But why not Kuwait?

Managing the economic consequences of the Iran war | Institute for Government How should the government respond to the crisis in the Middle East?

Managing the economic consequences of the Iran war

Our new report draws on lessons from recent crises and upcoming crisis policy making research to assess how to respond to the economic shock following the Iran war:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

Surprising to me because "being good at making an argument" and "lawyer" I would assume to be synonymous.

It appeals to Jackie Baillie specifically

Trying to turn Iran into a giant Cuba

It wasnt me who asserted definitively that our bases were used to attack civilians. That was someone above so perhaps you mistook us. Although I am sceptical of the scrutiny the gov does on the US, I dont think anyone knows, but we do know about our participation in the wider war.

I feel like my argument is very straightforward! Our logistical support is general, not specific to "defensive" strikes. Bombs loaded from our base onto a bomber that then lands somewhere else before taking off to bomb a power plant.

Well as I said we're unlikely to see any evidence until the dust settles. My focus was more on that the UK is facilitating these attacks regardless and that the distinction Starmer is seeking to draw is an illusory one.

There may be an argument that you cant do *all* but I think its clear that you can do *more*, which Spain is an example of.

But I think implicit here is that NATO takes priority over international law and protecting civilians. Fine. But you can see why for some the calculus is different.

If that was James's point it seems a bit orthogonal to mine. Im not saying all US assets should be expelled but everything directly related to the conflict. So not allowing a bomber taking off from your base is irrelevant if you still allow the fuel and bombs for that bomber to pass through instead.

Im not aware of the full picture but I think its clear they are providing significantly less support at the very least.

Spain closes airspace to US aircraft involved in Iran war It follows a decision by the Spanish government to deny the US use of the two jointly run military bases in Andalusia.

Sánchez said Spain had denied the US use of the two jointly run military bases...he also announced that "all flight plans that involved actions related to the operation in Iran were rejected - every single one of them, including those of refuelling aircraft."

www.bbc.com/news/article...

Fascinating inverse of Labour-Reform switchers who'd never go for the Conservatives.

I mean Spain is part of NATO and has refused such assistance. The point is that our support should be contingent upon international law so if our ally does a war of aggression and targets civilian infrastructure we should not facilitate that.

I doubt we will see any evidence for some time.

For me the distinction seems a bit of a technicality. If we allow Americans to use our airspace, store and load munitions here, and then just oblige them to use a different base, we are still supporting their aggression and attacks on civilian targets

At the stroke of the midnight hour, as the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom!

I'd give more credit to this argument if the 24 manifesto was itself a coherent plan, but it also made irreconcilable promises (improve public services but no income tax/eu etc).

So you have Labour saying "the establishment" is basically working fine, but not providing sufficient workable solutions

Isn't that shown in polling where a huge predictor of other right wing beliefs is if you agree "feminism has gone too far"

All those films from that era depicting middle class ennui (fight club, American beauty) hit different when a stable job with ample pay for children and a family home seem like luxuries.

Isn't a big part of this that this was peak boomer workforce years? As opposed to now where theyre moving into retirement

Me, an atheist: Your holiness I stand ready to join the crusade against these heretics

I think the problem is they were running out of military targets, hence the bombing of bridges etc and the threat to end Iranian civilisation. So militarily the US is facing a choice of either a land invasion or crimes against humanity

NEW: An Iranian scholar of the Gulf writes on what this war is doing to regional connections that have survived every previous crisis, and why it risks destroying them outright. Mehran Haghirian . newlinesmag.com/first-person...

I dont know if it even takes hardliners for this. Hezb is very important for Iran not just militarily but also ideologically and Iran appears to have reason to believe the ceasefire included them anyway.

Seems Hormuz more effective against the States than Israel? But agree there is a question on how useful Hezb has actually been, though I do think their effectiveness against IDF may be underestimated. Regardless, I suspect Irans commitment to them may be deeper and they'll be v reluctant to jettison

I think a key difference is we're playing a more active role whereas much of Europe has already denied airspace for example.

But wouldn't a commitment to no nuclear + throwing Hezbollah under (which i understand they'd be v reluctant to do anyway) leaving them more exposed with less detterent?

They'd be relying on trust that attacks &/or sanctions wouldn't resume.

I'm aware of the historical connection but seems like we don't have a formal defence pact with any of them? Like Israel and America are very close but they dont have an alliance by treaty.

I am genuinely puzzled by the exact nature of the relationship Britain has with the various Gulf States. Obviously they co-operate to various extents, but none have a defence agreements ala NATO. Would you say they're "core allies"?

But there are movements for Palestine, Cyprus, the Chagos Islands, and these do attract support.

Ultimately these issues are usually decided by the mutual agreement of states. And the lack of a Palestinian state is the biggest obstacle to this, which Israel bears much responsibility for.