Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by echoangle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

echoangle

From who? Did the UK attack Iran?

View on HN

The UK supports the attacks by giving logistical support to the US through the use of UK airbases.

It seems this was not the case, but this has all changed now for sure

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chago...

Those articles are both out of date.

Yes, they both show the UK had an interest in not participating or reducing their participation.

This is probably military strategy 101 not to push your enemies together when they are having a rift

From a coalition of which the UK is a part.

Hideous double-speak in this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow...

We're already seen those "defensive strikes" wipe out a school. This is an unprovoked, reckless, criminal attack, the perpetrators of which should be sent to the Hague.

Well, actually yes they did contribute to the attack on the Republic. See[1].

[1] : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo

Your link actually says they were contributing to the defense not the attack

> The US-Israeli strikes were launched after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate.

Yes that is true. The UK contributes to the defense operations of the imperial aggressors against the Republic.

What's your view on the Republic's imperial aggression against Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen?

Which Republic are we talking about? The Islamic Republic or the western "republics"?

I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon.

That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century

Good thing they stopped with that, eh?

> in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon.

How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4grxzxjjd8o

> That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century

Fortunately, the USA does not want to revive such practices, as they indicated in this speech: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marco-rubio-munich-t...

> How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources

Yes, OP was already saying Iran is free to act because the US is an imperial power. I was merely stating that he is conveniently ignoring Iran's imperialist behavior

Equating Iran's struggle against a genocide in Palestine with Imperialism is misinformed at best, criminal at worst. Either way, only a zionist could say that, which makes this conversation completely useless.

Can't say how taking over Iraq for economic reasons helps the Palestinians but sure

> The US-Israeli strikes were launched after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate.

The negotiations didn't end without a deal, they were ongoing but not finalized. The next session of the negotiations was scheduled for Monday. And then, Israel and US simply attacked on Saturday.

It is very important to use precise language so as to not downplay the illegal aggression against Iran.

Take the language issue with the BBC, which is hardly for this war

In any case a contrarian opinion might be that Iran promised to yield on negotiations following the previous war as mentioned here:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-asks-gulf-ara...

And Iran instead opted for their years old tactic of stalling the negotiations

Yes, they did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com