There is, I think, a necessary twofold response when something as significant as last night's US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities takes place.
The first, as I have already noted, is to note that such an act is almost certainly illegal and should not, therefore, have happened. It is my wish that, in due course, those responsible for it are held to account for what I believe are criminal actions.
The second reaction is more personal. It's the desire to take a long walk and consider just where the world now stands as a consequence of an action that is, to me, so obviously wrong. But that, of course, forces me to consider why I think it is wrong. There are several reasons, and my purpose here is to explain them.
Most straightforwardly, I believe that this action is wrong. That is not just wrong because of its illegality, although that matters. Instinctively, this is an action that anyone of sound mind can also tell is mistaken.
That is because, in no small part, it is obvious that no one has any idea what the endgame of this action might be. As many have pointed out so often, it is remarkably easy to start a war. Ending one is much harder. And let us not pretend this is anything but war. Iran will, inevitably, respond. Whether we think that right or wrong, this is now part of a broader, more dangerous reframing of the international political environment. And from that, I cannot see how any good outcome can follow.
Then, we have to ask why the US is reacting in this way. Ignoring the very obvious fact that it would not have taken such action if Iran already possessed nuclear weapons, which is a reality that strongly suggests nuclear arms do, in fact, provide a form of security (reluctant as I generally am to admit it), and that is precisely why Iran wants them, there are deeper political forces at play.
The three principal actors in this conflict—Netanyahu, Trump, and the Iranian theocratic leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are all elderly men. They have, as a result, little personally at stake. They have little time left in this world, if we are candid: they can take the risk of fighting wars as a result.
They are also, I suspect, men with overwhelming egos. They are seeking to create what they would think to be a legacy for themselves, consequently trying to make a life in perpetuity for themselves based on their war gains, which is the sort of thing that profoundly vain men do.
Then note that all three of these leaders are totalitarian in their instincts. Netanyahu and Trump have both made their disdain for democracy abundantly clear. Iran, meanwhile, is ruled by a theocratic regime that denies fundamental freedoms to vast numbers within its borders. What unites these three men is their shared desire to impose their will on the people of their respective countries, even though we can be certain that many in each of those nations are appalled by both the beliefs and the actions of those who claim to lead them.
There is, however, something that differentiates Trump and Netanyahu from the Iranian leadership, which is that they believe that they have the right to impose their will on other countries, and most especially those that are populated by people who do not appear to be of European descent. That is a profoundly paternalistic, racist, arrogant attitude that is absolutely undeniable in what Trump and Netanyahu are doing. That they are driven by not just indifference, but even hatred, of those who do not conform to their view of what people should look like is, I think, equally undeniable. For the last few hundred years, arrogance of this sort has been utterly destructive within the world and has led to the creation of so many of the tensions that now exist, including almost all of those around the Middle East. Unless and until white men, in particular, and of a certain age, can give up these pretensions that they alone have the right to dictate to the world what it is that everybody else must believe and adhere to, we will remain in the most profound trouble.
All this leads to the conclusion that this war will solve nothing. The Iraq war proved that. So did Afghanistan. So did the attacks on Libya. So have so many other conflicts. For all the bluster of the likes of Trump, Western powers have neither the resources or the willing to actually impose regime changes on countries where they know that they cannot achieve that goal, because popular sentiment amingst the people in those places will always be opposed to the actions of so-called democracies that they know do not really represent the wills of their people. That is, therefore, the reality to be faced at the end of the day by Trump and all others engaged in this action.
And then, let me offer one final thought in this first consideration of this issue, to which I am quite sure I will have to return. This is that around the world, the billions of people who populate this planet have vastly more in common with each other than they have things that separate them.
Most of us simply want to live in peace. We want a home. We might want to share that. If we have a family, we want to provide for it, care for those who are close to us, and ensure their well-being.
The vast majority of us can extend these feelings towards those who are not in our family, but whom we know, or meet, or simply come into contact with in the course of our daily lives. Very few of us carry very much ill will, if any at all, towards the vast majority of people in the world.
What we would wish for them is what we would want for ourselves, which is simply the ability to live in peace with sufficient to meet our needs, and maybe some of our wants, whilst simultaneously having the opportunity to enjoy all those things that GDP will never measure, but which are so important, like love, laughter, care and wonder.
It's not naive to point this out. Nor is it wrong. This is the almost universal desire of humankind, which our leaders failed to understand. It is from that perspective that I condemn this war.
I reiterate that what the people of Iran, Israel and the USA, as well as all the other countries that might be drawn into this conflict, have in common is vastly more than what can ever divide them. It really is time that we remember that and act as if this is the most important motivator for action that we have.
When we have political leadership for that looks for what people have in common, rather than what might divide them, which can be used to provide an opportunity for exploitation (which has always been the motivation for war, because there never has been a warthat did not have as its underlying cause the desire for economic exploitation and the command of tax revenues) then we might make human progress. Until then, we have to suffer the disastrous actions that we saw overnight.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There are few differences between the lies told to ignite the war with Iraq and the lies told to ignite a war with Iran. The assessments of our intelligence agencies and international bodies are, as they were during the calls to invade Iraq, airily dismissed for hallucinations.
All the old tropes have been resurrected to entice us into another military fiasco. A country that poses no threat to us, or to its neighbors, is on the verge of acquiring a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) that imperils our existence. The country and its leaders embody pure evil. Freedom and democracy are at stake. If we do not act now the next smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud. Our military superiority assures victory. We are the saviors of the world. Massive bombing, an updated version of Shock and Awe, will bring peace and harmony.
We heard these canards leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq. Twenty-two years later they have been resurrected. Anyone who advocates for negotiations, for diplomacy and peace, is a stooge for terrorists.
Did we learn any lessons from the fiascos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, not to mention Ukraine?
To take your points in order, Richard:
The US’s action is not probably illegal under international law, it is definitely illegal. The U.S. is not in any way in imminent danger of an attack by Iran. Nor, might I add, was Israel; the ONLY intelligence source for that is Israeli, dodgy and unevidenced at the best of times, and primarily Netanyahu. It was he who persuaded Trump to withdraw from the nuclear treaty, no doubt with the intention of reaching just this moment. Worth mentioning here that the 1979 Iranian Revolution was a massive backlash against the U.S. backed and autocratic Shah’s family, themselves imposed on Iran in 1953 by the CIA/MI6 toppling of the democratically elected PM. Britain, shamefully, initiated that.
No one in power in Israel or the U.S. has the slightest concept of an “end game”. Rule One of military engagement, drummed into all Officers in the first week of training – – never enter a conflict unless you have a properly prepared exit strategy. Netanyahu’s end game is simply the overwhelming desire to remain in power. UNRWA making noises about starvation in Gaza? Accuse them of involvement in Oct 7th. Hostage deal imminent? Assassinate the moderate Hamas negotiator. Another hostage deal imminent? Break the ceasefire. Trial for corruption looking dangerous? Widespread demonstrations against your Government? Recognition of a Palestinian State imminent? Iranian negotiations with Trump on the cards? Bomb the fuck out of Iran. And whilst global eyes are elsewhere, complete the genocide in Gaza, using U.S. military contractors disguised as meals on wheels and funded by – guess who – Netanyahu. Oh, and annex the West Bank.
Trump is possessed (that sentence is complete in itself) of the most limited intellect of any politician, let alone world leader, that I can recall – ever. He is a fucktard. I can’t be bothered to go on.
What is happening is unstoppable. Why? Because we have allowed ourselves to elect mediocrities. Grey, bureaucratic non entities, with no idea how to actually GOVERN. As a newly commissioned Officer, I and thousands like me, had more idea of “governing” than any single politician currently destroying this country. I hate it. I see no way out.
Sorry, Richard; much as I completely agree with your sentiment about what we all want, there is no one who can deliver it.
Unless we dream, the impossible will never become possible.
Israel ‘s attack on Iran’s Arak nuclear reactor was certainly illegal under Article 56 of the additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions 1977, which prohibits attacks on nuclear electrical generating stations.
The US attacks on the nuclear fuel chain uranium processing and enrichment plants at Fordo, Isfahan, & Natanz was illegal under prohibitive U.N. resolutions and is contrary to the Statute of the IAEA. What I find depressing is not one journalist or politician to my knowledge has made these points in the wall-to-wall tv, radio and social media coverage I have seen or listened to since 6-45 am today☹️
I’m not sure that this is a war? At the most it is a new form of war maybe?
This looks more like an extreme form of suppression over a status quo to me.
Israel has a nuclear capacity that it hid from the world and got away with it. Iran – aping the West – decided to go nuclear. Hearing even Europe say that Iran ‘cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons’? I mean the objective is baseless to me.
So there are some who can be trusted with such weapons and those that can’t? There is a notion of ‘good and evil’ being snuck in here when having WMD is there? And who is the arbiter of that assertion? Objective are they?
All I see is hypocrisy, double standards and exceptionalism and a complete failure of politics. But I don’t see war, it is more like bullying on an extreme scale. This is what the U.S. military industrial complex was always going to deliver – raw power and the upholding of vested interests.
Michael Hudson’s analysis of the US war on Iran is reproduced and discussed here on naked capitalism. It is well worth the read to understand the historical and geopolitical nature of current events. It has the ring of truth to me, as an American expat, who lived through Vietnam, and Watergate in the States, and the Iraq war here in the UK.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/michael-hudson-why-america-is-at-war-with-iran.html
Thanks
There is a more succinct version of Hudson’s piece, as linked by Helen Heenan, here:
https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/06/09/iran-china-railway-eurasia/
but it makes the same point. The missiles flew over Iran as the One Belt – One Road railway opened.
Industrial goods from China now go to Iran directly by land, bypassing all US zones of influence, military bases and sanctions. Iran has now gained the role of a key transit hub connecting:
– to the south – the North-South corridor through Russia, the Caspian Sea and India;
– to the west – land access to Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Mediterranean;
– to the east – direct access to Chinese supply chains.
In addition, the land route erodes the monopoly of maritime transportation, especially where the Strait of Hormuz and Suez are controlled by either American or pro-American structures. Iran has gradually broken out of logistical isolation, becoming a link between China, Russia, India and the Middle East.
90% of Iran’s oil is sold to Beijing.
Difficult not to despair. Especially about the casual overt censoriship and propagandising at BBC huffing and puffing politicians’ horror at the red painted aircraft – saying that ‘while protest is ok’, ‘this is terrorism’ – .
They endlessly big up the direct action by a couple of activists – while giving not even a casual mention of the 300,000 or so demonstrating in London yesterday about Gaza.
They say protests are allowed, but why is censoring protests against war also ‘allowed’?
The millions who marched against wars in Vietnam, Iraq etc were subsequently ackowledged to be right – even by many of those who instigated the wars.
But BBC is always part of the war party.
The most likely outcome to the bombing is that US forces will be fighting a war in Iran within 6 months, unless Trump is deposed from power or dies. The US is vulnerable to attacks on its mercantile shipping (which it cannot prevent) and to terrorist attacks at home or on its many overseas bases – and I don’t mean the harmless people whom ICE is currently abducting from the streets and universities. How Putin will react is one of the many “unknowns”. For certain, the doomsday clock has shifted by a couple of minutes.
I didn’t think there were a couple of minutes left on the Doomsday clock.
The Doomsday clock had 89 seconds left at the end of January this year.
This looks like a misstep by Trump. The people who support him were very much against US involvement according to all polls. It looks likely to bring him down if it all goes wrong, which seems certain. The sooner he is removed from office, the safer the world will be. He is not popular at all in the UK with the majority in favour of staying out of this war. I notice Farage and Patel have been quick to support him, both misjudging the mood here. Starmer is ambivalent, as usual, although he calls for de-escalation while failing to condemn Trump.
I don’t think I’d give the Iranians a pass about their desire to impose their will on inhabitants of other countries. Iran is a backer of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of whom are attempting to either overthrow their existing governments, or consolidate power. Obviously similar to the way in which western countries have tried to wield influence in the past, but the intention to dominate the region exists regardless.
As for Trump’s decision itself, I suspect it is at least partially ego driven as always. Perhaps influenced by his collapsing ratings (US Presidents like an easy, short-term military ‘victory’ to boost their ratings when times are hard), but it certainly benefits many of those groups he is beholden to.
Effectively doing the bidding of the Israelis will satisfy a large chunk of the US electorate (including the whacky evangelicals waiting for the rapture). The attacks will all but guarantee a big rise in the price of oil as the Iranians are inevitably going to close the Strait of Hormuz, or at least make passage extremely difficult – they have already started jamming GPS in the area and laying of mines would be very easily achieved. A big raise in the price of oil helps the fossil fuel industry (big donors), Putin’s Russia, whose economy is on the brink of bankruptcy due to the current low price of oil, and will hurt China which is the largest importer of fossil fuels in the world. In combination with the witless tariff wars, I can’t see anything but a big recession ahead.
This is a typically short-sighted and self-centred action from the orange one, but we all know what he is. Notable that ordering the attacks without informing Congress is an inpeachable offence, but we already know that the rule of law isn’t of any interest to Trump or the gutless GOP.
I don’t know enough about Yemen, but who are the existing governments that Hamas and Hizbollah are trying to overthrow. Hamas, as I understood it is the elected government of Gaza. Or do you mean the government of the illegal occupiers of their territories?
Hamas may be the elected government, but they are trying to survive (i.e. consolidate their position), with the assistance of Iran. Unfortunately, here is no functional Palestinian state as things stand, although a two state solution is the only way there could ever be peace in the region. A combination of the Hamas attacks and the ensuing Netanyahu-led war has ensured that this is only a pipe dream right now. But it doesn’t alter the fact that Iran has been the power behind the Hamas throne, such as it is.
Hezbollah is a major player in Lebanese politics (along with their close ally, also funded and supported by Iran) and, as with any political party, their intent is to become the dominant force in their parliament.
I don’t think my post said anything controversial. It is all known. The Houthis were backed by Iran as well, of course.
The Middle East remains an absolute basket case and I can’t see any sort of a positive change in sight considering the character and aims of those instigating the various conflicts.
I think your reference to Hamas trying to “either overthrow the existing government or consolidate power.” Horrible, Hamas may well be, but that sentence structure doesn’t accord with undisputed truths about how or why they won an election in Gaza to become the government, and it doesn’t take into account Netanyahu’s support for Hamas, including channelling large amounts of cash to prop them up, in otder to weaken the PA.
These comments should not be taken as support for Hamas, merely as a reminder of often suppressed truths.
I am accusing no one of anything.
It isnt just Iran who has proxies, Netanyahu used Hamas as HIS proxy till it blew up in his face, and that is verifiable from Israeli news sources.
I agree with RobertJ – the worst thing to see is the Iranians and others playing the same games as the West, whilst the West decries it all. Again, it’s the ‘Gishing gallop’ – get your claim of victim hood in first – a typical fascist trick. All that concern over communism made the West into fascists over night without even realising it.
What a joke we are.