When did a discussion on US war cost become constrained to the Indo-Pacific point of view and how does that tie back to your hanible directive comment?

You seem to have shifted focus after I countered your claim that Iranian violence wasn't a threat to Europe with an example of Iranian violence in Europe from today.

Violence instigated by the official Iranian embassy delegation to the UK. Conducted/called for publicly by Iranian officials in the UK. Conducted against random jewish people because they were jewish and in the UK (a valid target for random civilian attacks in your opinion I guess because 'The UK has already chosen a side, they're not being singled-out by random.')?

Funny how you jumped from number 1. Iran isn't a threat to Europe all the way to 6 on the narcissists prayer with 'The random UK jew deserved the stabling because the UK picked a side'.

You're the one that threadjacked this discussion, I was hoping you'd be able to explain how the UK's political decisions impact the conflict.

My original statement is that Iran does not present a credible nuclear threat to the United States. The justification for the war is an outright lie, the "dangerous new world" saber rattling has been criticized by defense analysts for the 40+ years it haunted Israeli state media. Retaliatory terrorism in the UK is not going to cause the global stage to reevaluate their position in the US/Iran conflict, your original comment upstream is just more reason not to enable America's war.

> and how does that tie back to your hanible directive comment?

I mentioned the Hannibal directive once in this thread, to illustrate the dirt-poor optics of war with Iran. You've brought it up three times now. Insecure much?