Friends, as the old saying goes, it ain't easy bein' red... (Or green, for that matter.) Poor Keir Starmer, the Labourite Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is hanging by a thread. His party did abysmally in recent local elections, and his (very frightened) Labour colleagues are eager to ditch "Sir Keir" in favor of someone less despised. Well, you can see their point, but I'm not so sure that Starmer is the problem. The British seem fed up with establishment politics in general. Indeed, the Conservatives, a.k.a. the Tories, are doing no better. I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer was forcibly ejected from Downing Street, but unfortunately that doesn't mean that Labour's reign of error will be over, or that a new election will be forthcoming. Much more likely is a fresh face to lead the same old bunch of lefty hacks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c1m2e4nl1z1t
In other news, Iran still doesn't seem interested in making any serious concessions, which is an indication that either they're nuts or they think they have the upper hand vis-a-vis Trump. It looks to me like we will have to let our blockade bite, and Iran's economy wither, for weeks if not months to prove our point, and/or we will need to find a viable way of getting large amounts of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, despite Iran's depredations. If Iran comes to understand that it can't export any oil, and it can't hold the world economy hostage, then that ought to be checkmate. Clearly, we aren't there yet, and I'm not sure when we will be.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: A marxist is a marxist is a marxist. They are all actual or prospective vicious tyrants. Maybe the Brits are as fed up with their's as are all peoples who are cursed with the bitter experience of socialist misrule. Many are not blessed with the ability to shed the far left's oppressive and unrelenting yoke without it first having reduced their country to a despairing, utterly untenable husk. But Great Britain can; they did it under PMs Churchill (2nd term) and Thatcher and their history before that shows a very decisive intolerance of arbitrary tyranny, at least after a time suffering it. A civilized world cannot abide the cradle of democracy and the English language and the fount of the English speaking world subjugated to the worst doctrine ever forced on humanity. Good chance now that the Brits are going to give it the bum's rush.
ReplyDeleteIn its first approx . ten years, the 20th century inspired plausible hope that it was the advent of perhaps a perpetual golden age which would build upon itself to unimagined heights of human well being. And yes, much of that benefit was realized due to personal freedom, free enterprise , freely advanced technology and industry ,and democracy. But a contemporaneous development of tragically dark consequence also rose. It was technologically advanced totalitarianism, inspired in its most lasting form by a mid 19th century doctrine which misinterpreted history and condemned as "injustice" the material progress of much of the world, all to a degree which manifested oppression of myriad millions of unfortunates. It survives , though much scathed , in its fanaticism to this day and has made some recent advances .
Dr. Waddy from Jack: So maybe the centuries long relatively free Brits will give short shrift to any possible Labour successor to hapless Starmer and send Labour to the far back benches.Labour appears to have returned to radicalism after having grudgingly fronted a democracy it loathes. The Reform party may well be working a monumental change . It may ingest the Conservatives, with which it has some common cause . "Oh, here's a change i' the commonwealth indeed" (Measure for Measure , a play the Reform party would nonetheless do well to heed when and if its ascension is celebrated).
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Meanwhile Comrade Mayor Mamdani is giving NYC and the world affirmation of his arrogant Marxist "progressivism" and its far left hatred for Judaism. A mob of barbarous savages descends upon a Synagogue . There they spew support for Palestinian conquest of Israel. Comrade Mamdani issues a tepid "tsk tsk" but is otherwise "ho hum" about it. THIS: in a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel in a country which destroyed the insanely affirmative Jew loathing Third Reich. In placing him in executive power NYC provides America with a harrowing example of what his DSA/Dems intend for America.
ReplyDeleteDFr. Waddy from Jack: My understanding is that Kharg Island, which sits athwart the Persian Gulf ,is Iran's main oil export port and that American occupation of it is being considered. If Iran cannot export oil it will derive none of its vital income.
ReplyDeleteIn all probability there will be loss of American lives in taking it. But it is the sworn duty of our troops and our amphibious and air assault capabilities are almost certainly the most skilled and best supported in the world.
I think our "art of the deal" President is a very canny strategist. He advances our forces in steps, apparently knows when to take pause, then turns the heat up further. Each military step is interspersed with offers of negotiation. Each step is a credible effort to bring our desired result: the elimination of Iran's nuclear threat to us, to Israel and potentially any country which excites the doctrinally vindictive wrath of this atavistic ehh, "regime".
RAY TO JACK
DeleteInternational relations and diplomacy are always interesting. Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, and loud-mouthed they would destroy Israel + if they got it. Pakistan, the host for negotiations has had nuclear weapons for decades, but keeps quiet about destroying anyone.
Ray from Jack: I'd always worried about Iran obtaining nukes or nuclear weapon assistance from Islamic Pakistan but almost certainly without justification. Islam is not monolithic. But from N. Korea . . . ?
ReplyDeleteJack, needless to say, I agree totally with your historical analysis of Marxism...but I'm not sure that the British people do. Reform is on the rise and Labour is on the decline. That's great, but also on the rise are the Greens, who could probably run rings around Sir Keir in terms of neo-Marxist fervor...
ReplyDeleteThe Conservatives may be wobbling, but it still looks more likely than not that Reform would need a coalition to govern, and their natural partners would be the Tories...but would either party long survive such a partnership? Hmm.
Jack, Kharg Island is a possibility, but how will we seize it when we can't even pacify the Strait of Hormuz? Our inability to do so suggests to me a pronounced aversion to serious losses or severe risks...
Ray is right that Pakistan is a model of Islamic restraint when it comes to the management of nuclear weapons. Well, so far, anyway.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: But the Greens have never achieved national executive power . If they ever did they could be counted upon to demonstrate themselves as obnoxiously overreaching as do all far left radicals in power . In 1951 After six years of Labour's debut and its incipient totalitarianism, the free minded Brits were willing to bring back the "right old bastard " who saved them in 1940. Looks to me like Labour then took a step back and empowered half way sensible PMs like Wilson . But they went for it all again in the 70s and 80s and the Brits empowered unapologetic PM Thatcher. Looks like doctrinaire Labour tried for it again, haplessly it appears, under Starmer and the unforgivably Brit Brits aren't going to have it.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I think our last amphibious assault was against the Kuwait littoral during Desert Storm. That was a diversion from Schwarkopf and Powell's brilliant left hook And I don't think it was as costly in casualties than even Inchon. Our Navy has a lot of amphibious ships with both surface and helo invasion capabilities and I'm confident the Marines are well trained. Too, we have superb Special Forces which are highly skilled in recon. I think President Trump will deploy them if he thinks the time is right. A massive bombardment beforehand, which has not been a feature of our limited incursion into the Strait, would no doubt precede our invasion.
ReplyDeleteThe seditious far left will of course undermine any hint of the imminence of an invasion of Kharg Island and will do its best to give aid and comfort to Iran's forces by inundating our streets with "peacenik" worker ants. Too, it will reflexively portray ANY losses (including, possibly, ships) as intolerable and proof of defeat. I very much doubt they would prevent our hombre President from staying the course. We MUST eliminate Iran's nuclear bomb capabilities.
We've sat there in Guantanamo , surrounded by an implacablely hostile regime , since Castro took power. I think we could take and hold Kharg Island and that the majority of Americans would support the effort.
Oh yes, the Greens are completely untested in national politics. They've helped to govern Germany, but never the U.K. Could they rise to the challenge? Hard to say, but the party would have to grow enormously to have a chance at governance, which probably means it would need to absorb a bunch of Labourites.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sure we COULD take Kharg Island, but to what purpose? Might not the Iranians destroy all the oil infrastructure there on their way out? Why would we want to control such infrastructure when the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and thus all the oil can't go anywhere? First thing's first, I say: open the darn Strait!!!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: My understanding is that Kharg Island is their main oil export station; no doubt it has extensive infrastructure and its loss would put a longtime stop to most of their oil export and the benefit Iran derives from it. That would probably be a staggering and perhaps final blow to their already grievously wounded economy. Our blockade can be lifted in an instant with a command from President Trump ,were Iran to satisfy his resolve that their missiles and nukes must be eliminated. Perhaps even the approach of a Kharg Island invasion force might force Iranian capitulation and quickly restore their critical commerce in oil
ReplyDeleteToo, in order to land an invasion force our Navy and Air Force would if necessary, fight their way through the Strait and up the Persian Gulf, clearing the Gulf and the Strait of Iranian control. Once secured , Kharg Island could be an unsinkable fortress exercising control over the Gulf and the Strait. We controlled the Gulf of Tonkin despite its proximity to the hostile N.Vietnamese shoreline. And our much resented sea and airborne access to Guantanamo have never been seriously challenged (except during the Missile Crisis).
We know Iran is developing very long range missilery and nuclear weapons. For the defense of our country we must do whatever is required now to end that threat. Containment and mutually assured destruction, which worked with the Soviets, may well not work with a fanatic neo medieval regime which lauds suicide in devoting faith to its atavistic doctrine. Deterrence cannot be relied upon this time; physical destruction of their offensive capabilities is vital. Our dutiful conventional armed forces are superbly fit for that mission and their use in this will continue to be consistent with our measured , step by step military and diplomatic effort so far.
Too, their threat to us is confirmed by their relentless expression of intent to bring "death to America" and their material and evangelical support for continuing terrorist assault on America and Israel. Jack
ReplyDeleteHmm. If the goal is to stop Iran from exporting oil...mission accomplished! We don't need Kharg Island to do that. The only point of occupying it would be to seize control of Iran's oil for the long term. I suppose you're right that it would be a chip we could use in negotiations, or it could be a gambit that could break Iran's will to resist. Seems to me, though, that we're telegraphing rather the opposite: a DECLINING willingness to use force...
ReplyDelete