ENDED
How? With the same positivity as he reported the initial US bombing
Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
Which he later backed up on Truth Social, when challenged, that only "Fake News" would say otherwise.
Let's hope that this is ended, but I have a feeling that Iran will want to reconstitute its proxies and its nuclear facilities and an "end" will give it the necessary breathing space.
Use of the word respectful in block capitals. Sigh
Was this all just some weird performative dance to give Netanyahu a chance to avoid scrutiny on the Palestinian genocide and Trump another go at the peace prize?
How many civilians on all sides have had to die while those two ****s play silly buggers?
God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!
I was surprised that Donald Trump did not to include "GOD BLESS ME!"
He is clearly too humble to accept any credit for new global peace which his presidency has ushered.
Israel has announced that it is accepting Trump's ceasefire but Iran has rejected the suggestion that there will be a ceasefire. Although they have said that they will stop retaliating when Israel stops attacking them.
This is probably the real reason for Trump's ceasefire announcement. Israeli casualties might be low because of highly effective air raid warning and shelters but the physical damage that Iranian missiles have inflicted on them is significant.
The Washington Post's claims that Israel is running low on Arrow 3 interceptors is probably genuine too
Iran: Ceasefire? What ceasefire. (Launches attack on US base in Qatar)
Here's a good justification for a regime change in Iran, nearly as bad as using children to clear mine fields :
Iran: Ceasefire? What ceasefire. (Launches attack on US base in Qatar)
Erm... wasn't that before the ceasefire announcement?
Anyway, stupid as it seems, the attack on the US base is probably what allowed the whole situation to calm down. Now Iran has saved face by attacking the US as they said they would, but it didn't do much actual harm so the US doesn't have to respond again to that. It ends the tit-for-tat stupidity (for now) and they're all free to come to a ceasefire agreement.
Quite sensible really, in an insane way. Iran's in a pickle - the US has bombed them and they're sworn to respond, but they can't actually respond properly as, y'know, WWIII (quite apart from the question of whether they're practically able to do it). What's the solution? Say "hey, USA, we're going to attack you now, can you please evacuate?" and then lob a token amount of missiles in that direction and hope no one actually gets killed.
Politically, it's all over and everyone saves face. From the outside it's utterly stupid but hey, that's how the game is played.
Trump thought he'd lucked out getting the ceasefire after making the mistake of being dragged in .. and a bit sweary now he sees the ceasefire falling apart.
The guy is a complete clown
I mean trump is clearly a very rational person who definitely won’t be upset by Isreal and Iran ignoring his unilateral decisions on ceasefires. This is definitely going to end well for all involved.
https://www.instagram.com/share/BAhQe-Hbyi?fhid=QkFoUWUtSGJ5aQ
but the physical damage that Iranian missiles have inflicted on them is significant.
Because of a shift in where they're targeted - residential areas rather than air-force bases sited away from population centres targeted in October last year. Rather than any increased effectiveness of the missiles themselves or larger numbers being aimed at Israel. In fact there's been significantly fewer missiles directed at Israel this time around; probably as a result of the Israeli air force successfully targeting Iranian launch sites.
WION news was thrown off YouTube for violating it's terms in 2022, there are probably more accurate news sources. Here's an assessment from the IISS
Because of a shift in where they're targeted - residential areas rather than air-force bases
I am not convinced that Iran has not targeted military sites and other well defended targets. Obviously the Israelis are not a source of any reliable information but even they admit that Iran has hit military targets, presumably they have to because obvious physical damage is hard to deny.
The reality is that no one can be sure of the goals and targets of either side but I remain highly sceptical of Israel's widely touted "invincibility".
And not least because Israel appears to have now thrown in the towel, after a last low jab below the belt, long before their stated aim to effect regime change has been accomplished.
If it was going that great for Israel I can't imagine for a moment why they would cease attacking Iran.
If it was going that great for Israel I can't imagine for a moment why they would cease attacking Iran.
Because they've mostly achieved limiting Iran's ability to retaliate. It's evident that Iran's airspace is more or less undefended, and it's ability to launch missiles - 500 + in a single night in October down to less than 300 over 12 days now is as a result of the IAF campaign against missile launchers.
Because they've mostly achieved limiting Iran's ability to retaliate
I imagine that the sales rooms of Chinese arms companies will be solid with Iranians in the coming weeks, with anti-aircraft missiles at the top of the shopping list.
Because they've mostly achieved limiting Iran's ability to retaliate.
That wasn't the stated aim of Israel. Destroying Iran's nuclear programme and regime change were the stated aims.
There is no evidence that they have achieved either and some evidence that they might have achieved the opposite, ie, strengthened the regime and increased the chances of Iran developing nuclear weapons
I don't necessarily expect you to accept the views of an Israeli who has PhD in history and specialises in Iranian affairs but there is this :
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/24/how-israel-failed-in-iran
I would imagine that buying missile launchers* would be a better way to spend their money rather than the missiles themselves. The Iranians have plenty of missiles, the problem they have if that 1. they have no air defence system or air force to speak of, and 2. any way of stopping the launchers from being attacked by SEAD F15 and F16s of the IAF which appear to have total air supremacy
* Iran has spent quite a bit of time and money heavily modifying ex-soviet designs of medium and long range missiles, I've no real clue as to whether they could buy 'off the shelf' launchers that would be capable.
That wasn't the stated aim of Israel
Strawman.
I didn't say it was, you asked why they've would stop as it's 'going so well' I gave my thoughts on why they might be willing to stop
I didn't think either of Netanyahu's war aims were likely to succeed. I agree with the AJ opinion piece, attacking Iran was only ever going to result in increasing regional tensions. Although I am surprised at just how weak the Iranian air defence actually is (was)
I didn't say it was
Strawman.
I didn't say it was,
No you didn't say it was. I said it was.
Because that is precisely what Benjamin Netanyahu said his war aims were.
As Dr Ori Goldberg eloquently points out in his analysis "How Israel failed in Iran"
Weren't you the person castigating someone else yesterday for stating a point no-one was arguing against?
Assuming that ^^ is aimed at me this is what I said
No you didn't say it was
I am suggesting that Israel's attack on Iran probably hasn't been quite the success some thought it might be. If someone wants to suggest otherwise I don't see a problem.
Instead of constantly looking for things to have a go at me about pondo how about occasionally worrying less about what I post and dealing with the subject matter instead? 💡
Anyway, now Trump has saved the world, should the mods close this thread? Or just lock it till it needs reopening again?
Some positivity is needed here.
this podcast will get your paranoia twitching ....
https://news.sky.com/story/the-wargame-podcast-what-if-russia-attacked-the-uk-13381047
and you are a prolific poster
IBTE is a hard task
I'd ask you to just chill out a bit.
Seems unlikely with what I'm about to post...
RAF (probably) Marham to get 12 F35 A variants with B61-12 tactical bombs given the rating of "3 Hiroshima's"
RAF (probably) Marham to get 12 F35 A variants with B61-12 tactical bombs given the rating of "3 Hiroshima's"
Badly needed with the US now potentially unreliable in the "nuclear umbrella". France has air-dropped nukes as well as a marine-launched element, but is limited in policy to a strategic, i.e. final use
The UK understands the "tactical" need but in reality is probably limited by numbers and the limitations of marine-launched weapons
It does beg the question, however, of what either nation will do in the event of a tactical nuclear strike on an eastern NATO neighbour. Having the weapons is one part. Fence-sitting isn't an option because it will be exploited
tactical nuclear strike
In these times of 1930s tribute acts it's good to see some 1950s tribute acts pop up too - like the notion of a contained and restricted nuclear conflict played out according to rules.
RAF (probably) Marham to get 12 F35 A variants with B61-12 tactical bombs given the rating of "3 Hiroshima's"
Will these actually make us more independent (I’m not going to touch the issue of whether they’ll make us more secure) or will they just make US arms manufacturers richer cementing our role as a US colony, while the US has a kill switch on their use?
a contained and restricted nuclear conflict
I’ve reinforced the cupboard under our stairs and stored a case of Spam there, so I’m ready.
I’ve reinforced the cupboard under our stairs and stored a case of Spam there, so I’m ready.
Dr. Strangelove dun rite... Don't forget the toilet paper.
Badly needed with the US now potentially unreliable in the "nuclear umbrella"
Unless I am missing something the nukes will be remaining under US control. Its just we will have planes capable of dropping them and there will be some stored in the UK again (which was already probably happening with a recent upgrade at one of the US bases here)
Unless I am missing something the nukes will be remaining under US control.
Yep. What some are choosing to portray as good old Blighty stepping back on to the world stage is, in fact, good old Blighty chewing hard on a pillow whilst Trump dictates our foreign policy to us.
This was the charter, the charter of the land etc.
🤣
So with Irans nuclear programme only set back a few months, how long before they start it up again, no doubt more determined than ever to obtain nukes?
As for the F35s, with Putin emboldened by Trump, giving up any pretence at not targeting civillians in Ukraine, Russias economy on a war footing and outmatching the UKs capabilities by a significant amount it makes sense.
What the UK doesnt have is any significant protection from Russian ballistic or cruise missiles, weve got a couple of T45 destroyers with anti missile capability (Ive been in the control room of the one moored in Portsmouth that guards the whole of southern england)
With Trump no longer a reliable partner would they even let us use the jets & missiles against Russia?
I’ve reinforced the cupboard under our stairs and stored a case of Spam there, so I’m ready.
Dr. Strangelove dun rite... Don't forget the toilet paper.
Couple of old duffers crapping in a tin bucket full of sand when the wind blows surely...
Unless I am missing something the nukes will be remaining under US control
President Trump can't be relied upon to ride to help Europe.
Nothing says that he won't allow Europe to help itself having complied with his request to spend more.
President Trump
Good to see someone is keeping up standards of address for heads of state.
But to address the more substantive point, what "President Trump" allows or does not allow will not be relevant in 3.5 years time, and his successor's attitude to us kicking off WW3 with a nuke attack on Moscow may not be the same.
Twelve aircraft and the F35 has an Availability Rate of around 50% That means there might be 6 available at any given time to load up with US weapons and head somewhere to drop them. Assuming any enemy isn't asleep, I wonder how many of those would actually make it to target. This is pretty much all for show.
Assuming any enemy isn't asleep, I wonder how many of those would actually make it to target.
Its not really the UKs own force, theyd always be working as part of NATOs dual capablel aircraft programme, assuming America was still on our side....
President Trump
Good to see someone is keeping up standards of address for heads of state.
Yes, DrJ, someone has to 😉
But to address the more substantive point, what "President Trump" allows or does not allow will not be relevant in 3.5 years time, and his successor's attitude to us kicking off WW3 with a nuke attack on Moscow may not be the same.
His successors might not want to supply us with refurbished Trident missiles.
We don't do any bigger jobs on them, that's done in the US.
None of it is fully independent
None of it is fully independent
I'm half expecting the talks with France about cooperation in development to start, again, as I think the last time way maybe early 2000s?
I thought we'd abolished Europe?
Twelve aircraft and the F35 has an Availability Rate of around 50%
the missing word here is 'currently' all new-in-service aircraft have poor availability rates as the servicing tail catches up with deployment. This was true of the Sopwith Camel as it is now to the F-35. The F35 has in fact one of the better flight/accident rate of any modern aircraft which partly explains why it's been a success, and in service all over the world.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/06/23/66d39/1
I am genuinely surprised, and really quite encouraged, by that poll's findings.
22% in favour is remarkably low and even the 30% 'don't knows' is impressive imo.
I would have expected that after years of negative reporting about the alleged threat the "mad ayatollahs" pose to both Israel and the wider world plus their alleged connections with terrorism that the fear of them possessing nuclear weapons would have had far more people supporting the bombing.
I don't know if it is because the public don't fear Iran having nuclear weapons, I don't - certainly no more than North Korea or the United States having them, or most people don't believe that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, personally I don't, or maybe they simply feared that the United States bombing Iran was one step closer to WW3
Maybe it is a bit of all those reasons but whatever the answer it's the most positive thing I read recently with regards to UK politics.
Keep flying east and look to settle down with a nice Siberian girl?
