https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/13/israel-iran-strikes-defence-minister-tehran-middle-east-live
Reports stating that Israel have launched an attack against Iran
I imagine in the spirit of keeping dialogue open - friends close and enemies closer sorta thing - getting a word in Trumps ear face to face can potentially avoid a lot more sh01te - I don’t agree in not meeting- you won’t achieve anything by doing this except to draw fire from these numb-nuts
Trump on Spain:
No one is excusing attacks on neutral countries? Really?? We must be reading different threads so
sub attack off Sri Lanka definitely widening global nature of this
That is a bit of a non-answer isnt it? "Minimise your interactions" What does that even mean?
You seem to ignore the fact the Trump has a very strong mandate this time around. His second term as President he won unequivocally. Not just the electoral collage, but the popular vote. The Republican's have full control of the senate and the congress. Basically Trump is the representative of American culture now.
Now many Irish people may not like that culture, but that is just the fact of it. American trade and visibility among Irish Americans plays a vital part in Ireland's economic interests. As simple as that. And the Irish-American vote is no longer the Democrat vote those days are long gone. It seems many Irish people here do not grasp this.
I think for many Trump's actions thus far on Iran (if it does not result in a long drawn out war) will end up increasing his standing among his electorate. Especially if he can spin it as a "win" at all.
So Martin has to factor in the political realties of the situation he cannot play "Student Union politics" and just "protest symbolically" what would that achieve?
I mean… they can just do this. Expel an entire civilian population from their homes. More than 200,000 people.
Just, incredible arrogance.
You cannot compare the two IMHO,
Putin attacked for imperialist reasons and not resource driven.
Israel/US attacked for multiple reasons I think, Israel mostly because the Iranian regime is posing a thread for decades and are/were enriching Uranium at levels far beyond what was needed for use in powerplants, research etc. The US joined in because it needs to keep China in check and the vast majority of oil going to China is coming from Iran 87% and Venezuela 55% and guess what happened in Venezuela a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/02/iran-us-strikes-china-oil-supply-charts-00806415
Just my 2 cents
Define a neutral country? Ireland BTW, claim to be a neutral country, but we have participated in the transport of multiple million US troops across the Atlantic and to theatres of operations in the middle east. Thousands of US military planes have used Shannon Airport, Unknown numbers of people were 'extraordinary renditioned' through shannon to be tortured by the CIA in secret prisons around the world. We claim to be neutral, but neutrality carries obligations.
Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC) / international humanitarian law (IHL) and the UN Charter rules on self-defence
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state that is the victim of an armed attack has the right to self-defence.
That right allows it to strike military objectives belonging to the attacking state, including:
military bases
aircraft
ships
command centres
logistics hubs
Location does not automatically make them immune.
If the aggressor’s military assets are located in another country, they can theoretically still be attacked if they are contributing to the armed attack.
International law still recognizes the concept of neutral states in interstate war but
A neutral state must:
not participate in hostilities
not allow its territory to be used for military operations by belligerents
A neutral country should not allow its territory to be used as a base of operations.
Examples of prohibited use include:
launching attacks
moving troops through territory
establishing military bases for active combat.
If you can demonstrate that these Neutral countries have blockaded all US troops and military assets from travelling through to those US bases where they can move forward to the area of operations, then they might be considered neutral in this conflict, but the fact is the US has built up its military in the region through these logistics chains, and they will continue to resupply them, and the US president has even demanded on pain of a total block on trade, that Spain continues to allow the use of its territory for US resupply missions, therefore making Spain a legitimate target of war if they were to back down and comply with Trump's demands
And what about the elderly? The sick? The people in hospitals? The women about to go into labour?
The people attending their farms? The important jobs that need to be done? The carers?
Your justification for the Iran war is completely wrong. Iran was absolutely no nuclear threat to Israel, they were in negotiations on even heavier restrictions on Iranian nuclear programs, which Iran were agreeing to before America and Israel attacked them mid negotiations.
There is no good faith argument here to say that Israel or America attacked Iran because they feared attacks from Iran. if anything, they attacked because they thought Iran were weak. it is imperialism, the war of aggression that is the most serious international war crime.
The west just allows them and they are all complicit in ethnic cleansing of the region
Iran says 1,045 people have been killed in U.S. and Israeli attacks.
Except he's been found to have overstepped his mandate plenty of times, including with tariffs. He's also due to get a trouncing in the mid terms. We've already had local elections that have gone against the gop that wouldn't historically have. Plus he ran on a claim of being anti war and then drags the US into another illegal war.
So come November, he's likely to have lost a lot of the public support he previously had. His standing has been on a constant decline throughout this term btw.
Worst part is,the actual lebanese army wont do a thing to stop it.
If it werent for Hezb'allah the Israelis would walk right up to the litani river and then some.
IF Iran were not building a nuclear weapon, this war is wrong.
IF Iran were building a nuclear weapon, well, I think we can all understand why, and it's a sensible thing to do, and so this war is wrong.
Not that I have seen. And certainly not to the extent that you need to repeat the same tired old point continuously.
Well, this is the bit I can't understand, my lack of knowledge of course.
Yes, Leb has now forbidden Hez military actions. But why has not the Leb state brought Hezbollah under control? The actions of Hez has been a danger to the whle country?
Throw it back like newsome, they can't handle it
Unfortunately, central government authority in Lebanon is tenuous at best. The country is in a perpetual state of political and economic crisis, a lot of it boiling down to aftereffects of the civil war, endemic corruption, ethnic strife among the different ethnicities living in the country, and so on. That's also the reason why there still hasn't been any proper reconstruction work in the port of Beirut following that devastating explosion a decade or so ago. There are some real questions as to whether commanders would even obey any order to move into the south.
My impression is that Beirut has effectively given up on southern Lebanon, leaving the territory to Hezbollah to run, and to act as a "buffer zone" between Lebanon "proper" and Israel. It's also worth pointing out that Hezbollah, either outright or through different fronts, has significant political clout in Beirut proper.
Because a lot of the people in the country support Hezzbolah but the government is a puppet regime and do nothing when Israel attacks them.
Yes, I'm aware that Hez has a political presence in the parliament too, but I wasn't aware that the state military had abandoned the South… Interesting, TY.
And yet you still have certain types on here that will deny the concept of "Greater Israel".
Iran was enriching Uranium to 60% and above, There is no justification for enrichment when used for civil purposes
https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/crisis-to-watch-in-2026-iran-226527
Paper from 13 years ago but still relevant today
Terrorism holds a special place in the Iranian government’s military doctrine. What is perceived by the United States and much of the broader world as terrorism is considered by the Iranian government to be a legitimate means of defending itself and the Muslim Middle East from American and Israeli “domination.” Iranian support for terrorism is closely tied to state goals and objectives, including deterring and containing regional rivals, and is the product of cost and benefit calculations, rather than of an irrational ideology.It can be argued that a nuclear-armed Iran could be emboldened to increase its support of terrorist and insurgent groups, with the expectation that its nuclear capability would ward off a strong reaction. Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has argued that “at a minimum, a nuclear-armed Iran will be emboldened to accelerate its aggressive activities in the region and act against its neighbors with little fear of retribution” (Dubowitz, 2013).
https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/10.7249/j.ctt5hhtg2.10?seq=1
Mid negotiations, gimme a break, Iran was playing the long game, probably hoping to stretch it to the mid terms in the US.
Iran's reaction after it was censured by the IAEA
Speaking to Iranian state television after the U.N. agency’s vote, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said that his agency immediately informed the IAEA of actions Tehran would take.
“One is the launch of a third secure site” for enrichment, spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. He did not elaborate on the location, but the organization’s chief, Mohammad Eslami, later described the site as “already built, prepared, and located in a secure and invulnerable place.”
Another step would be replacing old centrifuges with advanced ones at an underground site at Fordo. “Our production of enriched materials will significantly increase,” Kamalvandi said.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-sanctions-728b811da537abe942682e13a82ff8bd
Many papers were written on this topic, i suggest you invest some time in reading a few. Nothing about this conflict is black and white, good guys bad guys, No one wants to see Iran having a nuke, negotiations were going nowhere for years maybe even decades. So what is the solution ?
"Attacking for imperialist reasons"………i.e. to acquire the lands and resources currently under Ukrainian control. They produce a sizeable percentage of European grains and oils, plus they have plenty of naval ports and access that Putin can only dream about. Remember that sockpuppet tweet about 'warm water ports'?………………..is the EXACT same as attacking to stop Iran form supplying oil to China.
One wants to control the supply of food, while also taking a huge slice of it for themselves while the other wants to control the oil supply, while also taking a huge slice of it for themselves.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/04/newsom-israel-apartheid-state-questions-future-military-support-00811441?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it
Strong words from Gav... Man might be figuring out what's required to get the Democrats nomination.
You really should educate yourself a little. I doubt Iron Dome is being used much at all at the moment, apart from in Northern Israel to counter any Hezbollah rockets/mortars. David's Sling and Arrow are no doubt being used extensively. If you don't understand what those sentences mean, then you should probably stop posting about things you don't understand, thereby highlighting your lack of knowledge.
What's the alternative? Bomb them all and have people saying they killed civilians!,
Russia already had crimea since 2014,
According to the The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Russian agriculture is a rapidly developing, key economic sector that has achieved near-full self-sufficiency in staples like grain, meat, and oil. As a global agricultural powerhouse, Russia is a leading exporter of wheat, sunflower oil, and barley. The sector is dominated by large-scale agro-holdings and supported by state policies aimed at food security.
So Russia is a mayor exporter of agricultural goods, They don't need Ukrainian land and their resources for the things you mentioned.
Putin wants the old Russia, and he cant have it
I was looking at this here - probably more suited to the Trump thread but it is couched in the terms of the Iran invasion -
But the video states Trump has not faced any negative consequences for his attacks thus far. It does not mention the Tariff failure. But only in terms of military attacks. And Iran's main hope is they can turn public opinion symbolically against Trump. And impact on global econonomies etc.
But Trump is leaving office after this term anyway. At this stage Trump is thinking in terms of his legacy. And his family's legacy. If Trump can continue to keep it to short term pain with long term gain. He has won. So far, bar his tariffs most of his actions have worked out well for him.
That didn’t age well… Yet another neutral neighbour Iran attacked now
Turkey this time
”No casualties were reported, though debris fell in the Dortyol district of Hatay province along Turkey's eastern Mediterranean coast, according to the ministry.”
