UK Politics Thread: The Mandelson Effect

[Velstrania]

Of fucking course.

I’m tired of this country constantly following the US into war.

Would have stayed out until a drone hit Cyprus.
That tells you two things.
One - Even though we weren't in it before, we were attacked which changes the rhetoric regarding involvement.
Two - For all the billions burned on moving the US war machine into the area and having overlapping layers of supposed highly advanced air threat detection, it seems the Americans and Israel can't contain what they started.

So we're not following, we're being dragged by the fucking idiots that sit in Tel Aviv and Washington.

We could always assist the peace process by shooting down American and Israeli missiles. It'd likely shock a lot of people but the likelyhood of the US attacking us over it is somewhere between zero and fuck all.

[Cole Whyte-Gurney]

Would have stayed out until a drone hit Cyprus.
That tells you two things.
One - Even though we weren't in it before, we were attacked which changes the rhetoric regarding involvement.
Two - For all the billions burned on moving the US war machine into the area and having overlapping layers of supposed highly advanced air threat detection, it seems the Americans and Israel can't contain what they started.

So we're not following, we're being dragged by the fucking idiots that sit in Tel Aviv and Washington.

We could always assist the peace process by shooting down American and Israeli missiles. It'd likely shock a lot of people but the likelyhood of the US attacking us over it is somewhere between zero and fuck all.

Would it be a shock to you to understand all the ways that the US could fuck us over if we did that?

[Velstrania]

We could always assist the peace process by shooting down American and Israeli missiles. It'd likely shock a lot of people but the likelyhood of the US attacking us over it is somewhere between zero and fuck all.

Would it be a shock to you to understand all the ways that the US could fuck us over if we did that?

I didn't claim it would be anything close to a 'good idea,' it is simply one of the options.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Of fucking course.

I’m tired of this country constantly following the US into war.

How would you respond to Iran attacking British citizens and the bases in Cyprus?

[Velstrania]

Of fucking course.

I’m tired of this country constantly following the US into war.

How would you respond to Iran attacking British citizens and the bases in Cyprus?

Let them know where our bases are and explicitly inform them that we're not part of this? They might agree to stop. Diplomacy before use of force is often the way to go.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

How would you respond to Iran attacking British citizens and the bases in Cyprus?

Let them know where our bases are and explicitly inform them that we're not part of this? They might agree to stop. Diplomacy before use of force is often the way to go.

They already know where our bases are and still attacked them. It's not like these are new bases.

[Velstrania]

Let them know where our bases are and explicitly inform them that we're not part of this? They might agree to stop. Diplomacy before use of force is often the way to go.

They already know where our bases are and still attacked them. It's not like these are new bases.

Perhaps they didn't know that we weren't involved. Let them know, they'll likely appreciate not having to use their limited ammunition on targets that are not targets.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

They already know where our bases are and still attacked them. It's not like these are new bases.

Perhaps they didn't know that we weren't involved. Let them know, they'll likely appreciate not having to use their limited ammunition on targets that are not targets.

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Perhaps they didn't know that we weren't involved. Let them know, they'll likely appreciate not having to use their limited ammunition on targets that are not targets.

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

Simply deploy the Starmerite lobbyists. They do love dictating to everyone else what an Oman is.

[Camtropia]

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

Simply deploy the Starmerite lobbyists. They do love dictating to everyone else what an Oman is.

Pretty sure weaponised Starmerites is a violation of the Geneva Convention

[Ifreann]

Perhaps they didn't know that we weren't involved. Let them know, they'll likely appreciate not having to use their limited ammunition on targets that are not targets.

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

[Imperializt Russia]

Has he emerged from the slab of Carbonite he froze himself in 1992 to retract his claim that "history has ended"?

Why would he retract it? Was he wrong? For reference, I was citing Political Order and Political Decay and not End of History in any case. Outside of his Hegelian philosophy, Fukuyama is a respected and prolific scholar of democracy and institutions.

It wasn't a serious comment or even a critique. I hoped the absurdity of the comment would make that clear.

It's a joke I've seen commented before about how "history doesn't feel very ended to me".

[Imperializt Russia]

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

Iran cannot possibly have legitimate military targets, they are The Bad Guy.

[Ifreann]

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

Iran cannot possibly have legitimate military targets, they are The Bad Guy.

Sir Kier really should inform Iran that this is situation where they get bombed but are not allowed to bomb anyone back.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

British Military bases are hardly legitimate targets when we were yet to even do anything.
Our wet fart of a prime minister was too busy being a coward.

[Saor Alba]

[
The 1953 "coup" was a spat between an authoritarian monarch acting in accordance with the constitution and a corrupt Prime Minister acting outwith the law.

Today I learned wanting to nationalize your oil industry and take it out of foreign hands is a bad thing. Who knew!

The 1953 coup was a result of the British elite having a humongous temper tantrum because they couldn't exploit Iranian oil reserves as effectively since they were a declining power, so they convinced Eisenhower and the CIA that Mossadegh was trying to turn Iran communist and had him couped.

Oil production fell to just 4% of what it was after nationalisation and the economy was left in ruins. I would consider that quite bad. In any case, the Shah had no issue with the nationalisation of oil and he pursued his own nationalisation programme later on - both for oil and other industry. No, the Shah's issue was that Mossadegh was trying to subvert his authority:

"I have observed over the past few days that Mosaddeq is intent on vitiating the Constitution and the laws... I therefore issued the farman to dismiss Mosaddeq. I heard this morning on the radio that they have arrested Colonel Nasiri, who was executing my order, and that they are calling it a coup d'etat." (Shah Pahlavi on 16 August via Afkhami's Life and Times of the Shah, p. 157)

This is a widely accepted consensus on the event.

And if the consensus is wrong then there is no need to appeal to it. Having reviewed the literature on this myself, I cannot help but notice that the legality of Mossadegh's dismissal as PM is neglected by advocates of the "coup" theory. Take Ofer Israeli's article "The Circuitous Nature of Operation Ajax", which completely ignores this and does not even mention the mechanism by which Mossadegh was removed. Or Marsh's article "The United States, Iran and Operation 'Ajax': Inverting Interpretative Orthodoxy", which ignores it with the exception of one, off-hand and unsubstantiated (cites Wilber by name but no page number, skimmed documents myself and could not verify) claim that Mossadegh called the 1953 dissolution referendum because the CIA had been buying votes in the Majlis. What Marsh doesn't mention is that the 1953 referendum was fraudulent and illegal. Sorry, but this "consensus" is eurocentric. Afkhami challenges it:

"Mosadeqq accused [Zahedi] of working with foreign agents... To rid himself of the Senate, which had failed to support him, and of Zahedi, Mosadeqq forced a vote in the Majlis on 23 October to reduce the Senate's term from four years to two. Despite the act's doubtful constitutional validity, it nonetheless took away the general's immunity and made him available for arrest on 2 May 1953... [Zahedi] then went into hiding, only to surface as Mosaddeq's replacement. Zahedi's challenge to Mosaddeq thus had a history that preceded TPAJAX... The CIA presence distorted the facts, including the role it played in the event. The American urge to promote the fledgling CIA in 1953 and the Iranian proclivity to assign responsibility to others made of the CIA a seemingly omnipotent force with the power to move heaven and earth. This history, fostered by pro-Mosaddeq Iranians and liberal and leftist Westerners, has diminished Mosaddeq, demonized the shah, and turned Iranians into traitors or wimps." (Afkhami, p. 158-159)

Why would he retract it? Was he wrong? For reference, I was citing Political Order and Political Decay and not End of History in any case. Outside of his Hegelian philosophy, Fukuyama is a respected and prolific scholar of democracy and institutions.

It wasn't a serious comment or even a critique. I hoped the absurdity of the comment would make that clear.

It's a joke I've seen commented before about how "history doesn't feel very ended to me".

That's fine, unfortunately I could not. You would be surprised at how many people critique his thesis without actually reading the book and understanding what "End of History" means to him.

[Herargon]

Let them know where our bases are and explicitly inform them that we're not part of this? They might agree to stop. Diplomacy before use of force is often the way to go.

They already know where our bases are and still attacked them. It's not like these are new bases.

So what? Why not intercept the missiles and leave it at that?

[Ifreann]

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

British Military bases are hardly legitimate targets when we were yet to even do anything.
Our wet fart of a prime minister was too busy being a coward.

Dawg, he publicly announced that your bases would be used by the Americans to bomb Iran. You are at war with Iran. They have every legal and moral right to blow your shit up and kill your troops.

[Saor Alba]

Via @YouGov / Scottish Elections Study, 11-18 Feb. Changes w/ 13-19 Jun.

Seat Model:

SNP: 55 (-9)
RFM: 22 (+22)
GRN: 18 (+10)
LAB: 14 (-8)
LDM: 11 (+7)
CON: 9 (-22)

Changes w/ 2021.

Thanks. It seems to confirm the recent by-election wasn't a fluke, with the Greens overtaking Labour again, and Reform (eugh) doing well even in Scotland.

The Scottish Greens and the Green Party of England and Wales are two different political parties and the fieldwork here predates the by-election in any case. Personally I would look at this as an outlier if it isn't replicated with the next round of polls. Labour are doing bad but I really struggle to believe they're doing worse than the Greens.

I will say that it is quite amusing to see the SNP+Greens on 73 seats when they poll at just 44% here. This will be our most disproportionate Scottish Parliament yet, I believe.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

They've literally hit Oman, who were the ones mediating between Iran and the US.

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

British Military bases are hardly legitimate targets when we were yet to even do anything.
Our wet fart of a prime minister was too busy being a coward.

Dawg, he publicly announced that your bases would be used by the Americans to bomb Iran. You are at war with Iran. They have every legal and moral right to blow your shit up and kill your troops.

They had already fired towards Cyprus prior to that to my understanding.

[Saor Alba]

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

Except we hadn't joined when they targeted it to my understanding?

Correct, just like how Saudi Arabia and the UAE had not joined in when Iran struck at them. The simple fact is that the Islamic Republic is an irrational revisionist power lashing out now that it is on the verge of collapse. It has never cared about whether it was the victim of aggression, it has always been happy to initiate aggression.

[The Archregimancy]

1953 UK-American coup that overthrew Mosaddegh?

I don't disagree that we should rise above tit-for-tat revenge but I take issue with the description of Mossadegh's removal as a coup. My understanding is that a coup is necessarily illegal, but Mossadegh was appointed and removed in accordance with the constitution. The power to issue a farman dismissing a PM was part of the 1906 constitution. We certainly encouraged it, but the Shah did not break any law, unlike Mossadegh who illegally manipulated the 1952 elections and illegally dismissed the Senate - this final act was what led to his removal. His authoritarian tendencies aside, it is no surprise that the Shah removed him. He pardoned the assassin of PM Razmara and his "nationalisation" destroyed the economy. Unsurprisingly when General Zahedi entered Tehran, he was met with widespread public support.

The 1953 "coup" was a spat between an authoritarian monarch acting in accordance with the constitution and a corrupt Prime Minister acting outwith the law.

I'm sorry, but this is flat out incorrect. I don't know what you can be using as a source so as to so mischaracterise the sequence of events.

You needn't take Wikipedia's characterisation of events as the '1953 Iran coup' at face value, of course, but the broad details are well-known and many are a matter of public record via partially declassified documents.

Mossadegh was removed as part of a deliberate plot initiated by the Churchill and Eisenhower governments, both of whom considered Mossadegh unreliable, and who wanted to secure Iranian oil supplies.

It's possible that you're confusing the sequence of events between the first (failed) 15 August 1953 attempt to remove Mossadegh via the manipulation of constitutional mechanisms - which broady follows the outline you offer above - and the second (successful) 19 August attempt to remove Mosssadegh, which involved the army storming government buildings, violent street battles between opposing factions, Mossadegh fleeing after a tank opened fire on his residence, and the army taking control of the government. If that sequence of events on 19 August 1953 doesn't count as a coup, I don't know what does.

We even know the name of the CIA operative who was the lead for Operation Ajax, the name of the operation to remove Mossadegh. It was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. - the grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt.

And if the Shah didn't break the law during the coup, it's because he'd fled to Baghdad on 16 August when the first attempt to remove Mossadegh failed. He was out of the country when the 19 August events took place and played no role in its planning or execution, though it was notionally carried out in his name. At this point in his reign, he was still considered an ineffectual figurehead and a coward. It was General Fazlollah Zahedi who led the successful 19 August 1953 coup and then led the government as Prime Minister after Mossadegh's removal; Zahedi was considered a far more substantial figure than the Shah. It was only from about 1955 that the Shah started to manoeuvre to exercise functional power, dismissing Zahedi and then demonstrating a hitherto unexpected talent for politics; well, for the best part of 20 years, anyway, until it all rather started going to his head.

Note that my observing all of this should not be taken as a defence of Mossadegh; that he was removed in a cynical US and UK-backed coup doesn't somehow make Mossadegh an innocent martyr of the Iranian nation. I freely acknowledge his flaws. The observation by the UK and US that he was unreliable wasn't unjustified; but the ends don't necessarily justify the means.

Unfortunately, the removal of Mossadegh became a prime mover in subsequent conspiracy theories that stated that the CIA and British intelligence were behind the removal of every anti-Western leader even when they weren't. But in this one case they very much were.

[Ifreann]

The US has aircraft stationed in Oman. And UK military bases are obviously legitimate targets for Iran when you have joined the war against them.

Except we hadn't joined when they targeted it to my understanding?

Per the Beeb "The PM made the announcement [...] just hours before a British RAF base in Cyprus was hit by a drone strike on Sunday night with no casualties reported." And Starmer is really not in any position to claim to be justifiably acting in retaliation against Iran when he made a statement on Saturday condemning Iran's retaliatory strikes.

[Ifreann]

Except we hadn't joined when they targeted it to my understanding?

Correct, just like how Saudi Arabia and the UAE had not joined in when Iran struck at them. The simple fact is that the Islamic Republic is an irrational revisionist power lashing out now that it is on the verge of collapse. It has never cared about whether it was the victim of aggression, it has always been happy to initiate aggression.

How many US military bases are in Saudi Arabia? How many are in the UAE? I am increasingly beginning to think that the principle being employed here is:

Iran cannot possibly have legitimate military targets, they are The Bad Guy.

[Veromur]

Except we hadn't joined when they targeted it to my understanding?

Correct, just like how Saudi Arabia and the UAE had not joined in when Iran struck at them. The simple fact is that the Islamic Republic is an irrational revisionist power lashing out now that it is on the verge of collapse. It has never cared about whether it was the victim of aggression, it has always been happy to initiate aggression.

UK, Israel, USA are the aggressors. For they are killing civilians for sport

And are colonial powers

And manipulate global finance

The British people must rise up against their govt