US kills senior Iranian - in Iraq.

This could be the start of something nasty.

Yep! War looming now.

If you keep poking a bear you can’t expect it not to bite back!

So now Raab has asked them to calm the f*** down.

It's true that the Iranians are bang out of order but if we are going to avoid another war and an increase in terrorist activity the ongoing diplomatic efforts have to be given a chance. Not that Trump gives a f*** about the fallout for Britain.

Our troops in Iraq are at risk and Trump apparently didn't even inform the Brits that he was going to do this, which puts Boris in a very difficult position inasmuch that he has to say something, but doesn't want to seeing as his whole Brexit plan is based on doing a deal with the US and Trump can't handle criticism.

Why he thinks he can get a reasonable deal from the US - who clearly don't think we have any kind of "special relationship" anyway - is still beyond me, but it will be interesting to see just how much he is prepared to drop his pants, especially without the market power of the EU to negotiate with. My money's on Boris fudging it - and he will still get shafted on a trade deal.

Not bad Wander, you've managed to go, in only a very short post, from the Americans killing an Iranian general, to Boris not getting a good trade deal. 

I expect Iran to be gone in the very near future.

gloswhite wrote:Not bad Wander, you've managed to go, in only a very short post, from the Americans killing an Iranian general, to Boris not getting a good trade deal. 

If Boris condemns Trump it will directly affect any potential trade deal. If he doesn't condemn Trump he will be at odds with his Foreign Secretary and will have sold out the diplomats and our troops. There is an obvious link.

Angry Dad wrote:I expect Iran to be gone in the very near future.

Where to?

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Not bad Wander, you've managed to go, in only a very short post, from the Americans killing an Iranian general, to Boris not getting a good trade deal. 

If Boris condemns Trump it will directly affect any potential trade deal. If he doesn't condemn Trump he will be at odds with his Foreign Secretary and will have sold out the diplomats and our troops. There is an obvious link.

Agreed, there is an obvious. My point was that whilst everyone is wondering who will blink first, you latch on to a British trade deal.
Mind you, within minutes of the news reaching us, the price of oil went up by $4 a barrel, bad news for India and Afghanistan, but there's always a knock on effect somewhere in the western world.

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Not bad Wander, you've managed to go, in only a very short post, from the Americans killing an Iranian general, to Boris not getting a good trade deal. 

If Boris condemns Trump it will directly affect any potential trade deal. If he doesn't condemn Trump he will be at odds with his Foreign Secretary and will have sold out the diplomats and our troops. There is an obvious link.

Agreed, there is an obvious. My point was that whilst everyone is wondering who will blink first, you latch on to a British trade deal.

Because Borat's entire rise to PM has been based on the undeliverable promise that he will get a favourable deal with the US. He has said so all along and after all how else can he start to replace the vast array of great deals that the EU have in place?
The point I was making is that because of this, he is unlikely to make any comment that would upset the Americans i.e he will f*** over his own people and continue to kowtow to Trump in order to preserve the possibility of deal.

Problem is that Trump knows Borat has painted himself into a corner by leading us out of the EU because Borat has no choice left but to make a deal with the Yanks - on whatever terms they choose to dictate to us.
Cummings will instruct him to use the now well-worn tactic of saying nothing unless absolutely necessary.

BBC:
Under enormous pressure from the Trump Administration, Britain has edged very slightly closer to the Americans over the killing of Soleimani, but has still stopped well short of the sort of full-throated support Washington has demanded from its allies.
In the absence of Boris Johnson on holiday in the Caribbean, it's been the foreign secretary who has articulated Britain's response.
Dominic Raab is now stressing a little more the threat posed by Soleimani in life, without retreating from British warnings of the possible consequences of his death.
So when Mr Raab told the BBC: "We understand the action they took but we need to be clearly focused on what happens next," it's important to note that "understanding" falls a long way short of endorsement or support. And in that single sentence, Mr Raab is determined to keep the focus on fears for the future.
The foreign secretary made little effort to conceal widely-held British fears that Washington has no coherent step-by-step strategy to help get Iran to a better place on the world stage.
Indeed, President Trump's tweets threatening 52 targets in Iran - one for each of the American hostages taken back in 1979 - seem to many observers to play right into the Iranian fundamentalist mindset by clinging to a history of grievance that seeks to avenge every wrong done by one side to the other.
Taken at face value, the approach offers the bleak possibility of unending violence as long as neither side offers a different path.

I'm beginning to despair at the stupidity of "the West".
Boris is asking the Iraqis to let British troops stay in Iraq to train their army to fight insurgents.
Fair enough n principle, however since the Brits and Americans removed the former Sunni leader (Saddam) and replaced him with a Shiite government sympathetic to Shiite Iran they are surely barking up the wrong tree given that Iran is allegedly the cause of insurgency in the region.
Don't know what you're doing springs to mind.

No matter how I try I can never keep up with the politics of the Arab world. It seems that everyone wants to kill the everyone, regardless of who they are. None of them can be trusted, no matter what, who, or where they are.

gloswhite wrote:No matter how I try I can never keep up with the politics of the Arab world. It seems that everyone wants to kill the everyone, regardless of who they are. None of them can be trusted, no matter what, who, or where they are.

The problem is that we tend to assume they are all the same but they are not.
Basically Shiites aren't Arabs - they are predominantly Persians or of Persian decent. In a very rough sense, Shiite v Sunni is Arabs v Persians.
I guess when the World Wars broke out, half the world was thinking along similar lines i.e. British and Germans are all the same - and none of them can be trusted etc etc.
In a religious context the Shia and Sunni sects split nearly 1400 years ago and have been arguing/fighting ever since.
It only took us Christians 500 years to get mostly on top of the Catholic/Protestant schism.

One general assassinated - 50 mourners get crushed to death at his funeral.
WTF?

Unbelievable isn't it? It seems both Israel and the USA will be blamed because of this terrible accident, whilst the Iranian government ordering everyone on to the streets will probably be ignored.

If you have a hour to spare then I recommend this documentary on BBC iplayer that was done last year on the Iranian bloke whose just been assassinated.

Some extremely senior analysts give their comments and make in abundantly clear how they viewed him!

You can see why the Iranians and their allies are mourning his death so deeply.

Shame we can't simply leave religion and politics behind us and everyone treat each other as equals and with kindness but I guess I'm simply just one of those 'dreamers' that John Lennon sang about nearly 50 years ago now (1971) but until we can this might help understand the western world's view of Suleimani.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003871/shadow-commander-irans-military-mastermind

gloswhite wrote:Unbelievable isn't it? It seems both Israel and the USA will be blamed because of this terrible accident, whilst the Iranian government ordering everyone on to the streets will probably be ignored.

Nobody will blame anyone for what happened at the funeral. Unless the stampede was caused by Trump ordering the KFC round the corner to announce a two for the price of one deal on bargain buckets over the tannoy in the middle of the ceremony. Hard to tell as I don't speak Farsi.
Point I'm making is that there was a stampede but no explanation as to how or why it started.

So the Iranians launch missile attacks on US bases - and reportedly they land on the only areas of the bases where there are no buildings or troops - despite having GPS.
As you know, I'm not one to be cynical but doesn't this seem like a pre-arranged PR stunt to de-escalate rather than crank up the pressure - unless Trump has other ideas.
Obvs Trump hit the general to boost his popularity in the States and the Ayatollah had to be seen to be standing up to him so it seems honour is satisfied all round - but will see what the guy wearing Boggers wig says shortly.

wanderlust wrote:One general assassinated - 50 mourners get crushed to death at his funeral.
WTF?

..and now it looks like they've killed another 82 of their own in their eagerness to get at the Yanks.

They really haven't got the hang of the revenge thing have they?

The American left going out of its way to defend a country that hangs gays from cranes.

Okie dokie!