Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments
Is war the 'only way to deflect heinous accusations' for Trump?
He’s named it Operation Epic Fury but I’m calling Donald Trump’s disastrous plan to attack Iran, Operation Epstein Fury – because he’s hopping mad at the US public’s refusal to drop their belief that he may be implicated in the Epstein Files.
Something dramatic, such as war, was the only way to deflect from the heinous accusations – it is nothing less than tragic for those innocents killed in Iran and at bases in the Middle East and for others who will be dragged into this illegal war purely for a narcissist to stay in power a little bit longer. S Moro, Bournemouth
This reader agrees on ‘The Epstein Wars’
Trump codenamed his incursion into Venezuela Operation Absolute Resolve and has gone with Epic Fury for Iran.
Given that these are the sort of names an excitable 12-year-old boy might make up – and that we still have possible ventures into Cuba, Greenland, Mexico, Colombia and Canada on the cards – can we just agree now, for the sake of the history books, to call these unprecedented military endeavours The Epstein Wars? Julian Self, Wolverton
‘Churchill would have wiped the floor with Trump’
Trump says Sir Keir Starmer is ‘no Winston Churchill’ over the PM’s initial refusal to allow our air bases to be used for the attacks on Iran.
Churchill laid the groundwork for Nato and the foundations of a unified Europe. He was also a staunch defender of the rule of law, including the introduction of the ECHR – all the things Trump and Nigel Farage (and his cabal of shadowy right wingers) stand against. Churchill would have wiped the floor with Trump. Neil Dance, Birmingham
Got a question about UK politics?
Send in yours and Metro’s Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro will answer it in an upcoming edition of our weekly politics newsletter. Email alrightgov@metro.co.uk or submit your question here.
‘This attack will destabilise the Middle East’ says reader
The US attack on Iran is by no means the first US intervention in that country.
In May 1951, a secular, nationalist party won the election in Iran and took control of the British-owned oil company.
The CIA and MI6 then organised a coup in 1953 that removed the elected government, brought the Shah to power and restored US and British control of Iran’s oil. The Foreign Office advised the Shah to be ‘a dictator’ and to impose martial law, which he did – killing thousands of Iranians.
Trump’s attack is all too likely to repeat that disaster – not to mention those of the more recent Nato interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. We were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It didn’t. Trump says Iran is developing such weapons. US intelligence says it isn’t.
This attack will destabilise the Middle East – it is already causing an increase in oil a prices and it could well lead to terrorist attacks in our cities. Will Podmore, London
Reader warns of ‘ripple effects’
Foreign policy decisions can have ripple effects at home – whether through public safety concerns, economic pressures or community tensions.
That does not mean the UK should withdraw from global responsibilities but it does mean decisions must be made with long-term stability in mind.
We should be cautious of framing complex geopolitical issues in ways that heighten division domestically.
Constructive debate is healthy but must be grounded in facts and a commitment to social cohesion. Britain’s strength has always been its ability to balance principle with pragmatism. That balance is especially important in uncertain times. Mariam, London
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments
