Guess what,killing people which are vititing a festival isn’t destabilizing the region? That’s true. But there is no difference between the dead people. Raping young girls and killing them isn’t destabilizing. I know. While the entire awrab mob was providing applause for this. While the entire Hisbollah-, Hamas-, IRAN and Huti world was spending this Applause. We cn speak about this kind of things. We will only have one problem. Killing arabs is destabilizing following to our logic. Rockets on israeli cutizens not. That, following that logic, is something the israelis have to stand. Sorry. I hate it that I have to run in a shelter every now and then when I am there. I hate it that I have to be in panic every now and then. That I have panics all time when I am reading about ne rockets and drones. What do you believe? They are allowed but Israel isn’t allowed? That logic is the Putin one. And Hamas one and Iran one. Not the real logic.
Sorry but what you write shows only: you are exactly on the line of the HAMAS propaganda. Israeli people are not saying that this are not humans. They are. No question. But there is a problem. Many of them standing behind the Hamas. And that makes big problems. Your point of view is to hard exactly the Hamas proaganda line. Like written by Hamas.
Gee, I would never have guessed, based on their inhumane actions.
Two wrongs never make a right. Attacking a festival is two things at the same time: its wrong, and also is not justification for exterminating an entire people, stealing their land and building a luxury resort in its place.
These are not complicated moral questions. At all.
I was listening to a debate on Times Radio concerning Iran the other day and according to an analyst they had on as a guest Iran has a population of 90m people and she estimated only around 10m of them would be ideologically aligned with the regime.
We’re hearing quite a bit from Iranians in exile too who see Israel as their ally assisting to liberate Iran not as an aggressor and enemy of Iran.
Israel is in defense while over decades rockets from Hisbollah and Hamas are reaching Israel. From time to time also from the Huti Rebels and from Iran. There is mo Genozid in Hamas Land. It is a war. Wars killing people. But Israel wants to STOP FIRING ROCKETS on Israel. That’s something what they tried in every possible way. But Hamas don’t wanted, Hisbollah don’t wanted. Iran and Huti: aslo not. So now we have a war.
The next question is: if they have 60% enriched Uranium what Iran by self stated it is a short way to have the material for a nucear weapon. A really short way. And if that what I studied (Physics) is today also a true thing they are shortly before it. That’s enough to bomb them out. Why? While every civilized state could be the target for their nuclear rockets. And thex would use it. For you it may not be a risk you can see. For me it is. While I was reading over the years what they wrote and listened to what they said. May be you think it is different but…sadly…it is not.
That’s true, they see Israel as allied nation not as enemy. And at the end: it is the target to get rid of the regime so Iran can build an own government. Would be a dream for the people living there.
The same is in Libanon and also in Gaza.
What these conversations lack nearly always is historical grounding.
The problems in Palestine go back at least to the 1950s, as do the problems in Iran. The US began doing regime change in Iran when Iran tried to nationalize its oil industry to wrest control away from predatory corporate interests and we could not abide that. The US and UK instigated the 1953 coup d’etat. The Shah was our puppet subsequently and that of course ended splendidly. We radicalized the country enough for it to become a crackpot theocracy. I’m sure meddling further will suddenly be different.
It’s the same in Palestine. This did not start with the music festival attack by any means. It is just another in a sequence of badly thought through responses. Each dead Palestinian just produces a dozen more radicalized terrorists with scores to settle and nothing to lose.
Indeed, the “unconditional surrender” that is explicitly and implicitly demanded in these cases just means no one has anything to lose, and no hope. So they fight to the death when they might otherwise negotiate.
In fact, while not being much reported, Oman was mediating peace talks with Iran and had just reached breakthrough concessions the very day the US and Israel attacked: Iran agreed to give up all their stockpiles and to allow inspectors in perpetuity. My guess is that this had something to do with the now-or-never timing rather than Iran actually being on the cusp of having ICBMs when Trump himself claimed that had all been obliterated in the attack some months back.
Now we have oil infrastructure destroyed or at the least shut down due to backed up supply lines and it’s an engineering risk to do that with no guarantee it will all come back on line, and certainly not on a dime. We have desalinization plants offline which will create a desperate populace in both Iran and elsewhere. Some of the oil trapped at the Strait of Hormuz is a single source of supply for a number of Asian nations, which will tend to draw them into the conflict. Trump is lifting sanctions on oil sales to Russia by India to buy time but that will translate directly into more mayhem in Ukraine – as will the inevitable diversion of Patriot missiles from Ukraine to the war in Iran.
In the next couple of weeks expect some sort of further provocation in Cuba, which we’re already blockading. Quite possibly an invasion, judging from the gleeful rhetoric of Senator Ladybugs.
And no I don’t see any of this as not a threat here in the US. We will have terrorist attacks. I am pushing to accelerate security reviews on my client’s IT infrastructure as they are a prime target for Iranian hackers now. I expect $15/gallon gas and long lines here within the month. Other likely knock on effects include supply chain domino effects which, if not too bad, will be merely reminiscent of those early in the Covid pandemic, and if worse, may make them look tame.
Following from that Trump will doubtless declare a national emergency, cancel elections, etc.
But hey, we crushed and humiliated Iran and Palestine and probably in the bargain, Ukraine. So much winning!
The problem is you are right on a lot of things (war crimes by Israel, Americans being good at creating a mess and really bad at fixing it) but wrong on others (especially Hamas) and mixing it all up.
Two wrongs don’t make a right? True. But sometimes a wrong is better than a moral high horse and letting a wrong get worse with others paying for it.
Because that’s how you come across. As someone who doesn‘t want to do anything in order to remain comfy in their moral superiority. I guess you would have stayed out of the fight against Hitler too. But that’s not how the World or people work. It’s dirty work. Including morally. But sometimes doing nothing just means it is getting much worse.
As for Iran: Trump is doing it in the most stupid way possible (clandestine support for an uprising would have been better), but let‘s look at an Iranian perspective from an interview here in NZ:
Aucklander lawyer and Iranian freedom activist Samira Taghavi was interviewed today by Newstalk ZB.
She challenged Helen Clark to a debate about international law, discussed why most Iranians support the American and Israeli intervention against the regime, and explained her support for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as a transitional leader.
As we keep saying – she deserves to be listened to! Which you can do at the following link: https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/…/samira-taghavi-iranian…/
Or read a full transcript of her remarks below.
• The interviewers began by asking Ms Taghavi what she thinks of the new ‘Supreme Leader’, and what his appointment means.
“From our point, not much. We think he will probably be eliminated in the next few hours, so he might have a very short time frame being a leader.”
• She was asked to introduce herself and explain her background.
“I’ve lived in Iran for most of my adult life. I was very active politically when I went to university there, and I witnessed probably over 40 to 45 hangings, stonings, and was very involved with protesting against the death penalty and the stoning and a few other very very terrible types of penalties.
I was arrested, I was put in prison, I was sentenced to lashing, and I remember that they ordered 90 lashes. I ended up getting only 40 because the guy who was doing it was counting one as three. So he was actually quite nice… this is basically my background.
As a very young lawyer, at the age of 21 or 22, when you’re standing in prison at four in the morning because they hang people or they execute people very early in the morning… and as a criminal lawyer you have to be there to witness it… so it’s part of your obligations as a lawyer. So, these are the things I have seen with my two eyes, as well as having Friends that I have lost, because they’ve been tortured, they’ve been put in prison, and most political prisoners they end up taking their lives when they actually are released. Because anything you can think of would happen to them in prison.
So yep, that’s a bit of a background for you!”
• The interviewers then asked her to explain, for Kiwi listeners, what it feels like to be lashed by your own government.
“It’s very difficult guys to describe the feeling. Interestingly enough, at the time it was a feeling of shame. Although the reason that I got that sentence was because of the protests, it was for nothing else – because you also get lashing for different kinds of crime, including drinking alcohol by the way. But that was not my crime!
It was a feeling of shame because I felt that this was something that my father had to now deal with. And it was something that I did recover from physically and mentally, to an extent, but I think my father never recovered from that.
Because you can imagine as a father… he wasn’t in Iran at the time, he was actually overseas in Boston from memory, and he had to come back to the aftermath. So it was at the time a feeling of shame, but it does turn into anger after a few years, usually.
I did recover from that, and I always say that what does not kill you makes you stronger. I think that’s why I get very, very annoyed when I see comments such as what Helen Clark made the other day. Because it makes me feel her outrage is really pick and choose.
She’s really loud on some some ‘sovereignties’, but whisper quiet on the terror that has been going on in Iran. That actually makes me more angry.
Look, she’s talking about international law, and talking about there was no imminent threat, and it was illegal under the UN charter… I don’t understand what her definition of imminent threat is. Iran, at the moment, they have 440 kilograms of near weapons grade uranium. They’ve been sending missiles on allies, proxies, killing people worldwide. That’s a threat building for years and years and years!
So for the past 47 years they have tried negotiations, they have tried sanctions, they have tried UN resolutions, none of that worked. And waiting for a mushroom cloud, that would have cost millions, and I’m not talking about millions of dollars. I’m talking about millions of lives being lost.
You cannot expect the USA to wait for a regime such as Iran, the IRGC, to attack first before you actually do anything. And to be honest, sovereignty isn’t sacred when it’s a shield for slaughter.
International law must be to save lives. It’s happened before, it’s not absolute. And she should know better than this, because we have a responsibility to protect, and even the UN Charter allows self-defence. So the build-up of this proxy uranium is a clear threat, and Clark’s breach claim ignores these precedents!
I would actually like to sit with her and have a debate with her. If she agrees to do it… Both her and Kenneth Roth were giving this human rights interview - this was the first thing that made me laugh – they said well, Iran refused to join the International Criminal Court.
I mean, are you kidding me? Of course the ayatollah doesn’t want to be prosecuted by the ICC!
They talked about voting, as if voting means anything in Iran. Basically, they didn’t give us any answer.”
• The interviewers then asked her about the American and Israeli bombing campaign that began this week – will it lead to a free and democratic Iran?
“That is a difficult question to answer, and I can’t give it an answer yes or no. Because these strikes are not perfect, of course no one wanted war, but imagine how desperate a country would get that they ask another country to intervene.
Ok, so that shows the sheer desperation of Iranians at the moment. What I can say is the strikes aren’t perfect, but they will weaken the IRGC. The engine that is funding Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and causing global terror.
They have so far eliminated some of the high commanders in chief, in terms of IRGC members… it’s going to definitely make a difference. It’s the first time in decades that Iranians can see a crack in the mullah’s grip.
So it’s definitely not an ‘escalation’. It’s hope for us. Really."
• They asked her whether it matters to Iranians that the Americans and Israelis may have their own ‘ulterior motives’ for bombing the Iranian regime.
“To the majority of people it does not matter at all. Whatever ulterior motive… the only ulterior motive that they have is to protect the world globally from the IRGC! That’s not a bad motive in my view."
• And finally, they asked her about Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
"Look, the majority of Iranians inside and outside Iran have accepted, and have been shouting the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’s name. For the past few months they have accepted him as a transitional leader. He does have a very clear three stages plan in terms of how to get Iran into a secular democratic society.
He does believe in referendum, and he wants the people of Iran to decide for the people of Iran. So he’s the only alternative that the majority of Iranians would see at the moment, inside and outside of Iran. He’s got a good team behind him, there will be very very capable people within Iran who can join him and assist him… some of them are still in prison unfortunately.
He’s the only one we can see that would turn Iran into a democratic society at the moment.”
And another Iranian perspective:
"As an Iranian, I can tell you the situation is no longer just political—it’s existential. We are trapped between two collapsing structures: one internal, one external. On one hand, we face a deeply dysfunctional government, led by the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Republic’s unelected institutions.
Decades of economic mismanagement, suppression of dissent, and brutal ideological control have alienated multiple generations. No one believes in reform anymore—because every attempt has either been co-opted or crushed. But here’s the paradox: We are also terrified of regime collapse—because we’ve watched the aftermath of Western intervention in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Each was promised freedom; each descended into chaos, civil war, or foreign occupation.
So no, we don’t trust the U.S. or Israel. Not because we support our regime—but because we know how imperial powers treat ‘liberated’ nations in the Middle East.
Freedom, in their language, often means vacuum, fire, and permanent instability. Right now, many Iranians live with three truths at once: The Islamic Republic is morally and politically bankrupt. The alternatives offered by foreign actors are not liberation—they’re collapse.
A bad government is survivable. No government is not. We are not silent because we agree. We are cautious because we’ve learned—too well—what happens when superpowers decide to “help.” In a sentence: Iran is a nation held hostage by its own regime, but haunted by the fate of its neighbors. We are stuck in a house we hate, surrounded by fires we fear more."
There is no net benefit – even cold-blooded practical benefits – to war in the modern world anymore as the entire world is deeply interconnected by technology and interdependence of production. You cannot have an isolated scuffle that doesn’t impact the whole anymore.
It is not a false dichotomy between starting a huge war, a war apt to escalate into world war, and doing nothing. In between those two ridiculous extremes there are a lot of tools in the toolbox, as your own citations suggest.
One, of course, is diplomacy. Iran, according to mediators in Oman, had just made historic concessions on the eve of this war. Concessions that would have fully addressed any legitimate security concerns for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, much less the US.
The truth is that lots of bad actors have a hard-on for this war, and not just Bibi and Donald. Lindsey Graham has been coaching Bibi for some time on how to persuade Trump. Hegseth just wants to wage war anywhere, any time for the sake of imagined glory. Christian fundamentalists want the End of Days which they believe requires a bloody middle eastern war to set it off (and may get it, though not with them in the hero / starring role that they imagine).
I am in no way suggesting there are easy answers or that I have all of them. I am just suggesting that the indiscriminate wholesale murder of an entire people (Palestine) doesn’t become right “because Hamas” and war in the Middle East doesn’t become wise because God or glory or whatever. Violence is always easy in the short term. It is always hard in the long term. And the history of war shows us that it virtually never is some kind of slam-dunk.
And yes the argument is being made that Iran planned nuclear attacks and no one credible takes that seriously or as anything but a manufactured threat. If it were real, then as a last resort some kind of pre-emption could be necessary but Trump himself said he had eliminated that threat months ago and anyone saying otherwise was lying. Conversely, if his attack didn’t work then there’s no reason to think it will work now.
Anyway it’s kind of a moot point I guess because now we’re committed to this course so we’re going to fuck around and find out as they say. I hope everyone rooting for war enjoys all the stuff that’s going to fall out of it, and I will stand down from here except for this: the first person to marvel about “who could have predicted all this pain and chaos” I will come back here and remind you of this post. And boy do I want to be wrong!
A £3m dollar rocket to take down a $15k drone is not economically sustainable but Ukraine has the tech to do it much cheaper. Zelensky now has a decent hand if he plays his cards right.
As for international law ( if you care about such things ), there are lawyers who say what Israel and USA are doing is illegal and some who say otherwise. Just cherry-pick your lawyer to get the answer you want 
Maybe. He’s decent enough despite everything to dispatch some of his people to the Middle East to advise US Military on countering the Iranian drones. Whether that will produce any sense of reciprocity (or as JD Vance likes to go on about, gratitude) remains to be seen. Trump is Putin’s bitch, so I’m not optimistic.
War crimes will have to be sorted out to whatever extent the international legal system actually functions (again, not a source of great optimism).
Just the issue of whether Congress must approve a war (or, perversely, whether this is even a war for purposes of that law) is something with talking heads on both sides. I personally don’t put much credence in Dems caterwauling about that when they have been willing to look the other way for presidents of either party before. Although Bush / Cheney & Co at least did Americans the dignity of carefully constructing plausible lies to get early, if non-durable, public buy-in – they spent months on it leading up to Jr’s Gulf War.
As to whether war crimes are happening there’s too much fog of war to definitively say, other than that when it comes to fascistic rulers like Netenyahu and Trump, it’s a good bet. The girl’s school thing, for example, could have been a mistake based on dated info or a minor targeting error (the school was next to a military facility of some kind). An administration known for sober careful rational informed decision-making and planning would arguably deserve some suspension of judgment there. This regime does not enjoy such a reputation – quite the opposite.
Well, the Constitution is clear on it. Having said that, the Trump administration did not invent the concept of making end runs around it. As I wrote on my own FB, Scooter (for so I call him) is calling for Iran’s unconditional surrender, while we Americans are being told by his administration that this is not a war. That, as I wrote, is truly Orwellian.
waging a war of aggression
That was something the war criminals in the process of Nuremberg got hanged for. It is - following to the law the USA, France, Great Britain and Russia developed extra for this process. if it is something good enough for the German Reichswehr it is good enough for Donald Trumps US Army and the IDF. No question. The IDF (Israelis Defense Force) has more right to do it than the US army. But at the end: it is against exactly that law the allied formed after World War II. And in this thinking it is even so that this should also be the case for all other states. That’s the international laws the USA, Russia, China and many other accepted and they are the fundamental rules for the UNO.
But in Trumps head it is not.
And the Ukraine had to develop technologies against Drones. They have the German Gepard but not in the really needed amount. So they needed alternatives to this extremely effective weapon system.
Trump has to pay to get it. That’s it. Exchange for other weapons. Simple
Very interesting article about Iran’s Achilles heel:
The tiny island that could let Trump beat Iran without sending a single troop
My guess is the whole place is wired up to be incinerated if they know they’re going to lose it anyway. If Iran can’t have it, no one can.
This is all fighting over a dying resource anyway. The whole world is turning to renewables. This reduces the long-term value of controlling the island, although doubtless the short term value isn’t nothing.
This guy seems to be adding a new dimension to the conflict between US + Israel & Iran.
WHOA! That should give you an idea how much more expensive and profitable oil and gas are - and the customers pay that when they wouldn’t have to!
What are you expecting. With a Wind System they make one time money and the rest is: wind. With oil or Gas you get payed for every kWh. So this industry makes always money. If we are now changing to wind and sun…no please. This people want to make billions over billions and not see the oil plants standing still while it is not needed anymore. And Trump has the brain of an eight years old boy. Okay. Six. And in this brain it makes no problem with the environment. So drill baby drill. That’s something he said already before they elected him. And he will make exactly this politics further. Until we live in the middle age cause of the climatic situation. Only thing what can rescue the planet: a nuclear winter. I am wondering that he wrote this idea not down on truths social. This guy is not understanding the damage we do for our planet.
Blighty’s experience of turbines… When the wind doesn’t blow they don’t work, when the wind blows too hard they have to be switched off as they’re dangerous, and when they’re running at their optimum they overwhelm the grid so the UK government pays the companies compensation not to generate electricity.
Turbines are also quite high maintenance and used / damaged blades are hard to dispose of.
.
Unsubsidised Solar is the cheapest form of power generation we have but our government is even cocking that up - instead of having panels down the centre of motorways, on industrial units, new housing estates, etc… they’re popping up all over prime arable land so putting energy markets into competition with food markets. We already have the highest energy costs in the world ( and all productive work ultimately requires energy so our economy is stuffed ) and soon our food will follow suit.
.
Mmm… There’s a lot of petrochemicals used in the manufacture of turbines and solar panels.