The regime in Iran is one for which I have no time. Theocracy does not, in my opinion, have a place in this world. It suppresses freedom. It denies the truth. It cannot meet need. It is inherently totalitarian in style. It is as far from my way of thinking as it is possible, in many ways, to get.
But I also hate the use of force by one alliance of nations with fascist inclination against another of totalitarian inclination. Nothing good can come from that, and this is what is happening in the Israeli-Iranian conflict.
It would be good to see the Iranian regime gone.
I can say the same of Netanyahu's regime in Israel.
Both are destroying the well-being of millions of people. There is no right side to choose here. Amongst many other things, neither tells a story that is true. When a regime is built on the basis of fanatical intent that denies others their human rights, that is always going to be the case, and we have two such regimes constructed on that basis at the centre of this conflict, because that is how I see Netanyahu's regime.
That situation is not helped when, in the West, those who support Israel also deny the truth. Trump said this last night:
Of course, the US had everything to do with the Israeli attack.
It supplied the weapons used.
It will re-arm Israel to make good the loss in its weapon stockpiles that have arisen as a result.
It will have spoken constantly to Israel about what is happening.
And Israel acted because it knew it would get support of this nature. It is quite absurd to think that the US was not involved in what Israel did: Israel knows it can count on US backing, whatever it does. It has, after all, committed genocide, and the US has been unwavering in its support. Of course, it knew it could attack Iran without fear of consequence as a result.
Truth is the first victim of war.
Innocent people are always the second, and there have already been too many such casualties in this conflict.
With Israel having no obvious endgame for what it has already done, because there is no way it can invade Iran, the situation is even more uncertain, and the chance that other countries and forces are drawn in is more likely, including the UK. But they, too, will also lack an endgame: there is no way they can take and then hold a country like Iran. Haven't we learned that already? Has what happened in Iraq really been forgotten that quickly?
So, what must happen now?
The obvious answer is that Israel must stop its actions. It must say it has achieved its objectives, whatever they supposedly were. And it must call a halt. We can then hope pressure can be brought to bear on Iran to do the same, given its very much weaker resources.
In a sense, Trump is right: this is an immediate conflict that could be ended quickly, even if the causes, which come down to fanatically fuelled hate on both sides, cannot be.
Will that happen? I do not know. I doubt anyone can. We just have to live in hope because all the alternatives are very much worse.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It’s Sunday, so talking about hope is valid. Hope has a right to exist. Yes.
But other things exist you see.
Like greed, fascism, racism, double standards, sanctions – Colonel Smithers noting that Iraq’s nuclear programme is frowned upon because the Iranians don’t look like us is very true.
Iraq? The many innocent Iraqi’s who died were just ‘collateral damage’, and have already been forgotten about by the West. That’s all the Iranians are to the West – people they never understood anyway and eminently expendable for oil and other resources.
George Bush Jnr and his criminal gang have a lot to answer for – a legacy of pre-emptive strikes and opportunism and a trail of death. And who triumphs in the end? Why the big corporations with their political donations of course for whom human life is cheap.
Whilst the list of the unaccountable grows, hope can merely linger.
1. Mutual de-escalation through 3rd party mediation – Fairly soon.
2. Proxy war continues with Israeli retaliation from time to time – Medium to longer term.
3. Change of leadership in Israel and/or Iran – Some hope of peace.
And much of the US support for Israel is driven by ‘religious’ ideology. The Evangelical ‘End Times’ theology sees the events as foretold and they must support Israel. Much of it derived from John Nelson Darby who was British and a founder of the Plymouth Brethren.
I gave a talk to the Bristol Theosophical Society on the dangers of this theology in 2011. On a later visit an American lady who attends told me of some very senior US politicians who court these forces.
And in the West Bank we have the settlers with a theology which denies the Palestinians any claim to the land.
When people think God is on their side, reason vanishes. Tragic. And maybe Blasphemy.
The opposition parties in the House of Commons should immediately demand via an Urgent Question that a Cabinet Minister ( Starmer is in Canada at the G7) explain why RAF jets have been forward placed at British bases in the Middle East region; and get a commitment they will not be involved on behalf of either side in the Israeli-Iran conflict. They should also demand that UK F-35 parts be stopped going into the parts pool from which Israel buys replacement parts, unless they are tagged “ no sale to Israel” as the Dutch do with their parts.
“The constant message is to de-escalate” says Starmer, as he sends more R.A.F planes to the Middle-East. Surely a contradiction in terms.
The Iranian mullahs have stated it is their desire to destroy Israel and whilst they might not at this moment in time carry a nuclear threat they are certainly working towards it. They have also, for a long time now, funded Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel. Therefore it is of no surprise we have reached this position. Iran are a rogue state.
If you read, but I have written, you will appreciate that I have no time for the regime in Iran. I can dammit for it funding terrorism. I do not condone its attitude towards Israel. But let me be quite clear about what is happening here. Iran may be talking, entirely inappropriately, about its desire to eradicate Israel, but Israel is, as a matter of fact, undertaking genocide to eradicate the people of Gaza. How dare you pretend that anything that Israel is doing is defensible in that case? Iran is talking, entirely inappropriately, and I will condemn it for doing so. Israel is, however, acting, and for that reason it is not just a rogue state, but a failed state, and one whose government needs to be brought to account in international criminal courts.
It looks like the phrase ‘wipe Israel off the map’ is not a literal as it might look. A former Iranian leader Ahmadinejad is often given as the sources. As I recall even Ron Paul, advocate for the Mises Institute for Austrian Economics and Libertarian party candidate, and later Republican Congressman, was one of those who said the phrase meant the state was an imposed Colonial, settler state and that should go. Not a massacre of the Israelis. The literal meaning served the purpose of the zionist lobby whose policy is present Iran as malevolent and waiting for an opportunity to destroy Israel.
Most commentators are of the opinion that if the Arab states agreed to a settlement, so would they.
More here https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/wiped_off_the_map.html
Thanks
Netanyahu has several times boasted in interviews with Haaretz that he has funded Hamas in order to undermine the Palestinian Authority. His intention was to keep the Palestinians divided so that, by arguing between themselves, they would be a weaker force and a lesser threat to Israel. You can’t just leave important facts out because they don’t fit your preferred narrative.
Agreed.
As a matter of fact, that is what he did.
Ah Another Andrew – I see that you are keen on ‘rogue states’?
What about the U.S. and how many times it has vetoed U.N. sanctions on Israel?
And whilst you are at it, watch the PBS documentary ‘The U.S. and The Holocaust’ and ask yourself about the underlying anti-Semitism that propels Jews away that ensures that the Jews can live anywhere – but for some ‘all Americans’ not in the U.S, itself, thank you buddy and ‘Shalom’.
No doubt you will wish to talk of other rogue states – sure you will – but believe you me, the U.S. is rogue ogre of the world.
Regime change via invasion rarely ends well, WW2 being the one case where it did and as a result we keep on thinking we can do it again
The only reason it worked after WW2 was because the winning side (USA) learned from the mistakes of the WW1 and poured money and resources into Germany and Japan for rebuilding trust and hope in the general population by rebuilding social institutions, jobs and ordinary incomes. The irony perhaps was that the ‘socialist’ principles they thought would slow these countries down (work councils, Deming-style management) actually boosted them even faster.
Sadly ever since the Berlin Wall fell, the neoliberal approach has been the default taken – ‘Shock treatment’ AKA looting and pillaging by western corporates and local criminals at the expense of ordinary people.
As a journalist mentioned last week re Northern Ireland: “Happy people don’t riot”. Or make war.
Externally imposed regime change is illegal. It therefore comes as no surprise that international war criminal Netanyahu is demanding regime change for Iran.
I don’t quite see that there is no right side to choose here. Or rather I think there is a wrong side to choose. Israel is the aggressor. They are the wrong side to choose. So which side does our government choose?
While it’s easy to abhor totalitarian regimes such as Iran (I exclude Israel for reasons that should become apparent), we should remember that Europe went through a process lasting hundreds of years that took us from the totalitarianism of Canon law, including trial by ordeal, burning at the stake and the Spanish Inquisition before reaching our so called ‘enlightened’ state. Middle Eastern countries are I would argue, going through the same process, however, unlike ourselves, they’ve been greatly impeded by those same, more enlightened European countries which, from the 18th century have been interfering in middle eastern affairs. Think of the squabble between Britain and France in the late 18th. century over Egypt and control of the isthmus which became the Suez Canal, Britain’s pact with the Trucial States around the Persian Gulf in the 19th. century, where in return for propping up despotic leaders we gained preferential trading arrangements; the Sykes – Pichot agreement in1917 which effectively carved up the ME, cutting across traditional tribal boundaries and of course the ousting of the democratically elected President of Iran, orchestrated by the UK and USA in 1953 which led eventually to the Ayatollahs.
Forcing regime change never works and most often causes a backlash – witness the attempts to create a democracy in Afghanistan and what has emerged as a result. My thesis is that, while Europe found its way to enlightenment over hundreds of painful years, we did so without the interference of a third party which has been the unfortunate fate of the Middle East. We therefore need in my view to be less censorious and more empathetic to the struggle of the peoples of the middle east, while in the meantime trying to set a good example to them of how fulfilling an enlightened world can be – something we are currently failing miserably to do.
Of course BBC doesn’t remind us that there was a working agreement of international verification and inspection of Iran’s nuclear processing – which Trump tore up. The only logical outcome for Iran is to conclude they do indeed need a nuclear weapon to stop getting attacked at regular intervals by Israel.
I wonder what the legal position is on British military personnel fighting on the side of country engaged in the prosecution of a genocide and led by a leader wanted for war crimes, fighting in a war that is itself illegal under international law. Can a leader wanted for war crimes initiate a legal war?
Two Abrahamic religions locked in a theocratic endgame. Why am I being asked to hate people I have never met and ignore international law and the wider international community in order to support Israel.
And how can the UK fight any war within the envelope of the governments fiscal rules.
We are being patronised by a disgraceful media.
Why cant these “journalists” be truthful and say that international law is now meaningless? Oh, but wait a bit they can’t because then they would have then to find a new way to cover the Russia / Ukraine war.
The funding of state enemies by the state under attack is a classic tactic used in all counterinsurgency conflicts. As is the control of information to the media. UK Journalists who tell the truth do not last long anywhere in the UK. Here in Northern Ireland Lyra McKee (d. 2019) was courageous in her investigations into deeply embedded child sexual abuse cartels and the continuing cover up of the perpetrators by political factions. Anyone living here, outside of the self reinforcing hypocritical denial bubble of Stormont, Holywood and Westminster, were sickened and demoralised by the highly mediated service of remembrance for her after her ‘freak’ death by one ‘random’ bullet to the head during a working class Derry riot. The service was attended by our local conflict junky politicians at St Anne’s Cathedral, Belfast.
“Has what happened in Iraq really been forgotten that quickly?”……and the events in London, Manchester etc that followed & all the dead Uk citizens, because a messianc imbecile was PM. Now we have a zionist as PM, representing the interests of a foreign power (Israel), rather than those of the UK & its citizens. What could possibly go wrong? Why does the Uk have a government that acts in the interests of Israel? an apartheid and genocidal state.
One thing for sure, Iran will now do anything to get its hands on nukes, anything. Oh look, Pakistan next door – nuclear armed. Oh look, Russia next door, nuclear armed. Oh look the UK, cuddling up to a party to the conflict with whom it has zero in common.
Excellent post. It’s like two bald men fighting over a comb but that dismisses the severity of the situation. It does however sum up the potential good that will result from the conflict. Why is there no publicity given to the very relevant point you recently made. Namely that as “long” ago as March this year the US intelligence services saw no risk to Israel or the west from Iran’s nuclear programme and if its conventional weapon facilities that are being targeted then why?
The position of Keir Starmer, a lawyer, is that Israel has a right to defend itself against a perceived existential threat and can do this by setting international law aside and by taking pre-emptive action.
I think that most fair minded people would see that Vladimir Putin could make exactly this case, saying that Russia saw the Eastern expansion of NATO as such a threat and took appropriate pre-emptive action to defend itself.
Both cases have merits and demerits. That is why International law and the strengthening of the agencies that protect it is so important, without it we descend into a pit of sophistry.
Thanks Richard, we have to live in hope and even more so in current times.
If I have to interpret the “rule of law” applied by west (America and its allies), I tend to see the following pattern over the last few decades:
– Overarching principle for the west is “with us or against us”
– Israel has right to defend itself and is not accountable for its actions
– US has the right to impose democracy and seek regime change on countries that are hostile to us (Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. are our allies and friends)
– NATO will proactively accommodate countries hostile to Russia
– West can act unilaterally on issues of National security and is not accountable under international law
The above has got us where we are – endless conflicts, death and destruction. Not sure we have learnt our lessons from WWII because WWIII seems a possibility (even if the probability is tiny it is still scary).
The United Nations should be the only means to hold countries accountable but unfortunately it is toothless mainly because a UN with teeth is not aligned with national interests of western nations.
Might it be that the same reasons/lies used for the attacks on Iraq are now being used for attacks on Iran?
Israel has been trying to get the US involved in a war on its behalf against Iran for many years, maybe they thought this president would find a boost to his ego if he joined in. However one of his pre election promises was not to get the US involved in foreign wars so there is apparently some push back, but then there’s all that AIPAC money waiting to support those who support Israel no matter what. I see that Israel is still being seen as “defending itself” even though they were the ones that started the latest war. They also have the nerve to criticize the fact that Iran has apparently targeted civilian sites!! Israel has a nuclear program that is entirely secret, it has not joined in any non proliferation treaties so is not subject to inspections. As part of Israel’s founding they apparently promised not to develop nuclear capabilities… well, another lie. I would say that if Israel was made to reveal its nuclear capabilities then Iran would be content to match or both agree to disband but its pretty unreasonable to expect Iran to disband its program while Israel is allowed to go free. The problem here as mentioned by others here is the break down of international law; “the Israel exception” where they know they can pretty much do what they want and no -one will stop them. They still have abiding plans for “Greater Israel” that would encompass all of the Palestinian lands, as much as they can get of Syria and parts of Lebanon. Without Israel the Middle East could be peaceful. International law MUST be applied to Israel as well.
What we may be witnessing with Iran is the implementation of US foreign policy strategies that were set some time ago, but have been followed by successive administrations.
Unless leaked we cannot access National Security Council memorandums and other offical documents to discover exactly what the current policies and objectives are (although there are numerous congressional committee hearings where such are discussed). Other than the statements of various high officials there are also the outputs of the Think Tanks that feed into the policy development process.
In brief, we need to go back to 1996, when Richard Perle – known to friend and foe as “the prince of darkness” for his way of influencing foreign policy whilst remaining out of the limelight – worked with Netanyahu to devise the so-called “clean break” strategy: abandoning the Oslo process and instead changing the regimes in the states surrounding Israel. General Wesley Clark tells with much humour of the moment in the Pentagon when he discovered the outcome of this policy: to “take out” 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. You may recall Dick Cheney quipping “real men go to Iran”.
Today only Iran remains. It has been a long process. 9/11 created the Overton window for Iraq, which turned into a predicable quagmire. Obama issued the Presidential Finding to oust the Assad regime in Syria in 2011, which was only achieved late last year.
I urge people to read the 2009 Brookings Institute paper “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran” (
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf)
In particular, read Chapter One: “An Offer Iran Shouldn’t Refuse: Persuasion ” and Chapter Five: “Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike.”
The similarity of these two proposals to the political events that led up to the Israeli attack on Iran is uncanny.