timdowse.bsky.social
Consultant, after 40 years with FCO, Cabinet Office, HM Treasury. Specialties: national security, defence, geopolitical analysis.
839 posts
577 followers
448 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
3.5% would still be a significant increase. The problem is the long timeline. And, for defence planners, what assumptions are being made about UK GDP growth over the next decade?
comment in response to
post
Maybe not so heavily right now.
comment in response to
post
At the moment, the answer to all questions of this sort has to be “We don’t know”. But, given time, I’m sure we will.
comment in response to
post
Yes.
comment in response to
post
It’s needed, but I would still like to see some output targets as well. Defence Ministries the world over have proved themselves capable of spending large amounts of extra cash with no effect on military capabilities.
comment in response to
post
… this is why Netanyahu keeps hinting at regime change as his desired outcome: replacing the Islamic Republic with a leadership that doesn’t define itself by hostility to Israel and the US. A very uncertain proposition. 3/3
comment in response to
post
… destroy its nuclear ambitions by bombing: on the contrary you may well increase them. Iran still has options, and some friends. For example, I’d suggest keeping an eye on its future contacts with North Korea (which at one time assisted its ballistic missile programme).
I suspect … 2/3
comment in response to
post
The most interesting thing to me is the statement that Mossad has provided “material” (new?) to the US to back up Netanyahu’s claim that the nucIear threat had become imminent. With the leakiness of the US system, I guess we may see at least some of that evidence, courtesy of the WaPo, NYT or WSJ.
comment in response to
post
It would have been better if he had said “full *verifiable* guarantees”.
comment in response to
post
And if they don’t, what?
comment in response to
post
Certainly will have zero impact on anyone’s policies (including HMG’s, which already supports de-escalation between Israel and Iran and a ceasefire/hostage release in Gaza).
comment in response to
post
Particularly foolish to attack Voyagers. If a services-assisted evacuation of UK nationals from parts of the Near and Middle East was called for, these aircraft might well be required.
Hopefully it won’t come to that. But at this stage, who can be sure?
comment in response to
post
Market reacts to international tensions.
comment in response to
post
And isn’t the UK public one of the most generous in responding to charities’ calls for donations to disaster relief?
comment in response to
post
Bond market reaction might be instructive. Or maybe they just discount this sort of thing these days.
comment in response to
post
An important point that hasn’t been highlighted enough. Squares with the DNI’s threat assessment for Congress.
I’m not denying that Israel may have new intelligence to the contrary, as Netanyahu claims; they clearly have extraordinary access in Iran. But if they do have it, they should share it.
comment in response to
post
... the MEK (in spades).
Before wading in, it would therefore be worth considering General Petraeus' well-known challenge: "Tell me how this ends". 3/3
comment in response to
post
... events in Iraq after 2003, particularly if anyone thinks the exiled Iranian opposition could be a credible alternative. Many Iranians undoubtedly detest the Islamic Republic, but I doubt they would welcome a return of the Pahlavis, Savak etc, on the back of US and Israeli guns. Ditto for... 2/3
comment in response to
post
Key question must be whether the US would join the war only to achieve the objective of destroying Iran's nuclear installations [nb: *not* the same as ending its nuclear programme], or whether the President buys into Netanyahu's dream of regime change. If the latter, I'd recommend studying ... 1/3
comment in response to
post
One hopes that the President's patience is also 'wearing thin' with the Russian missiles being fired at civilians in Ukraine.
comment in response to
post
Not actually contradictory statements (though unclear whether he appreciated that).
comment in response to
post
I realise it's not his main point, but he's right about the marching style! A British RSM would've had conniptions.
However, I liked the robot dogs.
comment in response to
post
We are able to cope with - happily rare - instances of civil unrest without putting heavily armed troops on the streets. Even, these days, in Northern Ireland.
comment in response to
post
Agree absolutely. DVLA has improved out of all recognition over the past 20 years.
comment in response to
post
We will have to disagree. Iran is not like Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
comment in response to
post
Very plausible. Netanyahu's statement is also patently untrue. Khamenei is important but the regime does not begin and end with him.
comment in response to
post
That is quite a jump from “Iran could have nine nuclear weapons in a month, or a year”. Suggests he’s feeling under some pressure.
comment in response to
post
Suspected by who?
comment in response to
post
In my day (40 years ago!) a number of junior British Embassy staff had apartments in Ramat Gan.
comment in response to
post
Fantasy.
comment in response to
post
OK, I will engage with the substance a bit. “Collateral damage” is not a war crime per se. But there is an important qualification - proportionality. That is what is now being questioned in respect of Gaza, when Hamas has arguably been finished as a coherent fighting or political power.
comment in response to
post
Not commenting on the substance of this tiff. But the IDF would do itself a favour if, every time it says it is "looking into" an incident of civilian deaths, it later provided the outcome of its inquiry. (Perhaps it does, and the media don't bother to report it? But I rather doubt that.)
comment in response to
post
It is this sort of behaviour in domestic affairs, more than tariffs or foreign policy, that I find most disturbing about the new USA. Not least because of the lack of any visible effective opposition (with emphasis on 'effective').
Still, the mid-terms are less than 18 months away.
comment in response to
post
Maybe these very public moves are all for show/negotiating leverage on Iran (which would fit the usual Trump playbook).
But if not, it will be interesting to see how the US responds to its ally consciously endangering US citizens.
comment in response to
post
Accept there is probably an element of US domestic politics involved - "Biden did it so it must be bad".
But that also cuts both ways: if China so obviously hates it - why give the TACO proponents more ammunition?