Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel. Most European countries have refused to take part, the UK decided to help so this seems like a very easy situation to have avoided.
> Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel
They’ve been doing this across the region. Some of this looks like individual commanders taking strategic decisions into their own hands. But it’s absolutely false that neutrality has protected anyone in the region.
Sure, if you’re Turkmenistan or Afghanistan, the latter which is being bombed by Pakistan, you’re fine. Also if you’re Azerbaijan, fuck you.
What’s the argument? Like, Oman was trusted by parts of Tehran on diplomatic matters. They still got bombed. Trying to rationalize this is untenable—it was a stupid strategy of throwing toys out of the pram.
That's right. Hosting military bases of the overlords that impose crippling sanctions that impoverish a nation on false premises is quite far away from a neutral country.
I didn't hear the neighbouring countries complain when Iran got attacked economically/financially and then later military.
> only attacked countries that host US bases, correct?
No. Azerbaijan hosts no U.S. bases. Also, the Gulf hosts U.S. bases in part to protect against Iran. Blowing up hotels while missing American warships underlines why Iran is a shit neighbor.
They’ve given mixed messages. You see the new talking points being echoed down thread [1].
> Iran has been quite conscientious about taking responsibility
There is no singular Iran. The President apologized. Then the IRGC hit more targets in neutral nations. (Again, unless we use the new definition of neutrality which means everyone is an enemy.)
> It is understood the attempted air strike occurred before the UK agreed to let the US use British military bases to hit Iranian sites targeting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
I don't think the article you linked disagrees with what I've quoted from the BBC, does it? Aircraft being present at the airbase isn't the same as aircraft launching for an attack from the airbase.
True on technicalities. If it isn't useful to the operation of the bombers in the region, why did it happen? And if it is useful that sounds like a UK base participating in the war
I'm no war strategist but I'd guess they did it to have them ready to strike Iran if needed. Diego Garcia has been used by UK/US joint operations in the Middle East since the Iraq War, it's not unusual to have American bombers stationed there when the US is on "high alert" or whatever.
To be clear, I'm not saying I support any of this Iran nonsense from Trump. I am very much against him meddling in the ME.
The same Iran that just launched missiles at Diego Garcia, a critical American base? The same one that severely damaged Qatari LNG infrastructure two days ago? The same one that continues sending missile and drone attacks at various targets? Has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz and forced a +50% spike in oil prices? Ruled by the regime that has no intention of going anywhere?
No, the US/Israel are losing the war. Iran is successfully controlling the economic situation and continuously removing western forces from the Middle East. They are also successfully targeting Israel every day. There's very little support for this war in the US and Trump is on the ropes.
> Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel.
They attacked the UK in Cyprus at the start of the war back when the UK refused to allow any of it's bases to be used by the US. Stop spreading propaganda.
