Israel attacks Iran - What will be the wider implications?

[Belperpete]

So we should do nothing about dodgy regimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction then? You do know the Iranian regime is, erm a bit oppresive?

As opposed to Israel, which is renowned for its oppressive treatment of its Palestinian population. And is decidedly aggressive. How many of its neighbouring countries has it attacked in the last year or so?

 

[brad465]

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!

Sir Humphrey: "Then we follow the four stage strategy."

"Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen."
"Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it."
"Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do."
"Stage 4: We say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now."

 

[JamesT]

Well yes, but aggressive militarism solve anything?

All sorts of regimes are oppressive but we don't go throwing bombs at all of them. Apartheid was oppressive but we didn't bomb South Africa. Mugabe was oppressive but we didn't bomb Zimbabwe.

Were South Africa or Zimbabwe funding terrorism or involving themselves with the civil wars of neighbouring countries?

Maybe having talks with them to understand what they want. I suspect a lot of the anti-Western feeling in that part of the world is down to the constant meddling in the region by the federal US. And we can hardly criticise when Trump and the MAGA lot are seemingly wanting to turn the US into a dictatorship.

I'm sorry but I despise this kind of militarism. I despise the Vietnam War, where, in my view, ridiculous and moronic paranoia resulted in the US Government sending many of its young men to their deaths in a far-away land, all dying for absolutely nothing. And, within my own memory, I despised both the 1991 and the 2003 Gulf Wars and the 2001 Afghan war with unbridled passion.

And if what they want is the obliteration of Israel? Iran is not an innocent party in this.

I think you're vastly overestimating how much this is down to 'The West'. Religious sectarianism is the root of many of the issues in that part of the world.

Despise the 1991 Gulf War? We should have just let Saddam keep Kuwait? Is a UN Resolution authorising military action isn't enough, what is?

 

[nw1]

And if what they want is the obliteration of Israel? Iran is not an innocent party in this.

No-one is saying they are. But what good will bombing them do, other than increase the risk of reprisals to us? I doubt they really want to obliterate Israel, that's just rhetoric.

I think you're vastly overestimating how much this is down to 'The West'. Religious sectarianism is the root of many of the issues in that part of the world.

Despise the 1991 Gulf War? We should have just let Saddam keep Kuwait? Is a UN Resolution authorising military action isn't enough, what is?

Yes, there should have been more effort in resolving things by other means, maybe via some of the other countries in the region. I know for a fact that I was not the only one; I was a student in '91 and there was quite a lot of anti-war feeling.
I just feel that Middle Eastern issues should be dealt with by Middle Eastern people; I continue to believe that Western involvement in this part of the world will do us more harm than good.

 

[Sorcerer]

I despised both the 1991 and the 2003 Gulf Wars and the 2001 Afghan war with unbridled passion.

The 2003 Iraq War I can sort of understand the anger behind since it was on false pretense, but the 2001 War in Afghanistan could arguably be justified. I won't definitively say that it was justified but action was definitely needed after the September 11 attacks. Osama bin Laden was already a dangerous man, and when elevated to the status of world's most wanted terrorist the Taliban simply couldn't expect to shelter him without consequences.

However I can say that the 1991 Gulf War was absolutely justified, and as I understand it the Gulf states actually wanted American assistance. The presence of US troops didn't sit right with Osama, but if you were a neighbouring Gulf state leader, the idea of calling upon a bunch of radicals who offered to fight Saddam's forces with their faith just isn't quite as appealing as being able to call upon the assistance of the greatest military force the world has ever seen.

 

[AlterEgo]

And potentially impact upon surrounding Islamic states? I can't see Iran wanting to poison much of the population of Jordan and Syria for example. Might even parts of Iran itself be close enough to Israel to get some impact?

Iran wants a nuclear bomb to threaten Israel, it's sort of the core part of that regime - Israel's destruction.

Maybe having talks with them to understand what they want.

They are virulent antisemites who would like to kill all of the Jews. The ideology is as central to the ayatollah's thinking and politics it was with the Nazis.

It's possible to condemn Israel's genocide without crediting Iran with being reasonable and up for a chat.

 

[Belperpete]

And if what they want is the obliteration of Israel? Iran is not an innocent party in this.

And what if Israel wants the obliteration of Palestine? Israel in its treatment f the Palestinians has likewise proved that it is not reasonable and up for a chat? How many UN resolutions does it have condemning it?

I believe that we should not be assisting Israel for exactly the same reasons.

 

[DarloRich]

And potentially impact upon surrounding Islamic states? I can't see Iran wanting to poison much of the population of Jordan and Syria for example. Might even parts of Iran itself be close enough to Israel to get some impact?

I am mot sure Iran minds - they are a different branch of Islam. It is for the same reason the Saudis and others in that region are against Iran.

Would you be happy if someone started bombing us because they didn't think we should have nuclear weapons, or wanted to see regime change here?

Whataboutery. That isn't going to happen. Shall we be sensible here?

Maybe having talks with them to understand what they want.

The destruction of Israel. They haven't ever hidden that desire! They also want to cement thier oppressive and illegitimate theocratic regime and prevent any external overthrow.

I'm sorry but I despise this kind of militarism. I despise the Vietnam War, where, in my view, ridiculous paranoia resulted in the US Government sending many of its young men to their deaths in a far-away land, all dying for absolutely nothing. And, within my own memory, I despised both the 1991 and the 2003 Gulf Wars and the 2001 Afghan war with unbridled passion.

Is it only American wars you despise?

EDIT - Reading that back that is a bit blunt. I agree we should not be getting involved in wars on a willy nilly basis. However there is a world of difference between limited, targeted air strikes and full on ground warfare.

Do I want us to invade Iran? Absolutely not. Do I want British troops involved? Absolutely not. Am I overly concerned that there has been some American bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities? Absolutely not.

We aren't involved in this conflict mainly because we aren't needed. We are insignificant. I don't even think our refuelling planes can refuel American planes! ( despite what the red paint warriors want to believe)

How many of its neighbouring countries has it attacked in the last year or so?

Whataboutery but regardless: The Arab nations have in the past tried, several times,to crush Israel. They got very close in fact. I get how that might make you a bit twitchy

But what good will bombing them do

stop them building a nuclear weapon...............

I doubt they really want to obliterate Israel, that's just rhetoric.

are you sure? Easy to say when you aren't the target.

Yes, there should have been more effort in resolving things by other means, maybe via some of the other countries in the region.

This is naïve in the extreme. Sometimes, sadly, you have to use force. The first gulf war was such a case. A sovereign nation was invaded and the aggressor refused to leave, even after lots of talking at the UN. They had to be chucked out. We could do that because Iraqi did not have forces able to resist and did not have a nuclear bomb.

And what if Israel wants the obliteration of Palestine? Israel in its treatment f the Palestinians has likewise proved that it is not reasonable and up for a chat? How many UN resolutions does it have condemning it?

I believe that we should not be assisting Israel for exactly the same reasons.

It is possible that you could look at the 2 events and agree with both: That Israel is behaving abominably in Gaza. That Israel is under threat from a nascent Iranian nuclear programme.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whataboutery. That isn't going to happen. Shall we be sensible here?

There is a risk of terror attacks, but Starmer has probably been quite clever in not outright stating support. He's been criticised for it but I think that criticism is misplaced.

It is possible that you could look at the 2 events and agree with both: That Israel is behaving abominably in Gaza. That Israel is under threat from a nascent Iranian nuclear programme.

I certainly support neither country's Government*. That is possible, you don't have to take a side! It's nothing like Russia vs Ukraine where it is a clear case of one aggressor invading another country that has not been aggressive.

* I specifically say Government as I have no issue with the people of Iran nor Israel. Indeed it's notable that most progressive Iranians do seem to want rid of the present regime and I don't blame them, though clearly they would suffer from the pain in achieving that.

 

[DarloRich]

I certainly support neither country's Government*. That is possible, you don't have to take a side! It's nothing like Russia vs Ukraine where it is a clear case of one aggressor invading another country that has not been aggressive.

I am happy to agree that Israeli have used the current, erm, fractured international order to thier benefit here. They have realised they could strike at Iran without much penalty. They have wanted to do this for a long time.

It looks like they didn't tell the USA about the plans to attack and have persuaded them, despite this, to use thier most serious bombs and most secret planes to help them achieve a knockout blow.

 

[nw1]

Is it only American wars you despise?

No, I despise Russian ones most of all, if I'm honest. And I wouldn't in theory be against NATO helping out Ukraine, because that is a clear "good" versus "bad" case - but obviously Russia's nuclear threat prevents that happening.

But the US federal government have a long history of getting involved in other people's business, and playing some kind of "world policeman" and I am not impressed by that. Especially if Trump, of all people, is being that policeman. He is scarcely someone who can moralise.

 

[DarloRich]

But the US federal government have a long history of getting involved in other people's business, and playing some kind of "world policeman" and I am not impressed by that.

but that was the role "we" in the west assigned the USA. It is what underpinned the post war peaceful western democratic consensus. We can hardly complain when they do what we wanted! They WERE the worlds policeman. They were the only people who could do that. They still are.

Pax Americana and all that!

He is scarcely someone who can moralise.

I agree with you there!

 

[Annetts key]

because Soviet Russia wasn't run by religious fundamentalists.

I beg to differ, in that the current Russia is run by a fundamentalist. At the weekend, Putin said that wherever a Russian soldier steps is Russian. Of course, this phrase is not new and it's not originally Russian...
Consider though if Putin does believe this, that means all of Eastern Europe is Russian as well as parts of Africa and parts of the Middle East...

In any event any Iranian nuclear missile isn't going to be used against the "west" it is to be used to obliterate Israel.

That's speculation. To be fair, if the state of Israel did not exist, there would be less trouble in that part of the world. And no I am not suggesting that anyone try to obliterate Israel.

Both the USA and Israel are right to remove the capability of Iran to hold nuclear weapons. We are right to support those aims. We should be blunt about that.

No, the U.S.A. and Israel do not have the right to attack another country. A country only has to right to self defence, that does not mean unreasonable pre-emptive military action or disproportionate action compared to the first attack.

I fully support actions to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons, however that should be done by looking at a deal (like the one signed in 2015 Trump pulled out of), and not by breaching international law by committing acts of war.

Yes, absolutely. The reason that the Iranian nuclear programme restarted is due to Trump pulling out of the agreement for no good reason.

All this recent trouble between Israel and Iran has been engineered by Netanyahu. It is he who is a warmonger.

So we should do nothing about dodgy regimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction then? You do know the Iranian regime is, erm a bit oppresive?

If course we should not do nothing. There are other tools available. Are these other tools quick, no, but they do sometimes work.

And there are other oppressive regimes around the world where the West does nothing in terms of military action against them.

We have no way of knowing for sure what Iran would or wouldn't do if they had nuclear weapons. But it is likely that they would not initiate a first strike against anyone. Just like no country (apart from the U.S.A.) has ever used nuclear weapons against another country.

The fact that Iran apparently has not yet built a nuclear weapon says a lot. Why were they holding back for so long? The principles and technology are known to them. So why?

As far as the threats are concerned, Russia has made far more threats about using their nuclear weapons but no one in the West (apart from Ukraine) apparently wants to bomb them.

The West should have standards, including the international rule of law and we should apply them fairly and consistently.

If anything, the West should be threatening military action against Israel for its blatant threats and actions against the Palestinian people. Israel having ignored more than one UN resolution.

And before anyone goes on about Israel being a democracy, well they are only at position 31 in the list and are considered to be a flawed democracy. That is, their democratic system is not fit for purpose.

I certainly support neither country's Government*. That is possible, you don't have to take a side! It's nothing like Russia vs Ukraine where it is a clear case of one aggressor invading another country that has not been aggressive.

* I specifically say Government as I have no issue with the people of Iran nor Israel. Indeed it's notable that most progressive Iranians do seem to want rid of the present regime and I don't blame them, though clearly they would suffer from the pain in achieving that.

Agreed. Most people in Israel, in Iran and in Palestine don't want all this war. They want the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families in peace.

 

[DarloRich]

I beg to differ, in that the current Russia is run by a fundamentalist. At the weekend, Putin said that wherever a Russian soldier steps is Russian. Of course, this phrase is not new and it's not originally Russian...
Consider though if Putin does believe this, that means all of Eastern Europe is Russian as well as parts of Africa and parts of the Middle East...

I did say Soviet Russia.

No, the U.S.A. and Israel do not have the right to attack another country. A country only has to right to self defence, that does not mean unreasonable pre-emptive military action or disproportionate action compared to the first attack.

You are wrong. Certainly Israel has a right of pre-emption. Your question should be if the use of that right was appropriate. IRC ( and it is a while since I studied international law) this right turns on "imminence" of attack. Hence why Israel are putting a time line on Iran acquiring/creating a viable nuclear weapon.

The fact that Iran apparently has not yet built a nuclear weapon says a lot. Why were they holding back for so long? The principles and technology are known to them. So why?

Because it is hard and really, really, really complicated and requires very hard to acquire equipment and resources that sensible countries are trying very hard to control.

And before anyone goes on about Israel being a democracy, well they are only at position 31 in the list and are considered to be a flawed democracy. That is, their democratic system is not fit for purpose.

And what position is Iran in that list?

 

[Annetts key]

but that was the role "we" in the west assigned the USA. It is what underpinned the post war peaceful western democratic consensus. We can hardly complain when they do what we wanted! They WERE the worlds policeman. They were the only people who could do that. They still are.

No, that's not correct. The U.S.A. were not much of a worldwide military power before WWII. It was the British that were considered to be one, if not the most powerful "Western" country before WWII.

The U.S.A. enjoyed not being involved in Europe's wars until they were finally dragged into WWII. By this time they had already built up there military forces, but during and after WWII they continued to develop and fund their military. Whereas most of the other countries around the world (apart from the USSR) downsized their military over the years after WWII And then continued with this trend after the fall of the USSR.

The U.S.A. chose to be the biggest force and no other Western country wanted to challenge them. Primarily due to the amount of money it would have cost.

Hence by default, the U.S.A. became the "world's policeman". Unfortunately, in nearly all cases, the U.S.A. looks after itself first. True that some administrations were more considerate in that they discussed things with their allies first. But not always.

 

[simonw]

Were South Africa or Zimbabwe funding terrorism or involving themselves with the civil wars of neighbouring countries?

South Africa certainly were doing both and carrying out terrorists acts in third party states.

 

[Sorcerer]

No, that's not correct. The U.S.A. were not much of a worldwide military power before WWII. It was the British that were considered to be one, if not the most powerful "Western" country before WWII.

The U.S.A. enjoyed not being involved in Europe's wars until they were finally dragged into WWII. By this time they had already built up there military forces, but during and after WWII they continued to develop and fund their military. Whereas most of the other countries around the world (apart from the USSR) downsized their military over the years after WWII And then continued with this trend after the fall of the USSR.

The U.S.A. chose to be the biggest force and no other Western country wanted to challenge them. Primarily due to the amount of money it would have cost.

Hence by default, the U.S.A. became the "world's policeman". Unfortunately, in nearly all cases, the U.S.A. looks after itself first. True that some administrations were more considerate in that they discussed things with their allies first. But not always.

I wouldn't disagree about the US choosing to be the world's police, however I think it's just as correct to say that it's also a role that we kind of put on them after the Second World War. Having the US as a military ally is one of NATO's biggest draws, especially for countries on Russia's doorstep, and even if the alliance remained powerful it wouldn't be anywhere near as formidable without the United States. Even if another country wanted to challenge them for the position of world police none currently have the capability to do so.

 

[Annetts key]

You are wrong. Certainly Israel has a right of pre-emption. Your question should be if the use of that right was appropriate. IRC ( and it is a while since I studied international law) this right turns on "imminence" of attack. Hence why Israel are putting a time line on Iran acquiring/creating a viable nuclear weapon.

But according to Israel, Iran were close to having a nuclear weapon for THIRTY years. The fact is that until Trump ripped up the agreement, they had paused their nuclear weapons programme. So we know that Israel blatantly lies. There is no reliable evidence that Iran had or has any operational nuclear weapons or was actually building them. True they did have a significant amount of uranium enriched to 60%. But that would need to be further enriched for a weapon and other work would be needed to develop a working nuclear weapon. Even the U.S. intelligence services did not consider Iran's nuclear programme to be of any imminent concern.

Given how easily Israel have gained control of the airspace over Iran, was it really a threat to Israel?

Trump and U.S. intelligence appear at odds over Iran's nuclear progress

U.S. intelligence stands by its opinion that Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium but isn't close to creating a weapon. Trump said Wednesday that a weapon is “a few weeks” away.

June 18, 2025, 8:12 PM EDT / Updated June 19, 2025, 8:42 AM EDT
By Dan De Luce
The U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear program has not changed since March, when the director of national intelligence told lawmakers that Tehran has large amounts of enriched uranium but has not made a decision to rush toward building an atomic bomb, according to the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a source with knowledge of the matter.

Comments by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have painted a different picture, suggesting that Iran is racing toward creating a nuclear weapon.

Trump said Wednesday that Iran was “a few weeks” from having a nuclear weapon, and Netanyahu said in a recent interview that Iran was pursuing a “secret plan” to build a bomb within months.

“The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working on a secret plan to weaponize the uranium,” Netanyahu recently told Fox News. “They were marching very quickly. They would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months and certainly less than a year.”

U.S. intelligence reporting on Israel is typically based in part on information provided by Israel’s intelligence services. It was unclear whether Netanyahu’s remarks were based on a different interpretation of the same intelligence.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, told reporters he was perplexed by Trump's assertions as lawmakers have received a different picture from U.S. intelligence officials.

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told lawmakers in March that U.S. spy agencies assessed that Iran had not made a decision to build nuclear weapons but that it had stockpiles of enriched uranium far beyond what is required for civilian purposes. The U.S. intelligence community’s view has not changed since her testimony, the source with knowledge of the matter said.

Warner said Wednesday that he received further confirmation of the March intelligence assessment “this week.”

On Tuesday, Trump publicly dismissed Gabbard’s testimony, saying, “I don’t care what she said.”

Warner said the administration needed to clarify whether there was new intelligence on Iran’s nuclear work.

“So far, at least, the intelligence community has stood by its conclusion that Iran is not moving towards a nuclear weapon. They were enriching additional uranium, but they were not weaponizing that yet, and that [decision] was left with the supreme leader,” he said.

“If there has been a change in that intelligence, I need to know, and I want to make sure that if it is changed, it’s based upon fact and not political influence,” he said.

Building the bomb

For Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal, it would need to enrich uranium to 90% purity. At the moment, it has a significant amount of uranium enriched to 60%, about 400 kilograms’ worth, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It would take a small technical step to enrich to 90%. Iran has enough uranium now to produce up to 10 weapons over several weeks, according to U.S. officials’ estimates.

But enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels is only the first step. Then Iran would have to build and test a device that could be delivered in the form of a bomb or a missile. Estimates vary, but Western officials and analysts say it could take months to more than a year to build a nuclear weapon.

Weapons experts say that Iran is not weeks away from securing a nuclear weapon but that it is weeks away from securing enough fissile material for an eventual weapon.

The director general of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, said in a report this month that “Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.”

But on Tuesday, Grossi told CNN said that U.N. inspectors did not have proof that Iran was engaged in “a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon.”

From here

Because it is hard and really, really, really complicated and requires very hard to acquire equipment and resources that sensible countries are trying very hard to control.

Not easy, but North Korea, India and Pakistan have managed it.

And what position is Iran in that list?

As you well know, Iran is not a democracy.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Ooh ‘eck

'Do not drop those bombs,' Trump warns Israel after it vows 'powerful strikes' on Iran - live updates

Trump uses an expletive as he criticises Israel and Iran after both sides accuse each other of breaking the ceasefire.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reports of explosions over Doha​

There are reports from Reuters and AFP news agencies of explosions being heard over Doha.

It follows earlier reports from US media saying that Iran was imminently preparing to fire missiles at a US base in Qatar.

 

[JamesT]

But according to Israel, Iran were close to having a nuclear weapon for THIRTY years. The fact is that until Trump ripped up the agreement, they had paused their nuclear weapons programme. So we know that Israel blatantly lies. There is no reliable evidence that Iran had or has any operational nuclear weapons or was actually building them. True they did have a significant amount of uranium enriched to 60%. But that would need to be further enriched for a weapon and other work would be needed to develop a working nuclear weapon. Even the U.S. intelligence services did not consider Iran's nuclear programme to be of any imminent concern.

Given how easily Israel have gained control of the airspace over Iran, was it really a threat to Israel?

From here

That's old news, US Intelligence now believes Iran was much closer to being able to produce a bomb. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo

Tulsi Gabbard says Iran could produce nuclear weapons "within weeks", months after she testified before Congress that the country was not building them.

I find it very hard to believe that Iran was truly dismantling its weapons program and Trump withdrawing from the deal spurred them into going for the bomb. They've spent decades building up this capability. There is essentially no reason to enrich to 60% if you're not going to turn it into a bomb.

It's also a bit hypocritical of Iran to complain about this, given they bombed an under construction nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1980 on exactly the same basis.

I'm sure those people who were killed or injured in Iran's missile attacks on Israel will be comforted that you don't consider Iran to be a threat.

 

[Jantra]

Moderators asked me to remove this post.

 

[Falcon1200]

We have no way of knowing for sure what Iran would or wouldn't do if they had nuclear weapons. But it is likely that they would not initiate a first strike against anyone.

Can anyone be sure of that? Especially the Israelis, who are threatened with annihilation, both directly by Iran and by the proxies it supports.

Just like no country (apart from the U.S.A.) has ever used nuclear weapons against another country.

80 years ago, and which use ended WW2 and therefore saved lives; And was only possible because no other country then possessed such weapons. Not relevant in any way to today's issues.

 

[Tetchytyke]

US Intelligence now believes Iran was much closer to being able to produce a bomb

US intelligence said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction too. It’s almost like US intelligence just make stuff up.

 

[Railwaycat]

US intelligence said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction too. It’s almost like US intelligence just make stuff up.

US and 'intelligence' don't tend to go together, especially with the present administration...

 

[Ediswan]

US intelligence said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction too. It’s almost like US intelligence just make stuff up.

If I have been keeping up, the official US position on how close Iran is/was to having a working nuclear weapon recently changed to match a previously conflicting preidential statement.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I find it very hard to believe that Iran was truly dismantling its weapons program and Trump withdrawing from the deal spurred them into going for the bomb. They've spent decades building up this capability. There is essentially no reason to enrich to 60% if you're not going to turn it into a bomb.

Of course that was probably the goal but that was to give them leverage like it is that we have nukes as do many other countries its to prevent an attack.

The problem here is the US is basically trying to run the world on its terms now and is turning the UN into an irrelevance. It took 50m death and nearly six years to deal with the last nut job that embarked on that plan.

 

[brad465]

Get Netanyahu, the Ayatollah, Trump, Putin and any other world leaders involved into a room together and get them all hooked on ecstasy: the wars will stop overnight.

 

[Annetts key]

Get Netanyahu, the Ayatollah, Trump, Putin and any other world leaders involved into a room together and get them all hooked on ecstasy: the wars will stop overnight.

You mean, let them get greedy and overdose...

 

[Cowley]

Get Netanyahu, the Ayatollah, Trump, Putin and any other world leaders involved into a room together and get them all hooked on ecstasy: the wars will stop overnight.

That’s a bit more gentle than my leaving them on a desert island to fend for themselves idea.

 

[brad465]

That’s a bit more gentle than my leaving them on a desert island to fend for themselves idea.

"Isle Hitler wannabes"