There is a memorable scene in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove where the leaders of America and Russia find themselves locked into a catastrophic war because of the existence of a doomsday machine originally designed to enforce world peace.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer now faces a potential doomsday scenario of his own. He is trying to avoid being drawn into the war with Iran whisked up by Donald Trump.
Trump’s claim that he is motivated to halt the production of an Iranian nuclear bomb makes no sense as he asserts he has already achieved that aim.
Perhaps he wants to distract from his involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal.
Perhaps he is a puppet of Israel?
Who really knows?
PM Keir Starmer, on the other hand, doesn’t want his legacy to resemble that of Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and Richard Dearlove (MI6 chief), who went to war in Iraq on the basis of lies, and caused the death of nearly a million people.
Starmer, who worked closely with MI5 before his election as an MP, doesn’t want to provoke terror attacks within the United Kingdom either.
The Director-General of MI5 has described how his service has had to face multiple terror plots inside Britain, many of which they have prevented. The terror plots are likely to multiply if Britain joins Trump’s crusade against Iran.
The semi-hidden hand in all of this is China.
Russian and Chinese naval warships have just participated in the Maritime Security Belt 2026 exercise in Iranian waters, specifically in the Strait of Hormuz. This involved testing the tactical readiness and the operational capabilities of Chinese and Russia vessels, alongside Iranian naval units.
This was the sixth annual joint exercise in the Gulf of Oman. Last year’s drills took place near the Iranian port of Chabahar.
The Chinese are selling—or may have already sold—CM-302 supersonic missiles to Iran. They are designed to zigzag in the moment before impact and, if they live up to their reputation, pose a ‘game-changing’ threat to U.S. forces approaching Iran. China is eager to test the missile in real-world conditions, reminiscent of how the Luftwaffe tested their Junkers Ju-87 Stuka during the Spanish Civil War.
Trump has been baited, and now faces a real dilemma.
If the Chinese, using Iranian forces, manage to sink an American aircraft carrier, it would be a major humiliation for the United States. The Chinese would be pleased. Their motive is to send a loud and clear message to Trump not to try to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
These are classic Sun Tzu tactics, emphasizing speed and decisiveness—winning without fighting and manipulating the enemy.
It gets worse for Trump. By some accounts, the U.S. military has only four to seven days’ worth of firepower. Trumps needs Britain – and better still – NATO to rally around him.
Some in the Pentagon fear they have been deliberately lured into a trap by China. The strategy is to let the U.S. discharge the first volleys, after which the Iranians will pick off the sitting ducks in the Gulf of Oman using the hypersonic missiles.
Apparently, some of Trump’s generals and admirals believe they have no defense against these missiles.
If even one aircraft carrier is lost, it could spell the end of Trump’s presidency.
The USS Gerald Ford, the US Navy’s largest aircraft carrier, is facing significant sewage problems for its crew of over 4,600 sailors. It has a vacuum-based sewage system which is constantly malfunctioning, leading to blocked toilets and sewage backups. There may also be sabotage perpetrated by sailors who are dropping mop heads, socks and t-shirts into the toilets to exacerbate the clogs.
Reports suggest that the crew is experiencing low morale generally and don’t want to fight this war.
The USS Gerald Ford is now parked off the Port of Haifa, Israel.
Haifa will be a prime target. The USS Gerald Ford will be caught in the crossfire. Trump will soon start demanding support from Keir Starmer.
Iran is watching every move Trump is making courtesy of China which is supplying satellite-based intelligence and surveillance data, along with integrating its BeiDou Navigation Satellite System into Iran’s military infrastructure, according to defense analysts and intelligence assessments. This will enhance the precision of its missile and unmanned systems.
The data collected from these platforms is transmitted to Iranian command centers, strengthening Tehran’s ability to monitor U.S. military deployments and naval operations throughout the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Oman, and Persian Gulf.
China’s maritime tracking capabilities are supported by the Yaogan satellite clusters, which specialize in maritime electronic intelligence. These satellites use time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) techniques to precisely geolocate signal emissions from naval vessels. Defense experts note that this enables near real-time tracking of U.S. naval task forces, including aircraft carrier strike groups.
In addition to electronic intelligence, China’s optical and infrared satellite constellations provide terrain mapping and persistent imaging. The Jilin-1 constellation, operated by Chang Guang Satellite Technology, delivers high-resolution imagery across varying weather conditions. This supplements Iran’s domestic satellite assets, including the Noor-3 satellite, which operates at comparatively lower resolution.
Starmer may resign as PM over his unpopularity at home rather than sail into the middle of this lethal vortex.
An American official once wryly observed that whenever the US planned to attack a country, Britain had a strategically placed colony or island nearby. Diego Garcia is a perfect modern example of this.
Britain exercises jurisdiction over Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean. Britain and America have a joint air base on it. Thus far, Starmer has managed to thwart Trump’s use of the base as a staging post to strike Iran. It would appear both countries have to agree to the deployment aircraft in an attack on a third party. The legal and diplomatic picture is also obscured by uncertainty over the future of the Chagos Islands, which includes Diego Garcia.
As the map above shows, military jets could fly from Diego Garcia to Iran with relative ease, certainly compared to crossing the Atlantic or flying over Europe.
Starmer is also blocking the use of UK air bases. Trump was particularly keen to use RAF Fairford in Suffolk.
Turkey is even more likely to resist aiding Trump in a war against Iran. Yet, the US maintains military bases in Turkey, which could become targets for Iran now that war has broken out.
Three US military installations in Turkey support NATO operations and regional security objectives.
Trump is not above ordering US forces stationed in these bases to aid an attack against Iran, regardless of the wishes of the Turkish government.
It is inconceivable that the personnel at US bases would fail to support their comrades in the conflict with Iran.
The map above this paragraph shows how Turkey shares a significant land border with Iran, a factor which makes the use of US bases in Turkey hugely tempting to Trump.
Should Iran retaliate against Turkey, it could trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, obliging Britain to come to Turkey’s aid as a fellow NATO member.
Article 6 explicitly references Turkey as one of the countries whose attack would activate Article 5.
According to Article 5, an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all.
At this point, Starmer, the most pro-Israel PM in British history, could be bounced into letting Trump use Diego Garcia against Iran.
Former PM Boris Johnson was urging support for Trump against Iran before the shooting began, as were other senior British politicians.
Johnson accused Starmer of ‘failing [in] one of his most important functions as UK PM:
‘Why is he sticking two fingers up to Trump? Perhaps it is because he thinks his political position is now desperate, and he can see the votes in Trump-bashing. Perhaps he is trying to play to the Labour base – the keffiyeh-wearing Corbynistas. Perhaps he is thinking of the Muslim vote in the coming Gorton and Denton by-election.‘
Senior military figures are also trying to get Starmer to change his mind, despite the threat of the Chinese CM 302 missiles.
After 9/11, America invoked Article 5 to rally international support. Such support does not necessarily require the deployment of troops; it could include logistical support, the use of radars, or the sharing of intelligence. One way or another, if Turkey is attacked, all NATO countries would be obliged to assist.
The graph below shows NATO troop deployments in Afghanistan, where over 3,000 NATO personnel died.
Thousands of Afghans died too, including a tragic number of innocent civilians.
And it was all for nothing: NATO spent 20 years in Afghanistan, only to be expelled by the Taliban.
The war cost 2 to 3 trillion dollars. 300 billion worth of equipment was abandoned.
The United States is $39 trillion in debt.
Trump is perfectly capable of claiming that the presence of US NATO bases in Turkey gives him the right to trigger Article 5 if they are attacked. Most observers would disagree, but Trump sees the world as he wants it to be, not necessarily how it is. He is dismissive of the rulings of his own Supreme Court over international tariffs. He threatened to invade Greenland, a sovereign territory of Denmark, which is itself a NATO member (and may yet do so).
If Ireland were a NATO member, and Turkey was struck by Iranian missiles, the Irish government would be obligated to assist in the conflict if called upon by Turkey.
One of Donald Trump’s most persistent policies has been to pester Western European states to increase public military expenditure. The Irish media, led by The Irish Times, has rallied behind this call. This has ignited a neutrality debate in Ireland, which hinges on two separate issues: first, increasing military spending on Ireland’s defence forces; second, whether Ireland should move closer to NATO. There should be a third: halting the militarisation of the EU.
Those advocating for a closer relationship with NATO naturally support increased defence budgets. However, not everyone who supports higher spending wants closer ties with NATO.
Overall, this debate risks increasing public support for NATO integration, especially in affluent areas such as South County Dublin. Suffice it to say, the children of South County Dublin rarely join the Irish Defence Forces.
A recent article in the Financial Times revealed a deeper and more troubling aspect of the debate. It exposed a plot by British, American, and NATO interests to coax Ireland into joining an organization called the Joint Expeditionary Force—essentially NATO under another name.
Proponents of closer NATO ties enjoy a platform in The Irish Times and certain other media outlets. Why they are so eager to thrust Ireland into the chaotic military vortex swirling around Donald Trump is difficult to comprehend.
The overwhelming majority of Irish people do not want to join NATO or a similar entity, such as the Joint Expeditionary Force, and there are many good reasons for this. The foremost is conscription. Denmark has introduced conscription for both males and females. The British military wants to reintroduce conscription, with similar moves underway in France and Germany.
Currently, the Royal Air Force is allowed to overfly Ireland to intercept Russian aircraft. This could escalate into a Dr. Strangelove-style crisis in about two years if Nigel Farage and his Reform Party win the next UK general election.
Farage believes that any Russian aircraft entering British airspace should be shot down.
The arrangement with the Royal Air Force has prompted a High Court action by Senator Gerard Craughwell seeking disclosure.
Does this secret deal enable RAF jets to attack Russian aircraft over Irish territory? Who knows?
What would happen if this were to happen?
Could Nigel Farage trigger World War III over Ireland?
Britain’s wars in the Middle East have provoked terror attacks at home. Multiple attacks have taken place across Europe. A war with Iran will increase the threat of violence in NATO member states. Ireland is not presently a target of extreme Islamic militants, but that could change if we joined NATO or the Joint Expeditionary Force.
And then there is Greenland. What line would the militarists at The Irish Times have taken had Trump sent troops to Greenland?
Would they have supported Trump? After all, Trump claimed his desire to seize Greenland was to protect America from Russia and China. This is a similar argument to that put forward by The Irish Times to encourage Ireland to spend more on defence and move closer to NATO.
Alternatively, would the armchair generals at the paper have sided with Denmark and the EU, had Trump seized Greenland? Suffice it to say that if the Irish government sided with Denmark, it might have jeopardised American investment in Ireland.
Neutrality, it seems, just might have a few benefits in a world gone mad.
For a more detailed and extensive analysis of the pressures being exerted by the British establishment on Ireland to increase military expenditure and move closer to NATO, click here: Psyop.
See also: Flying Under the Radar.
