this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
71 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

5378 readers
215 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
71
UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites, says Starmer (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 12 hours ago by bearboiblake@pawb.social to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The UK has agreed to a US request to use British military bases for "defensive" strikes on Iranian missile sites, Sir Keir Starmer has said.

But the prime minister said the UK had learned lessons from the "mistakes of Iraq", and was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran and "will not join offensive action now".

Sir Keir said the basis of the decision to accept the US request was the "collective self-defence" of allies and protecting British lives, accusing Iran of pursuing a "scorched-earth strategy".

The BBC understands the US is likely to use RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for strikes on Iranian missile sites.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

To anyone a bit older than this OLD millennial (just hit 42) did it feel like this when Desert storm happened? I remember how fucked the post 9-11 wars were. Or is this actually as unprecedented as it feels?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

No this is different.

We'd already been attacked or at least the US had already been attacked, so Desert Storm was a response to that.

This is the UK prime minister serving the UK up on the silver platter. Just so he can continue to brown nose the most corrupt leader the US has ever had, one who has shown he would happily throw us under the bus if he thought it would benefit him. Or perhaps he would do it anyway, just because.

Potentially this could lead to an escalating war with Iran, with no upside. This decision should have been the easiest to make. Why are we getting involved in this war?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Desert Storm was the Iraq War under Clinton in the 90s.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was "Operation Iraqi Freedom" 🤮.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 hours ago

And Iraq never attacked the US or the UK.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Unprecedented since support for the Iraq war was substantial, whereas literally nobody wants this war except the billionaire pedophiles.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 points 4 hours ago

support for the Iraq war was substantial

Not how I remember it, there were over a million people marching in London protesting it.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I can think of one group that really really really wants this war... a certain ally in the region.