The UK has, in fact, participated in the attack on Iran. I have been watching the massive build up of US air power to the region over several weeks. Many of these assets have flown from British RAF bases and have clearly provided the US with the resources it needed to launch the attack.
The fact that these flights have suddenly ceased is presumably to enable Starmer to say we did not participate.
I wonder when the "rules based international order" will recognise that Trump is acting in breach of the US constitution & so could be argued to be leading a "despotic and tyrannical regime", not so very different to that of Iran?
If he interferes with elections in November, the situation will become even clearer.
Which is very interesting (and I'm really not defending the Iranian regime at all, in any way) but it doesn't answer my point about Trump's failure to comply with the requirements of the US constitution, does it?
Or are you suggesting that my ideas about that (based on, for example, reading Heather Cox Richardson's work) would place a similarly unrealistic straight-jacket on Trump's regime?
I took the Spectator article to be more about the UK approach to international law; it seems to me that Trump cannot be said to have "an approach" to anything, in any organised way, beyond what makes him feel good.
The UK has, in fact, participated in the attack on Iran. I have been watching the massive build up of US air power to the region over several weeks. Many of these assets have flown from British RAF bases and have clearly provided the US with the resources it needed to launch the attack.
The fact that these flights have suddenly ceased is presumably to enable Starmer to say we did not participate.
I wonder when the "rules based international order" will recognise that Trump is acting in breach of the US constitution & so could be argued to be leading a "despotic and tyrannical regime", not so very different to that of Iran?
If he interferes with elections in November, the situation will become even clearer.
For an alternative view, read this piece by the former senior military judge HH Jeff Blackett OBE: https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
Which is very interesting (and I'm really not defending the Iranian regime at all, in any way) but it doesn't answer my point about Trump's failure to comply with the requirements of the US constitution, does it?
Or are you suggesting that my ideas about that (based on, for example, reading Heather Cox Richardson's work) would place a similarly unrealistic straight-jacket on Trump's regime?
You're right. I was thinking about Trump's approach to international law generally rather than to the US constitution.
I took the Spectator article to be more about the UK approach to international law; it seems to me that Trump cannot be said to have "an approach" to anything, in any organised way, beyond what makes him feel good.
As suggested here, for example:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/losing-the-war-on-truth