Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

1000 replies

RedTagAlan · 13/08/2026 11:40

Thread 4 for those following and commenting on the above subject.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
85
Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 17:02

RedTagAlan · 06/09/2026 16:18

Trump is bonkers. His reflecting pool is totally relevant because it demonstrates how bonkers he is. Yes, I am speculating on the algae bloom off Isreal, but give it a day or 2. Lets see if he comes up with some batshit theory. Or will it be Natalie who suggests it.

Lets check a Truth from a few days ago.

"Friday, September 4, 202610:02 PM Truth Social

People, especially Patriots from the United States of America, love the name change of Lake Ontario to Lake America! The support has been overwhelming, including affirmation from Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Microsoft's Bing Maps. Since the name change, business on the United States side of the Lake has been absolutely BOOMING! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Source: Truth Social"

Does nobody who is pro war follow the totally Batshit things he says about other things ?

Doubt anyone on this thread sees themselves as “pro war” but while we all know Trump is deranged, personally I don’t have an obsession with him to the extent I’m interested in made up scenarios or connections that don’t exist.

TopPocketFind · 06/09/2026 18:02

Chris Wright today

https://bsky.app/profile/thebulwark.com/post/3muuek6uk4u2n
Raddatz: "There is no sign of a nuclear agreement."

Wright: "There may not be a nuclear agreement."

Raddatz: "So how do we keep them from having a nuclear weapon? Just keep bombing?"

Wright: "You have to destroy their capabilities to do it."

The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com)

Raddatz: "There is no sign of a nuclear agreement." Wright: "There may not be a nuclear agreement." Raddatz: "So how do we keep them from having a nuclear weapon? Just keep bombing?" Wright: "You have to destroy their capabilities to do it."

https://bsky.app/profile/thebulwark.com/post/3muuek6uk4u2n

trumpredcard · 06/09/2026 18:05

There are several recent articles that say Iran is losing control of the Strait. They are getting no oil out and the U.S are helping the Gulf States export some oil

There's losing control and there's losing control.

Since the war began, Tehran has claimed it has laid mines in international and Omani waters in the strait. The International Maritime Organization in June said about 80 had been placed in vital shipping lanes.
US President Donald Trump’s claim last week that “all mines” in the strait’s international waters had been removed or detonated — confirmed by the US military — surprised many onlookers.
Trackers had reported that three Gulf-based US ships normally tasked with mine countermeasures had been outside the region, in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, since at least early June.
Minesweeping an area of sea even in peacetime is a painstaking process that can take months. Specialised vessels must snake up and down the waterway, cutting mines from their moorings and shooting them when they start to float.
But in this case, US Navy divers worked in small teams using inflatable-hulled craft. They located Iranian mines with the help of robot boats and submersibles — such as the US Navy’s Common Uncrewed Surface Vessel — operating towed sonar arrays.
These devices, containing high-resolution, side-looking sonar sensors, can see objects such as mines on the ocean bottom at startlingly high resolution. That enables them to sweep large areas with minimal risk to crews...
“That is usually followed up by a navy diver who’s got to get in the water and approach the mine, and then put a charge on it and destroy it,” said Bill Hamblet, a retired US Navy captain who often operated in the Gulf.
He said it was a “very small, lightweight kind of force”. The US may have staged some operations from the USS Miguel Keith, a floating “expeditionary mobile base” attached to the Gulf naval forces, Hamblet added.
...
Shipowners and security advisers said they were optimistic that the southern half of the strait, close to Oman’s coast — through which the US has been guiding ships — had genuinely been cleared, while doubting that the entire strait was mine-free.
Only a trickle of commercial ships have been travelling through the strait since the war started.
One risk is missile and drone attacks by Iran. But the threat of mines, even if they are not actually present, is in itself enough to scare off shipowners and force insurers to quote eye-wateringly expensive cover, up to 10 times the prewar cost. For a typical supertanker that could mean insurance costs of about $10mn.
The power of that threat has led to an information war. Tehran has dismissed the US mine clearance claims, with deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi saying in late August that “no one except Iran knows the location of these mines”.
On the same day that Trump declared the strait mine-free, the US Navy-directed Joint Maritime Information Center said there was a “continued risk of drifting or uncharted mines”.
...
The question is whether shipowners will feel ready to send vessels through. That would require confidence that they can keep their ships safe from missiles and drones as well as mines.
The US said it would seek to prevent fresh mines from being laid. “Iran has been notified that any ship or boat placing new mines will be immediately and systematically destroyed,” Trump posted on social media last week.
Military analysts say the regime has thousands of Maham mines, akin to those used in the second world war. Some sit just below the surface and detonate when a ship hits lead horns on the mine itself, while others operate by detecting changes in electromagnetic fields as vessels pass overhead.
Iranian media has claimed that at least two tankers struck mines in the past week. An Iranian military spokesperson on Thursday claimed Tehran had laid more mines close to Oman.
....
“It’s hard to know what to believe,” said Ethan Connell, assistant director of Taiwan Security Monitor and an expert on mines. “Iran is certainly trying to re-mine.
“It’s always possible the [US] navy missed some. But the bigger and more pertinent issue, certainly the most annoying and expensive one, is the threat of re-mining.”
...
At the same time, said a tanker industry executive, “it doesn’t take much to put a mine back in because there is a lot of small-boat traffic going across Hormuz every night”.
...
The uncertainty is Iran’s trump card. By claiming that mines remain, it has managed to exert control.
Ships have been forced either to comply with Tehran’s recently established Persian Gulf Strait Authority and request permission to pass through the waterway — angering the US and potentially contravening US sanctions — or to risk taking the route that hugs the Omani coast, which the US has said is mine-free.
Hamblet said: “The Iranians have realised that their strongest card is the perception that they control the Strait of Hormuz. If they can convince the world that they can threaten the strait, that’s their strongest source of strategic leverage.”
Conversely, the US does not necessarily have to prove every mine has been removed; it simply needs to establish sufficient confidence that shipping can resume.
That will be a challenge when about one in 30 ships are being attacked by missile and drone strikes at present, according to maritime security advisers.
Hamblet said: “The bigger game is on the information side. That may be as important, if not more important, than what’s actually happening in the water or on the bottom of the strait.”

(FT 6.9.26)

trumpredcard · 06/09/2026 18:26

Thank you @BelleHathor I won the Literature prize at school in the 5th Form and was given The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and it has travelled with me as I moved around the world. I need to get it out and enjoy it again.

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 06:59

Twiglets1 · 06/09/2026 12:20

I see we’re in Wonderland territory again, where the US is about to be “destroyed”
and the global economy with it.

Let’s revisit that in a year’s time.

You seem to be talking to me again without tagging me. Best to tag me if you are commenting on something that I have said again.

You seem to have taken the comment literally. I didn't mention that the whole US would explode.
As @BelleHathor already said, I was referring to loss of US soft power and a deterioration in the US in combination with other 'fall out' from the war(s).
We can certainly revisit in a year if you like and see what has happened globally.

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 07:06

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 06:59

You seem to be talking to me again without tagging me. Best to tag me if you are commenting on something that I have said again.

You seem to have taken the comment literally. I didn't mention that the whole US would explode.
As @BelleHathor already said, I was referring to loss of US soft power and a deterioration in the US in combination with other 'fall out' from the war(s).
We can certainly revisit in a year if you like and see what has happened globally.

Get over yourself and allow me the right to tag who I want to tag. Yes let's revisit in a year, as I suggested.

And see if the US have destroyed the global economy and itself in the process, as you suggested.

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 07:21

Hormuz traffic dips to lowest since May after US, Iranian strikes on ships

The 10-day moving average was 10 on Sunday, down from more than 15 on Friday and nearly 13 on Saturday, data from analytics firm Kpler found.

U.S. forces struck three Iranian oil tankers on Saturday, U.S. Central Command said, including one off Kharg Island, Iran's key oil export hub, following attacks by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on U.S. warships in the region.

In retaliation, the IRGC navy said on Saturday it targeted three oil tankers travelling unauthorized routes in the strait as well as three additional U.S. vessels in other areas.

The three Iranian tankers were Downy, Stark I and Kylo, also known as Noxen, maritime intelligence firm Marisks said in a note.

The Saturday attacks represented a "major escalation in the maritime conflict", Marisks said.

"Commercial tankers are now being deliberately used as instruments of reciprocal economic pressure, substantially weakening the previous distinction between military confrontation and commercial shipping," it added.

"Risk is therefore assessed as extreme for Iranian/Iran-linked tonnage and materially elevated for U.S.-linked or U.S.-escorted shipping throughout the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman."

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hormuz-traffic-dips-lowest-since-may-after-us-iranian-strikes-ships-2026-09-06/

RedTagAlan · 07/09/2026 07:25

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 06:59

You seem to be talking to me again without tagging me. Best to tag me if you are commenting on something that I have said again.

You seem to have taken the comment literally. I didn't mention that the whole US would explode.
As @BelleHathor already said, I was referring to loss of US soft power and a deterioration in the US in combination with other 'fall out' from the war(s).
We can certainly revisit in a year if you like and see what has happened globally.

Now you mention it, I don't think I have seen any soft power moves from the Trump Whitehouse. All he does is wave a big stick around. And non US politicians who stand up to him tend to go up in popularity, those who suck up to him plummet.

Please note. The above comment is made because I have an interest in international geopolitics. Not because I am "obsessed" with Trump, as a poster has suggested, several times.

OP posts:
trumpredcard · 07/09/2026 08:16

On US soft power.
I don't think Trump understands the value of soft power and being trusted overseas. His construction/casino/golfcourse etc background, in spite of his self-professed stable genius status, would lend itself to immediate returns. You only have to look at South Korea's beauty and entertainment industries to see the economic benefits of soft power and opening up of new markets and collaborations around the world.

Newbutoldfather · 07/09/2026 08:32

Trump has certainly compromised the use of the U.S projecting its soft power via Hollywood and its media. Not many people envy the U.S its freedom and the American dream now.

However, I do think a lot of people view the post WW2 environment with somewhat rose-tinted glasses. So many of my left wing friends believe that Europe hasn’t had a meaningful war since WW2 due to the rules-based post WW2 consensus, and international law. I firmly believe it is due to MAD, and the cost of kinetic war far outweighing the benefits.

Putin has kind of broken that model in Ukraine, which could still end catastrophically, especially if Ukraine starts to clearly win the conventional war.

However, one thing that Trump has been right about even since before he was in power was Europe (including UK) not pulling its weight in NATO and relying on a muscular U.S to do its dirty work for it.

Sometimes the EU does seem like the pacifist small boy in class who is only not getting thumped, as he relies on a big boy to fight for him, at the same time as calling the big boy a thick pugilist.

So, although the U.S would benefit from a very different style of leadership, Europe also needs to step up to the plate militarily.

trumpredcard · 07/09/2026 08:38

On Alice in Wonderland.

Going down the rabbit hole is the start of a journey that leads to learning how to navigate an unfamiliar world where self discovery necessitates using imagination when the surrounding world is in a state of flux.
So referring to a poster's comments as "Wonderland" is not the ridicule some here may have intended.

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 08:50

Defining my words for me now @trumpredcard ?

I can speak for myself and that is not what I meant by Alice in Wonderland.

RedTagAlan · 07/09/2026 09:21

Newbutoldfather · 07/09/2026 08:32

Trump has certainly compromised the use of the U.S projecting its soft power via Hollywood and its media. Not many people envy the U.S its freedom and the American dream now.

However, I do think a lot of people view the post WW2 environment with somewhat rose-tinted glasses. So many of my left wing friends believe that Europe hasn’t had a meaningful war since WW2 due to the rules-based post WW2 consensus, and international law. I firmly believe it is due to MAD, and the cost of kinetic war far outweighing the benefits.

Putin has kind of broken that model in Ukraine, which could still end catastrophically, especially if Ukraine starts to clearly win the conventional war.

However, one thing that Trump has been right about even since before he was in power was Europe (including UK) not pulling its weight in NATO and relying on a muscular U.S to do its dirty work for it.

Sometimes the EU does seem like the pacifist small boy in class who is only not getting thumped, as he relies on a big boy to fight for him, at the same time as calling the big boy a thick pugilist.

So, although the U.S would benefit from a very different style of leadership, Europe also needs to step up to the plate militarily.

Quote "However, one thing that Trump has been right about even since before he was in power was Europe (including UK) not pulling its weight in NATO and relying on a muscular U.S to do its dirty work for it."

Except its not that simple is it. All those military bases the US has in friendly nations are really handy when it comes to power projection. The US does not have bases in the UK, for example, to protect the UK. No, it's a very handy airstrip for them.

And on MAD we have this

IF12735.4.pdf (congress.gov)

"One of the stated goals of U.S. nuclear weapons policy is to extend deterrence to over 30 U.S. “allies and partners” and assure these countries that the United States will come to their aid, including potentially by using U.S. nuclear weapons, if they are attacked. The 2010, 2018, and 2022 Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPRs), which are periodic assessments of U.S. nuclear policy, argued for strengthening extended deterrence and posited that such deterrence supported U.S. nuclear nonproliferation goals."

The US did not want friendly nations to have their own nukes. So they offered to step in with theirs. Because it minimizes the risk to the US themselves. See here from that congress doc I linked.

"Since the late 1950s, successive U.S. Administrations have expressed concerns about the security threats posed by the possible spread of nuclear weapons since such proliferation could pose a challenge to U.S. national security. During the negotiations on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the 1960s, several U.S. allies sought additional U.S. security assurances while pledging that they would not develop nuclear weapons. U.S. policy has thus sought to extend the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” over allies in Europe and Asia in part as a means to reduce the incentive for them to acquire their own nuclear weapons."

But now Trump has thrown that out the window. And what do we get ? We get South Korea discussing obtaining their own nukes, and Germany talking to the UK/France on maybe sharing theirs.

US policy up till now has not been altruistic. Quite the opposite. They wanted to keep other nations down in military terms, for their own security.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12735/IF12735.4.pdf

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 07/09/2026 10:13

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Except its not that simple is it. All those military bases the US has in friendly nations are really handy when it comes to power projection. The US does not have bases in the UK, for example, to protect the UK. No, it's a very handy airstrip for them.’

Nothing is ever totally unidimensional. However, when you talk about projecting power, you have to ask to what end. The U.S was projecting power in Europe to protect Europe from a threat from the USSR. But, did the U.S really need to?

It is true that the U.S did try to prevent proliferation, but again that is at least mainly altruistic. I don’t think, from the 60s onwards, they still saw Germany as a military threat, for instance. And we never transferred money to fund their nukes.

It is open to (endless debate) but I do think the U.S was a massive force for good throughout the majority of the 20th century. Yes, of course, there was overlap with their own self interest, but they did generally see spreading liberal democracy as one of their aims.

Where I totally agree is that Trump has turned this on its head. Threatening Greenland was crazy, even if it was just verbiage.

I kind of see his point about Canada and the U.S being successful as a single nation. However Canada would need to be a lot more than one state, and would have to have equal voting rights as part of one nation, and agree to it in a referendum. And NAFTA was also the next best thing. His crazy tariff war with Canada is…well….just that, crazy!

RedTagAlan · 07/09/2026 10:32

Newbutoldfather · 07/09/2026 10:13

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Except its not that simple is it. All those military bases the US has in friendly nations are really handy when it comes to power projection. The US does not have bases in the UK, for example, to protect the UK. No, it's a very handy airstrip for them.’

Nothing is ever totally unidimensional. However, when you talk about projecting power, you have to ask to what end. The U.S was projecting power in Europe to protect Europe from a threat from the USSR. But, did the U.S really need to?

It is true that the U.S did try to prevent proliferation, but again that is at least mainly altruistic. I don’t think, from the 60s onwards, they still saw Germany as a military threat, for instance. And we never transferred money to fund their nukes.

It is open to (endless debate) but I do think the U.S was a massive force for good throughout the majority of the 20th century. Yes, of course, there was overlap with their own self interest, but they did generally see spreading liberal democracy as one of their aims.

Where I totally agree is that Trump has turned this on its head. Threatening Greenland was crazy, even if it was just verbiage.

I kind of see his point about Canada and the U.S being successful as a single nation. However Canada would need to be a lot more than one state, and would have to have equal voting rights as part of one nation, and agree to it in a referendum. And NAFTA was also the next best thing. His crazy tariff war with Canada is…well….just that, crazy!

Quote " It is true that the U.S did try to prevent proliferation, but again that is at least mainly altruistic. I don’t think, from the 60s onwards, they still saw Germany as a military threat, for instance. And we never transferred money to fund their nukes."

The congressional document I posted above is very suggestive that the US were not being altruistic. They did not want other countries to have nukes, to protect the US.

Re Germany. Rather Ironic that Trump and his cronies are now supporting the far right there.

Do you mean the UK never transferred money to the UK to fund their nukes ? The UK transferred plenty to the US to help with that. Summary here -

The early years of Britain’s nuclear programme (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

And of course we still pay billions into their Trident delivery system. But we put our own nukes on them. I don't recall ever seeing news articles about the US saying we should not pay into Trident, but spend money on tanks instead.

The early years of Britain’s nuclear programme

The US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement and its amendments remain the cornerstones of the current atomic capabilities deployed by the UK.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-early-years-of-britains-nuclear-programme/

OP posts:
rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 10:59

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 07:06

Get over yourself and allow me the right to tag who I want to tag. Yes let's revisit in a year, as I suggested.

And see if the US have destroyed the global economy and itself in the process, as you suggested.

No need to get upset. I've already agreed to revisit this in a year. I've also already explained what I meant. Others posters seem to have understood.

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 11:00

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 08:50

Defining my words for me now @trumpredcard ?

I can speak for myself and that is not what I meant by Alice in Wonderland.

The surely you can afford others the same courtesy! 😂

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 11:04

RedTagAlan · 07/09/2026 07:25

Now you mention it, I don't think I have seen any soft power moves from the Trump Whitehouse. All he does is wave a big stick around. And non US politicians who stand up to him tend to go up in popularity, those who suck up to him plummet.

Please note. The above comment is made because I have an interest in international geopolitics. Not because I am "obsessed" with Trump, as a poster has suggested, several times.

Agreed. And you can see the effects of the loss of US soft power already, as you say. Most countries are still very intimidated by the US because of their immense 'hard power' but even that is waning.

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 11:06

trumpredcard · 07/09/2026 08:16

On US soft power.
I don't think Trump understands the value of soft power and being trusted overseas. His construction/casino/golfcourse etc background, in spite of his self-professed stable genius status, would lend itself to immediate returns. You only have to look at South Korea's beauty and entertainment industries to see the economic benefits of soft power and opening up of new markets and collaborations around the world.

Yes. The art of the deal doesn't really work in the far more complex world of geopolitics. It pays not to use a couple of real estate developers to fail to do the job of experienced diplomats.

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 11:28

Newbutoldfather · 06/09/2026 12:23

@rainingsnoring ,

‘I'm a bit shocked at the way you just dismiss international law above. The US can hardly claim any sort of moral high ground against the IRGC or any other adversary can they.’

I don’t think Trump cares about that. To be honest I am very cynical about moral high ground in wars. At best, they make up a small part of war objectives. Look how few wars in poor resourceless countries we ever get involved in.

The U.S’s only moral high ground was stopping Iran getting nukes, and that was pretty much taken care of in the previous attack.

‘The US and Israel have been guilty of multiple war crimes in this war alone. Trump and Hegseth have written multiple posts expressing genocidal intent too. Hopefully, the two of them and certain others end up in The Hague’

People are way too quick to talk about war crimes, and seem far more interested in our allies in this regard than our enemies (such as Iran and Hamas). We have people today already ‘authoratively’ declaring the attacks on oil tankers is a war crime. Except it probably isn’t. It is legitimate to target the funding and/or supply lines of your enemy.

The U.S has been very successful at invading countries and ousting regimes. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. What they are very bad at is nation building. They have no staying power or understanding of the countries that they invade. They could relatively easily take Iran, the problem is what then. But that would still be an appalling result for the current leadership.

‘The Iranians just need to stay the course and watch the US destroy the global economy and itself in the process.’

There are several recent articles that say Iran is losing control of the Strait. They are getting no oil out and the U.S are helping the Gulf States export some oil (admittedly not huge quantities). They also don’t have infinite time and there is no saying who will blink first.

I think it's very that DJT doesn't care about international law at all. It is absolutely clear that any sort of moral high ground/helping Iranian women, etc formed no part of his plan. What I dislike is the lies and hypocrisy, the pretence that the US is somehow morally right, doing the Christian thing, etc, when it's clearly untrue. Many people fall for it, including some in this section of MN and across the UK and other countries. I don't think you can argue that the US are morally right because they have stopped Iran getting nukes. Iran had not acquired nukes and there was no evidence at all that they were moving to do so. It was DJT who pulled out of the JCPOA, which had been functioning well. Who is to say what will happen in the future. Perhaps the new leadership, put in place because DJT murdered the old will be more keen to look at deterrents in the future.

The US hitting civilian oil tankers is legally a war crime. Whether it is a legitimate target during a war is another question.

I don't think you are correct to say that the US has been very successful at 'invading countries and ousting regimes'. Obviously, they are constantly invading other countries but the ousting regimes section isn't always the case at all. The Taliban are still ruling in Afghanistan after 20 years or US occupation and drug dealing. Look at Vietnam too. They successfully murdered over a million Vietnamese though (so much for that moral high ground). As you say, they have no understanding of the countries they invade. You really don't know for sure that they could take Iran, never mind do it 'easily'. I have heard several, highly experienced military men say the opposite or that the chances are low.
I think some Iranian and some oil from other countries is getting out but far, far lower amounts than pre war and that is extremely damaging to everyone.

Newbutoldfather · 07/09/2026 11:55

@rainingsnoring ,

‘The US hitting civilian oil tankers is legally a war crime. Whether it is a legitimate target during a war is another question.’

Are you sure about that?

JadeHare · 07/09/2026 12:31

Doesn’t look like there is anything legal about this war. What a surprise.

“Congress neither declared war nor authorized an extension allowing the continued military action. There was no attack on the U.S. and President Trump has made no attempt to extend this for 30 days. And so, by any definition — whether American law, international law or common sense — the U.S. has been fighting an illegal war for nearly four months.
For a time, Trump appeared to actually pay attention to the War Powers Resolution, which is meant to provide a check on presidential power and to ensure that there is careful deliberation and approval by Congress before the U.S. is enmeshed in a prolonged conflict.
On April 7, he suggested that the 60-day clock under the law was stopped because there was a pause in the hostilities due to a ceasefire. But there’s nothing in the act about stopping the clock under such circumstances; the law is explicit that troops must be withdrawn 60 days after hostilities begin unless one of the exceptions in the law is met. Besides, there have been many bombings, blockades and military actions from both sides, most recently on Sunday.”
“Congress, too, appeared for a moment to care about the War Powers Resolution. In June, both houses passed a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Resolution directing the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran. Trump simply ignored that directive and Congress has done nothing about it.
The War Powers Resolution is vital because it reinforces the Constitution’s allocation of power over warmaking. The drafters of the Constitution aimed to make sure that two branches of government were involved in any major military action. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, while Article II makes the president the commander in chief of the Army and Navy.
The fundamental idea is for Congress to decide whether the country will be in a war and, if so, to make it the president’s role to choose how to wage it. This was expressed by none other than President Washington, who declared that “no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after [Congress has] deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure.””
“The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution exist to provide protection from exactly what we are seeing in Iran: a president waging a hugely costly war with no apparent purpose. For a time, Trump articulated his goals, including a regime change in Iran and the elimination of its nuclear capacity. It is apparent that neither will happen, but the war goes on.”

Excerpt From
“Contributor: Trump is waging an illegal, costly war in Iran and no one is stopping him”
Erwin Chemerinsky
Los Angeles Times
https://apple.news/A7ePFnGJRS8-WlrNSW6E9PQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

Contributor: Trump is waging an illegal, costly war in Iran and no one is stopping him — Los Angeles Times

How are we a nation under the rule of law if there is nothing to stop the president from violating the Constitution?

https://apple.news/A7ePFnGJRS8-WlrNSW6E9PQ

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 12:50

rainingsnoring · 07/09/2026 10:59

No need to get upset. I've already agreed to revisit this in a year. I've also already explained what I meant. Others posters seem to have understood.

I'm not upset just reminding you that I have the right to tag who I want to tag as we all do.

trumpredcard · 07/09/2026 16:01

Newbutoldfather · 07/09/2026 08:32

Trump has certainly compromised the use of the U.S projecting its soft power via Hollywood and its media. Not many people envy the U.S its freedom and the American dream now.

However, I do think a lot of people view the post WW2 environment with somewhat rose-tinted glasses. So many of my left wing friends believe that Europe hasn’t had a meaningful war since WW2 due to the rules-based post WW2 consensus, and international law. I firmly believe it is due to MAD, and the cost of kinetic war far outweighing the benefits.

Putin has kind of broken that model in Ukraine, which could still end catastrophically, especially if Ukraine starts to clearly win the conventional war.

However, one thing that Trump has been right about even since before he was in power was Europe (including UK) not pulling its weight in NATO and relying on a muscular U.S to do its dirty work for it.

Sometimes the EU does seem like the pacifist small boy in class who is only not getting thumped, as he relies on a big boy to fight for him, at the same time as calling the big boy a thick pugilist.

So, although the U.S would benefit from a very different style of leadership, Europe also needs to step up to the plate militarily.

To me it's a combination of MAD and post WWII agreements. I agree that Europe needs to up its defense spending and assume more responsibility for its own defense. The disentanglement from the US will be a problem, especially for the UK and any country that bought and is still using US tech.

I see the damage to US soft power to be more than Hollywood & media, and more caused by decisions such as withdrawal of AID programmes in the third world, ICE activities at home, unhinged Truth Social postings etc, which damage trust in brand America, worldwide. Everyone is now looking more closely at Trump's America and finding "Made in America" is no longer a indicator of good quality. As evidenced in the sm posts comparing ingredients in food eg British Ketchup v American ketchup, and saying to avoid Korean products manufactured in the US because of they contain junk legal additives that can cause allergic reactions. These are absent when made in South Korea.

On these threads, we've also previously discussed the swivel away from buying US military aircraft and tech.

trumpredcard · 07/09/2026 16:26

Twiglets1 · 07/09/2026 08:50

Defining my words for me now @trumpredcard ?

I can speak for myself and that is not what I meant by Alice in Wonderland.

I do seem to recall in a pp your saying that you are not one of my students when I remarked that every day's a school day.
Well, you did speak for yourself here ... and revealed that you didn't know that Alice in Wonderland is an allegory and what it meant.

A. There's no shame in being wrong and acknowledging it.
B. No one knows everything.
C. There's nothing wrong in learning new things.

QED.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread