Not just the American media.

It was resolvable before Trump kept the blockade in place. Without that, a peace deal (albeit favourable to Iran) was easy.

The Harm from Hormuz Why we should still fear a global slump from Trump’s Iran debacle

I read an interesting and persuasive substack post on this subject (linked below). Yes, it could get very ugly.

paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-harm-f...

It's extraordinary how few people are trying to explain this to the public. Expectations should be managed.

Shortages are inevitable - the question now is how long they last.

Those shortages impact not just prices but also production - and hence growth, borrowing, inflation and interest rates.

Fair point.

The only reason Carlson is distancing himself from Trump is because the latter is now becoming the *wrong sort* of dictator for Carlson's tastes.

He's not interested in being president. He's interested in acting president, making money and putting himself above legal challenge.

But his mindset is always on the surface, about PR. Real estate and politics alike. He's not bothered if the US navy has effective warships as long as they're pretty.

I wouldn't put money on that.

Every day another datapoint for how these guys were right

Always worth remembering that in 1776, 'the colonies' didn't rebel: only some of them. Future Canada remained loyal, as did Florida (a fact always forgotten), as did the Caribbean / Atlantic islands - while places like New York were close run in their support initially.

Humiliation or escalation. Same as it ever was, on Trump's watch.

It's very easy to understand if we start from the well-evidenced point that Trump is an ally of Putin.

America is not "Western Civilisation" or "the West". As it is finding out.

Other countries have been freeing themselves from fossil fuels with plenty of success for a while - and will likely accelerate as a result of Trump.

Yes. My rule of thumb is that par net approval for a PM is in the mid-negative thirties, outside of his or her first six months or near to an election. You don't need to really start worrying until it hits the -40s.

As for Starmer's fury, yes, I'm sure he is furious. I don't really see why that matters.

Indeed, as far as he personally is concerned now, very little matters. He's finished.

They don't have to have clear evidence; it's not a court of law. You do need to exercise judgement *despite* imperfect evidence. That's the nature of leading governments.

Intelligence, economic data, political info, projected impacts. All are flawed and incomplete; you still have to take decisions.

The Harm from Hormuz Why we should still fear a global slump from Trump’s Iran debacle

Excellent article from Paul Krugman on why most analysts are seriously underestimating the likely economic impact of the Iran War.

The tl;dr (but do read it) summary: it's not just the price rises, it's the commodity shortages too in stuff we need.

paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-harm-f...

Except that pretty much no-one except Morgan McSweeney was telling Starmer "it's fine" about Mandelson. A lot were saying the opposite; most of the rest were staying quiet or hedging.

Prime Ministers need to exercise independent judgement, particularly when they take the initiative on something.

You think Starmer's doing a good job. Fair enough. Everyone has a right to their own opinions.

But lots of other people don't think that - and that preponderance can, of itself, prevent him from doing it.

I expect that within a short time, it will.

The PM is not responsible for vetting. True. He also wasn't told about Mandelson failing vetting (just), which he should have been.

However, Starmer made the nomination, and Mandelson's history is well-known, controversial and questionable at best. Deep vetting wasn't needed to know that

A prime ministerial nomination to an ambassadorship is rare enough in its own right, and needs a different process by its nature; No 10 should be integrated into it.

A PM nomination where the subject fails vetting may well be unique. I'd say that was wholly exceptional.

"A war going on" (several, actually), is no reason not to dump a PM. Asquith, Chamberlain and Thatcher all were - and wars Britain was actually engaged in, unlike now (or about to be, in Thatcher's case).

Mandelson might well have been pushed at the PM; the buck still stops with him though.

True. Although the mainstream has to answer back and challenge their framing, partly for protection but partly because that's just the sort of political education that should be standard: "stuff happens this way because it needs to and it's effective".

That’s one out of the left-field. Robbins has just claimed that in March 2025 he was asked by No 10 to “potentially” find a job as an ambassador for Matthew Doyle. At the time Doyle was the prime minister’s director of communications. He was subsequently given a peerage, an appointment which itself descended into scandal over Doyle’s relationship with a convicted sex offender. This is going to go down very badly with Labour MPs. Doyle, like Mandelson, has a long history has an influential figure on the right of the Labour Party. He first worked in government under Tony Blair. Note, too, that Robbins claims to have been told by No 10 not to discuss the prospect of a diplomatic appointment for Doyle with David Lammy, then the foreign secretary.

Oof. Robbins alleges that No 10 asked for its sacked Director of Comms Matthew Doyle (himself not clear of scandal) be compensated with an ambassadorship.

That's going to land badly with Labour MPs. Indeed, it could blow up to be worse than the Mandelson question - Starmer directly implicated.

Wonder whether we need to be doing more Starmer / May comparisons - legal / judicial background, not very good at politics or people, lacking overall vision etc

Indeed. Which strongly suggests that even if Robbins had referred the question and information up to No 10 (as he should have), Starmer would have confirmed the nomination, given the rest of the evidence.

And yet for centuries, Ukraine was run from Moscow - so the two countries had the same civic inheritance* prior to 1991.

The difference in attitude now is primarily down to the people living today and their choices (or non-choices).

* Albeit not the same cultural one, which matters.

And that's fine, within reason. But those downline should cover themselves (and the government) by ensuring that those wanting the decision made have the relevant information with which to make it. There should have been a note from the FCDO to No 10 about the vetting failure.

Thornberry: "This [the nomination of Mandelson] is a wholly exceptional circumstance, surely?"

"No," Robbins replies.

And that failure of judgement is why Robbins is out of a job. You cannot treat a prime ministerial nomination to a diplomatic post the same as a routine FCDO appointment.

Starmer nominated and announced Mandelson.
He did it before vetting was completed.
No 10 may not even have been bothered that vetting be conducted.
Mandelson's history of scandal, attraction to money, conflicts of interests and dodgy associations was widely known.

Yeah. Ball in No 10 court.