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?

But if Iran did anything on American soil then NATO would definitely get involved

We would also be foolish not to support NATO's endeavours given our appalling defence assets/personnel/infrastructure. A shit position to be in.

It is quite possible for Trump to make getting a trade deal dependent on supporting miitary action

SInce a trade deal would take years to negotiate, this could mean any UK PM jumping to the POTUS commands for years

Even after the trade deal has been approved,
it would be very difficult for a future UK govt, that refused to be a poodle, to prevent the USA suspending any future trade deal
and / or applying punitive tariffs

There is no way that one NATO member can put extra demands of that sort onto another NATO member.

We are already closely bound.

And that's not taking the P5 angle into consideration.

If the UK does join in military action,
or even issue the statements of support that Trump wants ....

it is very likely that Iran would attack British interests abroad, especially ships,
or even sponsor terrorist attacks in the UK,
since we have little ability to retaliate militarily

Going by previous Iranian attacks, e.g. taking RN sailors prisoner,
the US only retaliates when its own interests are attacked, so no help to be expected for us there

"this could mean any UK PM jumping to the POTUS commands for years"

Flashback to the Blair years then?

"There is no way that one NATO member can put extra demands of that sort onto another NATO member"

Not formally, but great pressure can be applied, especially behind the scenes, by the world's only superpower
e.g. making it known that trade negotiations will stop any time the UK doesn't fully support each US military action .... over the next few years, again & again.

Previous US administrations & US rightwing media have whipped up public feeling there against govts that don't support them

e.g. the anger against France, even going to the daft length of renaming chips / French fries as "Freedom Fries"
but France wasn't looking for a trade deal and could shrug it off
And Trump wasn't in charge - he hasn't even the limited constraints on his behaviour that previous POTUS's had

"Flashback to the Blair years then?"

Far, far worse

Blair didn't jump to every wish
He chose to join the Iraq war because of vanity & gross misjudgement - he could have refused like the French & German leaders did

BJ - and his successors - will be in a far more vulnerable position re the USA,
because of the desperate need for that trade deal

Moving away from the EU inevitably means becoming closer to the USA in many ways, because the UK is too weak on its own

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

Aaaaah, but he can't. Congress alone has the power to declare war.

And he might not be prez any more by then.

He will have Secret Service protection for life. But it will stop there.

In the interim, the US military in Iraq needs to start packing up.

It is quite possible for Trump to make getting a trade deal dependent on supporting miitary action
Ukraine and impeachment ????

by the world's only superpower

Very much a waning superpower, with another on the ascendancy.

I was reading the Economist quarterly briefing about Chinese tech this morning.
Interesting how much AI is actually Mechanical Turk
but also how demographics are going to bite China and the USA in the bum pretty soon

around the same time as climate change does

but also how demographics are going to bite China and the USA in the bum pretty soon

For different reasons presumably? China as a result of its one child policy in which male children were favoured? The US because of a generally ageing population?

Peregrina
China systematically lies about its birth rate
but in South Korea, each generation is 55% smaller than the one before
China is similar
not just the sex ratio but the fact that the number of young workers is halving every 20 years .....

USA is the ageing and widening and colour changes - will massively impact industry
without immigration, its population would be declining soon

a Japan's already is

Trump has wrecked the WTO, pulled out of the Paris agreement, the Iran deal, tore up the NAFTA agreement, willing to break international law and attack cultural sites.

So, regardless of anything the UK does or doesn't do or any FTA reached, its all worthless, all we can hope is that Trump is defeated in November unless he starts WW3 before then.

The 'Cultural Sites' thing is beyond mad. It is a war crime for whoever does it. It is a war crime to obey illegal orders.

Now it is the case that the US troops that invaded Iraq used the Ziggurat of Ur as a urinal, shades of the Who's Next album cover, but that was put down to ignorance.

They had an expert on Newsnight last night talking about this and how the UK is in such a weak position here with no good options. Trump can withhold any trade deal (which because of Brexit we'd be desperate for) unless we go to war with him. And as for parliament not giving consent to any war, the Newsnight expert said it would have been unlikely Johnson could have got parliamentary approval with the hung parliament we had before the election, he now has a 80 seat majority though and so it's now very unlikely he WOULDN'T get approval for war.
I swear, every single day I am so glad that I voted Remain and didn't help do this to the UK. It'll be so unfair if our service men and women are sent to fight and die because our country is too weak and vulnerable to say 'No' to Trump because of fucking Brexit.

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

Aaaaah, but he can't. Congress alone has the power to declare war.

My understanding of it is that the POTUS can unilaterally order a nuclear strike and NOBODY can veto it. I do really hope I have this wrong though?

Normally defence/military support and trade are kept separate. They are legally two separate agreements, done by different government departments.
But the US State Dept Ambassador does have the power to do horse trades with U.K. Cabinet and the PM. As in tell Boris Johnson, support the US militarily and then we can give you a better trade deal. If you don’t, well you know my hands will be tied because the President’s order is America First on all trade deals. We are only willing to grant trade concessions if you support us against Iran.

My understanding of it is that the POTUS can unilaterally order a nuclear strike and NOBODY can veto it.

He is Commander-In-Chief and can issue orders. But it remains a crime under US and International Law to obey illegal orders.

And there is no "Button". Trumpy probably thinks there is, but there isn't. He cannot push a button and launch missiles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football#Operation

the POTUS can unilaterally order a nuclear strike and NOBODY can veto it.

Yes and no. They changed that after Japan was nuked. The president has have to have Joint Chiefs of Staff (military heads of each service) agreement first. They also are the ones who would give him the codes and access cards to do the order. So if they refuse the President, he cannot physically order a strike. He has to slink back and ask Congress to remove the Chiefs of Staff that disagrees with him from office.

Thank God for that! At least that's a bit of a safety net.

Thank you @Mockers2020Vision and @PlanDeRaccordement

I don't know for sure what will happen here, but the idea that Trump wants a ground war with Iran doesn't make any sense. The vast majority of the American public want no repeat of Iraq. He may be planning strikes against possible nuclear sites, but this has been a possibility since the Obama agreement broke down.

They will be able to demand absolutely anything they want, this does not mean that the UK will or has to concede to those demands, however given that the UK isn't run along the lines of the script of Love Actually , chances are there will be many unpalatable concessions.

Trump/US placing too many demands on the UK "could" mean a better deal with the EU ?

As i said earlier, any deal with Trump is worthless, he has shown that international norms & rules mean SFA to him.

Trump/US placing too many demands on the UK "could" mean a better deal with the EU ?

There needs to be the political will for this to happen. At the moment, this will is totally absent - everything the EU does is bad, or so it's portrayed. If the Govt senses that the mood in the country has changed, then yes, they will trim their sails accordingly.

They will be able to demand absolutely anything they want, this does not mean that the UK will or has to concede to those demands, however given that the UK isn't run along the lines of the script of Love Actually , chances are there will be many unpalatable concessions.

This.