Glyn Moody5d ago
UK security adviser attended US-#Iran talks and judged deal was within reach - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach "Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war" netanyahu only wants war
UK security adviser ‘attended’ US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach

Exclusive: Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war, sources say

The Guardian
Show threadGraydon

@glynmoody Netanyahu needs a continuous war to stay out of jail.

Israel's legal system investigated him for corruption and is only prevented from finding him guilty because there's a war on. Once the war ends, he goes to jail.

This is one reason why you don't make wartime an exception to laws.

Mar 17 at 2:29pmWeb
Show threadGlyn Moody5d ago
@graydon indeed
Show threadKathmandu5d ago

@graydon @glynmoody

I am somewhat puzzled as to why Netanyahu's acting desperate now.
There is STILL a war in Gaza, and seems to me he could string that out for another year easily.

But he attacked Iran, and not even a week later opened a THIRD front with Lebanon. Why does he need THREE wars?

Show threadGraydon5d ago

@Kathmandu The State of Israel remains an American colony in a bunch of structural senses.

Netanyahu's intelligence brief nigh-certainly includes much better information on Trump's health than is publicly available.

I think the "fight everyone now" approach is a consequence of expecting a change of administration and not so much Netanyahu as the Israeli right wanting to get as much done as possible while they can.

(Not inconsistent with the China postponement, either.)

@glynmoody

Show threadPaul_IPv65d ago

@graydon @glynmoody

yup. the problem with all "emergency powers" laws is that corrupt politicians will always find a way to create an emergency when it serves them.

Show threadEd Davies5d ago

@graydon I'd suggest that things should work the other way round: whenever the country gets mixed up in a war the current cabinet should be automatically barred from public office for a decade.

@glynmoody

Show threadGraydon5d ago
@edavies @glynmoody It's not a given that the country wanted the war; if (say) the US invades Greenland, I don't think the right thing to do in Denmark involves removing their current government from office.
Show threadEd Davies5d ago

@graydon @glynmoody But it would give them some motivation to avoid it in the first place.

E.g., the Falklands “conflict”: Britain didn't want it but it was a bit remiss of the UK government to leave the Argentinians with the impression that a take over would not be opposed.

Show threadxro4d ago

@graydon
@glynmoody

The reason this is abuse, is because this is a reasonable rule in the first place.

Otherwise, rule of law will just become another battlefield for spies and foreign actors.

Remember that Democracy and Law is a tool to change things without violence. Once it stops working, change once again requires violence.

Consequently if a state actively turns to violence, no rule of law will help you. A judge can be ignored and that systemdamage may carry over into next peace time.