunk so low, thought daily rates were still at £1000.

[Songsofexperience]

War in ME is a great idea.

Are you serious?! People dying so that expats get £250 per day? WTH?
If this is in jest then I think it's pretty poor taste anyway.
Shame. On. You.

[Songsofexperience]

Shove your blood money where the sun don't shine.

[Songsofexperience]

If I wrote what I think of you mystery - you, personally, sat behind your screen- I'd probably get barred from here for life.

[bumblingbovine49]

It definitely COULD be but it won't need to be.

As others have said, we are out there anyway so the Govt is likely to get involved/ support the US regardless of any trade deals etc.

[Selfsettling3]

Songsofexperience I read that as the poster being sarcastic.

[Songsofexperience]

Yes, probably right. No one can be that horrible...

[Mockers2020Vision]

No. A trade deal is a trade deal. It is not a defence pact.

We are partners in NATO, which says that an attack on one is an attack on all, but in this case it was Trumpy and his flying kill-robot who did the attacking.

Pompeo doing the rounds yesterday was strong on how the UK, France and Germany were all wrong about this being provocative and precipiate, but has yet to take any of them into his confidence about the 'imminent' threat.

[Mockers2020Vision]

Iranians will take their time with their considered reply.

My bet is they'll go after Trump's kids.

[yellowallpaper]

Only if the government was stupid enough to sign up to this. Political suicide after the mess that was Iraq.

[ContinuityError]

Oh dear Mystery seems like you just don’t have the right skillset to be getting a good day rate

[ChristmasCarcass]

My bet is they'll go after Trump's kids

A. I think that is the only target he would give a shit about (not because he loves them, but because it would be such a personal affront to his dynastic ambitions).

B. Can you imagine the fucking reaction? He would literally nuke them, and probably the rest of the ME while he was at it.

[ListeningQuietly]

Iran is far far more likely to shut down the straits of Hormuz again

[MissChananderlerbong]

As others have said it would be about NATO 'an attack on one' not a trade deal
And by the way without NATO we would be fucked (Maritime and air surveillance for example)

[ChristmasCarcass]

Can’t imagine Trump giving a shit about that, Listening.

[meditrina]

They absolutely can't

They could put pressure via UN (esp P5) and of course through NATO, if they were seeking troop,contributors to a mission

These are well established routes, with frequent precendent

There is absolutely no question of tying military issues to trade

[ListeningQuietly]

MissChan
It has already been pointed out be France that an airstrike in a third country against a citizen of a fourth country does not come under NATO

Christmas
He would care when the price / supply of certain types of oil was affected
remember that not all oils work for all tasks

[EUnamechange]

This is my professional area, and it is quite common for an agreement around one thing to have additional accessory agreements in completely different areas of government - so an agreement to get country x to support us in a y situation will have 'sweeteners' such as visa agreements, some trade aspects, cooperation around science, academic exchanges, aid etc.

I've seen many defence agreements that have non-defence sweeteners, I couldn't say whether it applies vice versa.