Latest news with #IraqWar

Starmer could allow Trump use of British bases to attack Iran, says Harriet Harman

Sky News

5 hours ago

Politics
Sky News

Starmer could allow Trump use of British bases to attack Iran, says Harriet Harman

Sir Keir Starmer could end up allowing Donald Trump to use British bases to launch strikes on Iran, Harriet Harman has said. Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harman said this was despite the prime minister being part of a generation "shaped" by opposition to the Iraq War. Baroness Harman was solicitor general when Sir Tony Blair decided to take Britain to war in Iraq alongside the United States in 2003. She said the decisions made by Sir Tony would be "burning bright" in Sir Keir 's mind. "He's part of the political generation of the Labour Party that grew up, which was shaped by its opposition to what Tony Blair was doing in relation to Iraq," Baroness Harman said. "So it would be a massive change for him." Asked if the UK could end up giving permission for US aircraft to use British military bases on Cyprus and Diego Garcia, but not go any further than that, Baroness Harman said: "Exactly". Sky News reported on Thursday that Attorney General Richard Hermer has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, potentially limiting what support he believes the UK could offer the US. Baroness Harman said that for Sir Keir, the "rules-based international order is the most important thing". "If the attorney general says that the government can't do something because it's illegal, it can't do it. So he's in a very crucial position," she added. But Baroness Harman said it would be difficult for Sir Keir to say "thank you for the trade deal" to Mr Trump and then deny the president use of the airbases.

CNN

7 hours ago

Politics
CNN

How Tucker Carlson went from war hawk to skeptic

CNN's Donie O'Sullivan explores the transformation of Tucker Carlson, from one-time CNN host advocating for the Iraq War to his current status as an influential MAGA podcaster criticizing possible US involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.

Labour fears repeat of Iraq war failures if it supports US strikes on Iran

Telegraph

14 hours ago

Politics
Telegraph

Labour fears repeat of Iraq war failures if it supports US strikes on Iran

Labour ministers fear that supporting the US in possible attacks on Iran could repeat the failures of the Iraq war. Senior government sources are concerned that backing American air strikes on a nuclear facility could be unlawful after Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, warned Sir Keir Starmer it could be illegal. Party figures also fear that supporting the US by allowing its military to carry out bombing runs from the UK's Diego Garcia air base in the Chagos Islands would be politically unpopular. The Telegraph has been told there is 'twitchiness' in No 10 over the situation because of Labour's legacy of involving the UK in the 2003 invasion of Iraq – at the urging of the US government – without a UN resolution. The UN's charter states that attacking another country is only permissible in international law in self-defence, to defend an ally or if it is authorised by the Security Council. Jonathan Powell, Downing Street's national security adviser, and Lord Mandelson, the British ambassador to the US, are among the officials dealing with the current crisis from the UK side. Both were confidantes of Sir Tony Blair at the time of the Iraq invasion, with Mr Powell serving as the No 10 chief of staff. Lord Mandelson, who was an ally on the Labour backbenches at the time, has since written that Sir Tony developed 'tunnel vision' over the war, and ignored his pleas in early 2003 to consider the 'political nuances' and 'practical implications' of an invasion. On Thursday, he joined David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, in Washington for meetings with US officials, including Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. Mr Lammy was planning to use the talks to attempt to persuade American officials that they should not intervene in the conflict between Iran and Israel, it is understood. It came as Donald Trump provisionally approved a plan to drop a 'bunker buster' bomb on Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility. On Thursday, the president said he would make a decision on whether to proceed with any US attack 'in the next two weeks'. US media report that the president is becoming increasingly convinced of the need to strike the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, which is buried deep beneath a mountain south-west of Tehran. If he does order an air strike, it is possible the US would use B-2 bombers stationed at Diego Garcia. Downing Street has publicly played down talk of Britain joining US forces, arguing on Thursday that 'de-escalation is the priority' in the region and that 'we would not want to see anything that ramps up the situation'. 'The continuation of the current situation is in no one's interest. We want to see cool heads and a return to diplomacy because that is the best route forward,' Sir Keir's official spokesman said. Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, said MPs would get a vote on any sustained British military action. However, there are fears in Downing Street that publicly supporting Israel's attacks on Iran would alienate voters, as well as Labour MPs who have been campaigning against military action. On Thursday, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said that 'any of those justifications' for war in the UN charter did not apply because the UK was 'not under threat ourselves' and there was no Security Council resolution. Earlier this week, Richard Burgon, a Left-wing Labour MP, said that the Government must rule out military action in Iran because 'we saw with Iraq how following Right-wing US presidents into Middle East wars can end'. The Government has taken an increasingly hard line on Israel over the war in Gaza in recent months and last week took the unusual step of sanctioning two of the country's ministers. Polls show that around half of the public do not want Britain to intervene on either side of the conflict between Israel and Iran, while the majority of remaining voters say they either do not know which country to support or that the UK should back Israel. The UK has not been directly involved in protecting Israel from Iran's most recent missile attacks, although last year it did provide air-to-air refuelling support when Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles. A spokesman for Lord Hermer declined to comment on his legal opinion, but The Telegraph understands it was issued shortly after Israel's first attack on Iran last Thursday. He reportedly told Sir Keir that he had concerns about 'playing any role in this except for defending our allies' – one of the three justifications for such military action under the UN charter.

The Hill

18 hours ago

Politics
The Hill

Robby's Radar: Tucker Carlson destroys Ted Cruz on Iran-Israel, and why mainstream media love war

One criticism of alternative media is that podcasters, social media personalities, and influencers who describe themselves as independent-minded often fail to ask tough questions of their guests or push back when greater scrutiny is warranted. Joe Rogan is frequently cited as an example of this: He platforms provocative guests like Daryl Cooper and Ian Carroll, and because the format is friendly and informal, he fails to press them when they make dubious or even outrageous claims. That was the thrust of the criticism by British journalist Douglass Murray, who used his own appearance on Rogan as an opportunity to attack the host's failure to properly interrogate people Murray considers to be conspiracy theorists. In contrast, mainstream media is characterized by hostile interviews. For examples, see every single instance of CNN, CBS, or ABC interviewing a Republican political figure — though to be fair, interviews with Democrats are often contentious as well. Politicians don't really want to be asked tough questions, but journalism is supposed to be adversarial, and the public is best served by interview formats that provoke discomfort. If the traditional mainstream format is entirely replaced by podcasts where people get to say whatever they want and face no pushback whatsoever, it would obviously be worse for the country, and politicians would absolutely prefer it. Yet the current debate over whether the U.S. military should become more involved in Israel's war against Iran is a powerful counterexample. It showcases the unique ability of the podcast universe to cut through the mainstream media's reflexive deference to hawkish national security experts and get to the root of fundamental questions: Do the American people really want another regime-change war in the Middle East? This dynamic was well illustrated by Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) on X. The pair of conservative giants engaged in a two-hour exchange on the subject of Iran. It was feisty and intermittently unpleasant — for them at least. It was madly entertaining for viewers. The interview gave Carlson ample opportunity to expose the hollowness of Cruz's position, which seemed to be that regime-change in Iran would somehow work out better than regime-change in Iraq, Libya, or Syria. We played some of that interview yesterday, and subsequently I watched the whole thing. It's really, really good, I can't recommend it enough. Here's another exchange: Senator Ted Cruz demands regime change in Iran. He's not interested in the details.(0:00) Why Does Cruz Want Regime Change in Iran?(6:28) Is the US Currently Acting in Its Own Best Interest?(7:49) Was Regime Change in Syria Beneficial to the US?(12:31) Was the Iraq War a… That brief exchange really doesn't do it justice. What happened was that Cruz accused Carlson and other critics of the war effort of being 'obsessed' with Israel, and even insinuated this was due to some vague anti-Semitic undercurrent. This accusation was remarkable because just moments earlier, Cruz had admitted his own reason for running for office was to be the most pro-Israel U.S. senator in history. Moments later, he confessed that his unwavering support for Israel was due to a Biblical passage that emphasizes those who side with Israel will be 'blessed.' In response, Carlson sardonically mused on whether the Bible's authors had a specific Israeli government in mind. It is not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel for the U.S. to think very carefully about whether supporting and aiding military strikes against Iran is in the best interests of Americans. Israel uses American weapons to launch its attacks, and it relies on American technology to protect its own citizens from Iranian counterattack. Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks from hostile foreign powers and terrorists, but it does not have the right to single-mindedly drag the U.S. into yet another boondoggle in the Middle East, particularly without Congressional authorization. I just introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution with @RepRoKhanna to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. Carlson, a Fox News host turned independent media giant, is hardly alone among podcasters in evincing skepticism about doing Israel's bidding in the Middle East. Rogan is perturbed. Theo Von has expressed horror over Israel's campaign in Gaza. Dave Smith says he regrets voting for Trump and even thinks he should be impeached for breaking his promise not to start new wars. And those are just the plausibly right-adjacent podcasters. Left-leaning ones, such as Cenk Uygur, Mehdi Hasan, and Glenn Greenwald are also speaking up. Now consider the mainstream media. Admittedly, I have not watched every single second of commentary on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or Fox News this past week, nor have I read every column in The New York Times and The Washington Post, and thus if the following impression is false, I stand ready to apologize. But it certainly does not appear to be the case that legacy media commentary is intensely critical of what's about to take place in the Middle East. This is not particularly surprising — in the run up to the Iraq War, mainstream media institutions were supportive on balance and frequently provided important justifications for the Bush administration. The New York Times was a particularly egregious offender. So here's my bottom line: Disdain independent media all you want. But with the U.S. government once again gearing up to do something really reckless, that I believe a silent majority of Americans oppose, I'm glad that at least this time around, there is a healthy ecosystem of independent thinkers on the right and left who stand ready to argue against the mainstream bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Robby Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary.

Al Jazeera