Josh Hashcroft

MSc Cybersecurity & Policy @UniOfOxford | Security Engineer | Politics, Cyber, and Defence | Views my own

[CSIS @CSIS]

Tuesday | China’s proposed "super embassy" in central London could pose significant national security risks to the United Kingdom and its allies. @CSISDefense experts break down the potential threats.

Register: https://t.co/oKXaaxYKRt

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

And to Claire’s point, yes it is an accounting trick the infrastructure 1.5% will consist of existing spending in places which lands in a grey area and can be reclassified as defence spending where not already. #presspreview

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@SkyNews My 2 cents. I don’t think Steve’s view makes sense - % of GDP makes far more sense than an arbitrary nominal target

[Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch]

Too many politicians treat the world like a student union. Abstract, simplistic and completely disconnected from reality. The world is not a debating club. It is a dangerous place where power matters, where democracy is fragile and where enemies don’t play by the rules.

That’s why we need to be clear: supporting Israel is not just right — it is necessary for our own national security. Israelis are at the front line in the fight for the West and for our shared values.

First, Iran is a direct threat to the UK and has been for years. Our security services have stopped multiple Iranian terrorist plots and assassination attempts on UK soil. Its ballistic missiles can reach Europe. We should support any ally that seeks to damage Iran’s nuclear programme and eliminate the threat posed by the terror-exporting Revolutionary Guards.

Anti-British sentiment is almost as central to the ayatollahs’ deranged ideology as their obsessive hatred of Israel and the United States. They use the term “Little Satan” interchangeably to refer to both the UK and Israel.
Iran uses influence through mosques, schools and fake charities to radicalise and corrupt our own population: taking advantage of our democracy to advance its theocracy.

Second, Iran and Israel are not moral equivalents. Israel is a vibrant democracy that protects women and minorities and encourages them to vote, speak and dissent. In Iran women are brutalised by a theocratic dictatorship. Their ability to travel and work is restricted. They are beaten for showing their hair. Tortured for asking questions. Executed for demanding freedom.

Anyone who can’t see the difference between a liberal democracy and a terrorist regime needs to spend less time on social media and more time understanding reality.

When Iran launched its latest barrage of missiles, it didn’t target military installations. It targeted city centres. High rise housing. Hospitals. Civilians. This is a war crime, plain and simple. No excuses. No spin. And still, we have western politicians giving copy-and-paste statements as if this were a playground spat between equal players in a “cycle of violence”.

Israel’s response, in contrast, is surgical. It decapitated Iran’s offensive capabilities with extraordinary precision and minimal civilian casualties. Images of holes made by guided bombs in the sides of flats occupied by specific regime operatives are testament to Israel’s values. When Iran attacks, millions of Israelis hide in bomb shelters. When Israel attacks, Iranian dissidents record the impact against regime targets and cheer.

Military strategists will be studying this campaign for decades as a model for how to defend your people without losing your moral compass and in compliance with international law.

Israel has a right to defend itself. Iran has been openly committed to the destruction of Israel for decades. Through its proxy, Hamas, the regime orchestrated the murder of 1,200 people on October 7 and has said it would do it again. Any democracy facing such an existential threat from a genocidal regime would and must act to defend itself.

Most Arab nations understand this; some say it openly. Many ordinary Iranians bitterly oppose their regime which for 46 years has been robbing them of their future. They know that Israel is not the problem. They condemn violence, yes, but they have no time for the delusions of the western left. They’ve had enough of people in Islington pretending to speak for Gaza while doing nothing for peace.

But of course, the usual crowd in Britain and beyond rushed to condemn Israel. They ignore the facts. Because it’s not really about Israel — it’s about their own moral posturing.

While Israel takes on the arrayed enemies of the West, fighting terrorism on multiple fronts, and facing Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran at once, their so-called allies condemn them.

1/3

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@inquiring_queen @catturd2 @RandPaul China wouldn’t enter this conflict, there’s practically zero upside to them doing so. They’re more likely to go for Taiwan during the regional instability

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@tonyhaw35800155 @ShaykhSulaiman Well you have strong views on Israel. On this specific issue though, consider it as a proxy attack on Iran’s nuclear capability by the west. Look into Stuxnet US/Mossad cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear facility. This isn’t Israel on its own, they just threw the first punch

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@tonyhaw35800155 @ShaykhSulaiman “It’s a war they started” the US/UK would have never allowed Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Israel firing at Iran gave us cover to legitimise getting involved rather than a cold strike from the west on Iran. Wake up

[JD Vance @JDVance]

Look, I'm seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue:

First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal. The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways--the easy way or the "other" way.

Second, I've seen a lot of confusion over the issue of "civilian nuclear power" and "uranium enrichment." These are distinct issues. Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they've enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They've been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization.

It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.

I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I've yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations. I've yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings.

Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.

He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.

But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@NickTorfaen @KayBurley

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@SkyNews fantastic discussion and analysis on this press preview #skynews

[Moving Home with Charlie @moving_charlie]

The government didn’t think this through.

This is not an unusual situation for London first time buyers. Think a working couple both earning £80k with a mortgage of 3.5x joint earnings.

They need an £80k deposit.

As of today they must now also find £21k stamp duty.

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@StuartL37436699 @Iromg @RachelReevesMP This is the problem though it’s massively punitive in London. I’d finally saved my deposit after years and the SDLT changes has set me back another 2 years of needing to save funds

[Mike Graham 🇬🇧 @Iromg]

Stamp Duty increases have just killed it @RachelReevesMP

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@Keir_Starmer While simultaneously shafting us by removing the Stamp Duty relief for first time buyers - nice one!

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@KayBurley @Keir_Starmer You’re usually across the detail Kay so will give you benefit of the doubt on this, it will take awhile to be adopted by all member states. https://t.co/5MnDgrf5Om

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

I guess that’s the end of that then

[Russian Embassy, UK @RussianEmbassy]

❗️ Russia poses no threat to the United Kingdom and its people.

We harbour no aggressive intentions and have no plans to attack Britain.

☝️ We are not interested in doing so, nor do we need to.

https://t.co/P499OkpJnK

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@RachelReevesMP your imposition of the SDLT changes, and a rumoured ISA reduction both hit first time buyers. 1) My SLDT went from 4.5k to £16k. 2) I don’t want to invest my house deposit in equities given the risk/timelines. Clearly you don’t care about us. cc: @ChelFulhamBen

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@PolitlcsUK @thetimes @grok will this apply to currently enrolled students?

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

cc @ChelFulhamBen as local MP

[Josh Hashcroft @joshhashcroft]

@RachelReevesMP @hmtreasury @AngelaRayner Remove the stamp duty change for first time buyers. Tories did more to help first time buyers. Very frustrating @UKLabour