US and Israel strike Iran. (title edited by MNHQ at request of the OP)

[Twiglets1]

Israel attacked Iran early on Saturday morning, saying it had “launched a pre-emptive strike against Iran to remove threats to the state of Israel,” according to a military spokesman.

Israel closed its airspace and declared a state of emergency, in anticipation of
Iranian drone and missile strikes in response.

Explosions were heard in Tehran on Saturday, Iranian media reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/israel-launches-attack-on-iran-as-explosions-heard-in-tehran

I recall asking you what you wanted to happen and you answered for Iranians to be free of the authoritarian regime. Did that change and you’d like the IRGC to stay?

As for your question, let’s give people the chance to have a free say first, if more vote for oppression and killing those who dissent they can then vote for a theocracy again.

It’s easier to say on mumsnet from the comfort of the U.K., harder to endure as you see the next generation try to oppose and be killed. Most of the protestors were young. It must be difficult to just keep waiting for more decades to pass, and really what can you say to change the IRGC? Any ideas?

Offer your services then.

Well I don't remember your username from the threads talking about how awful it was when the Iranian regime was murdering their own people by the thousands over a few days.

The silence was deafening then too from many people.

The worlds diplomatic leaders are paid to have these answers.
The worlds leaders just don't care enough about the civilians of any country, except their own, to put proper effort into it.

They only get involved if they think a country may have the potential to fire a missile at them directly or if they have oil they want to redirect/disrupt the production of. If they have both - bingo, let's go a'warrin'.

How about if I say it from where I am.

Running out of diplomatic energy is not an option.

I am posting from an authoritarian state. The statement is true, no matter where it is posted from.

It’s got to be more than a post on mn. If no one can think of anything during 47 years how long should Iranians wait?

The world has plenty of skilled diplomacists.
World leaders just don't use them enough.

We do need more too. We should be focusing on skilling people up to be great at this.

So what can be said to the IRGC to get them to stop killing any opposition? In your view.

Good idea but rather too late to help the Iranians just now. In any case I suspect many diplomats of standing must be horrified when their suggestions are dismissed by the politicians they report to.

Diplomacy won't provide a solitary 'solves everything' answer. It's not something 'someone will suddenly think of'. It's a complicated and lengthy ongoing process of negotiation, compromise and support.

It never ends.

It must continue through good times and bad.

That’s great. Still it’s been decades and people are probably feeling a little jaded at the oppression and death whenever they try to get out from under it.

So it’ll need to get past some easy to type lines and to some actual ideas.

You think there is currently no diplomacy being carried on behind the scenes? Seriously? I'm pretty sure it must be. Whether anything good comes from diplomatic efforts remains to be seen.

Sounds like my marriage.

Seriously though, the Iranian regime was not about to become a functional one no matter how many diplomatic words were used. They were committed to destroying Israel for one thing, and causing huge unrest in the Middle East through their proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

The whole ME would be a better, safer place without those religious extremists in charge.

Starting a war kind of fucks up the diplomatic process.

Trump is a child. Thankfully Starmer is behaving more like an adult. A boring, sensible, careful adult.

So this is about Starmer for you?

Are you worried about Labour over all.

Cannot disagree with any of that. But sometimes the diplomatic process doesn't work and the answer isn't always "more diplomatic process" where nuclear weapons are part of the equation.

Just comparing how 2 world leaders are dealing with this right now.

Diplomatic process is always the only option when nuclear weapons are part of the equation.

The only time we bomb a country is when we are certain they don't have them.

@UYN is explaining it better than me, I pass you over.

I did say a few day's ago that I would post my method. I have not forgotten. Just time.

It has been portrayed as Starmer taking a principled stance against Trump, but it is worth noting that due to deep cuts in defence spending by both Labour and the Conservatives, there is very little of value that the British military can contribute anyway.

Starmer is not really the focus, unless you still like him for whatever reason and need to promote Labour.

The bigger picture is the law protects the IRGC over the Iranian people plus the problem with uranium enrichment. There are bigger issues than Starmer.

@UYNisn’t really saying much more than someone will say the right words but no one can say what that is and why they haven’t worked for 47 years. It’s soundbite stuff tbh

I'm not so sure Iran wouldn't nuke Israel if they got the chance, are you?

They are completely committed to the destruction of Israel, even to the detriment of millions of Muslims.

Exactly.