The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Topics Filter?
American Media American Military Anti-Semitism Anti-Vaxx BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Britain British Labour Party Censorship CIA Civil Liberties Conspiracy Theories Covid Culture/Society Donald Trump Economics EU Foreign Policy Gaza Genocide Hamas Hezbollah History Ideology Iran Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jeremy Corbyn Jews Joe Biden Judicial System Julian Assange Keir Starmer Lebanon NATO Neoliberalism Political Correctness Racism Russia Science Syria Terrorism The Guardian The Middle East Ukraine United Nations War Crimes Wikileaks Zionism 2020 Election 2024 Election 9/11 Academia ADL Afghanistan AI Al Jazeera Al Qaeda Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez American Left Antiracism Antisemitism Apartheid Israel Arab Christianity Arts/Letters Assassinations Auschwitz Australia Avatar BDS Movement Bernie Sanders Billionaires Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks Blood Libel Boris Johnson Brazil Brexit BRICs British Politics Canada Capitalism China China/America Christmas CNN Colonialism Corporatocracy Craig Murray David Cameron Democratic Party Dick Cheney Disease Dystopia Edward Snowden Egypt Elon Musk Emmanuel Macron Ethnic Cleansing Facebook FDA Financial Bailout Financial Sector Floyd Riots 2020 Fox News Free Speech Freedom Of Speech Gaza Flotilla George Galloway George W. Bush Germany Glenn Greenwald Global Warming Globalism Greta Thunberg Guardian Hassan Nasrallah Hate Speech Health Care Holland Hollywood Holocaust Human Rights Watch ICC Icj Immigration Inequality International Court Of Justice International Criminal Court International Law Iran Nuclear Agreement Iraq War ISIS Islam Islamism Islamophobia Jeffrey Epstein Jihadis Jonathan Freedland Journalism Justin Trudeau Kamala Harris Kemi Badenoch Kurds Libya Liz Truss MAGA Marco Rubio Mass Shootings Medicine Meghan Markle Middle East Monarchy Mossad Movies Muslims Nazi Germany Neocons New York Times Nicolas Maduro Noam Chomsky Nord Stream Pipelines Palestinians Pete Hegseth Peter Mandelson Piers Morgan Police Police State Populism Prince Harry Progressives Propaganda Public Health Race Riots Race/Ethnicity Rape Reuters Russell Brand Russiagate Salman Rushie Saudi Arabia Seymour Hersh Shia Shias And Sunnis Slavery Slavoj Zizek Social Media South Africa Starvation Sweden The Jews’ Janissaries The Left Tony Blair Torture Tucker Carlson Tulsi Gabbard Turkey Twitter Uyghurs Vaccines Venezuela Vitamin D Vladimir Putin Volodymyr Zelensky Vote Fraud Wealth Inequality Wealthy Whistleblowers Whoopi Goldberg World War II
Nothing found
Print Archives3 Items • Total Print Archives • Readable Only
 TeasersJonathan Cook Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

The genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon exhausted the West’s moral legitimacy. Now Iran is slowly exhausting the West’s military primacy

For decades, two irreconciliable narratives about Israel and its motivations have existed in parallel.

On the one side, an official western narrative portrays a plucky, besieged “Jewish” state of Israel, desperate to make peace with its hostile Arab neighbours. Even to this day, that story dominates the political, media and academic landscape.

Time and again, or so we are told, Israel has held out an olive branch to “the Arabs”, seeking acceptance, but is always rebuffed.

A largely unspoken subtext suggests that supposedly irrational, bloodthirsty, Jew-hating regimes across the region would have completed the Nazis’ exterminationist agenda but for the West’s humane protection of a vulnerable minority.

A Palestinian counter-narrative, accepted across much of the rest of the world, is choked into silence in the West as an antisemitic “blood libel”.

It presents Israel as an ethnic supremacist, highly militaristic state – armed by the United States and Europe – bent on expansion, mass expulsions and land theft.

On this view, the West implanted Israel as a colonial military outpost, there to subdue the native Palestinian population, and terrorise neighbouring states into submission through relentless and overwhelming displays of force.

Palestinians cannot make peace, or reach any kind of accommodation, because Israel pursues only conquest, domination and erasure. No middle ground is possible.

The proof, note Palestinians, is Israel’s long-standing refusal to define its borders. As its military power has grown decade after decade, ever more extreme political agendas have surfaced, demanding not just Israel’s takeover of the last remnants of the Palestinian territories it illegally occupies but expansion into neighbouring states like Lebanon and Syria.

Drunk on power

Here are two conflicting narratives in which each side presents itself as the victim of the other.

Two and a half years into a series of Israeli wars against the peoples of Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, how are these two perspectives holding up?

Does Israel look like the frustrated peacemaker facing off with barbaric opponents, or a rogue state whose decades-long aggression has provoked the very retaliatory violence exploited to excuse its constant war-making?

Is Israel a small, reluctant fortress state defending itself, or a western military client so drunk on its own power that it can no more limit its territorial ambitions than a great white shark can stop swimming?

The truth is that the past 30 months have graphically exposed not only what Israel always was but, by extension, what our own western states aspired to achieve through their most favoured Middle East client.

In a moment of imprudence last month, Christian Turner, Peter Mandelson’s replacement as British ambassador to the US, let slip the reality. Washington, the West’s imperial hub, he said, had no deep loyalty to its allies – apart from one.

Unaware his words were being recorded, he told a group of visiting students: “I think there is probably one country that has a special relationship with the United States, and that is probably Israel.”

That special relationship requires that the political and media class in Washington’s other client states, such as Britain, shield the West’s Sparta in the Middle East from critical scrutiny.

So glaring have Israel’s atrocities become that the British government announced last month that it was shuttering its Foreign Office unit tracking war crimes – citing the need for cuts – rather than face further exposure of its collusion in those crimes.

If the British government refuses to monitor Israel’s war crimes, don’t expect more from the establishment media.

For months, Israel has been blowing up village after village in south Lebanon, driving millions of inhabitants from lands lived on for millennia by their ancestors, and it barely registers with our politicians and media.

Israel is destroying Gaza’s water supplies, as it earlier did the tiny enclave’s hospitals and health system, ensuring the further spread of disease, and our politicians and media have barely a word to say about it.

Israel kills journalists and emergency crews in Gaza and Lebanon week after week, month after month, and it raises barely an eyebrow from the political and media class.

Israel declares “yellow lines“ in Gaza and Lebanon, demarcating expanded borders that formalise its theft of other peoples’ lands, and this instantly becomes the new normal.

Israel continuously violates ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, spreading misery and inflaming yet more anger and bitterness, and once again, our politicians and media turn a blind eye.

Which western media outlets are pointing out a starkly revealing fact: that Israel now occupies more of Lebanon than Russia does of Ukraine?

Media bias

An analysis by the Newscord media monitoring group last month confirmed earlier research: that the British media studiously avoid naming ethnic cleansing and genocide when it is Israel – rather than Russia – carrying them out.

Comparing the coverage of the most “serious” establishment British news outlets – the BBC, the Guardian and Sky – with that of Al Jazeera, the study found that UK media consistently choose to obscure Israel’s responsibility for its crimes.

Israel was identified as conducting attacks in Gaza in only around half of British news reports, in contrast to nearly 90 per cent of Al Jazeera’s. As Newscord noted: “Half the time, BBC readers aren’t told who killed the person in the story.”

That was graphically illustrated in a notorious BBC headline: “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help”.

In fact, an Israeli tank had sprayed a stationary car with gunfire even though the Israeli military had known for hours that it contained a Palestinian girl – the sole survivor of an earlier attack – who emergency crews were desperately trying to reach. Israel killed the rescue team, too.

 

Few believe British prime minister Keir Starmer when he says he learnt only recently that Peter Mandelson, his political mentor in the Labour party, failed to receive the security clearance needed to be appointed as ambassador to the United States in late 2024.

Mandelson has become politically toxic since last September, when it became clearer how deeply he was connected to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – including the fact that, while in government in 2009 and 2010, Mandelson passed on insider information that would have been of considerable benefit to Epstein and others.

Starmer has been desperate to off-load responsibility, accusing Oliver Robbins, the then recently arrived top civil servant in the Foreign Office, of failing to tell him that Mandelson had been denied clearance.

Robbins, in turn, told a committee of MPs this week that by the time he took up his post the deal on Mandelson was done. Starmer’s office put “constant pressure” on his department to retroactively approve Mandelson’s appointment.

Video Link

His testimony to a parliamentary committee suggests that, given the febrile climate in Westminster at the time, he may have been misled over what the vetting process had discovered in a bid to smooth Mandelson’s path to Washington.

These claims and counter-claims serve chiefly to obscure the central fact Starmer is either a liar or grossly incompetent.

Mandelson had to resign from the post of ambassador last September over his ties to Epstein. Either Starmer failed to check on the politically explosive matter of Mandelson’s security clearance in the meantime, or, more likely, he did and has been “misleading” – that is, lying to – the media and parliament ever since.

As Starmer himself admitted to the House of Commons this week – to raucous laughter – the whole story sounds “incredible”.

In truth, everything about Starmer’s rise to power – and the media’s permanent incuriosity about how that rise was engineered – is incredible.

The deeply troubling backstory to Starmer’s political evolution is yet to be told by the establishment media. As critical as they currently are of his treatment of Mandelson, the media are telling only half the story – the surface part.

The prime minister’s political subservience and vulnerability to Mandelson – why Starmer was determined to promote him to the post of ambassador despite the all-too-conspicuous dangers – have gone largely unexamined by the media.

The answers are available elsewhere, such in investigative journalist Paul Holden’s recent book The Fraud, an examination of Starmer’s rise to power, which has still not been reviewed by a single mainstream publication.

Secret operations

At the very least, the real story should have come to light when Mandelson, the grand old man of the Labour right, was arrested in February on suspicion of “misconduct in public office”. He is accused of passing on confidential market information, in his role as business secretary, to Epstein.

That followed the resignation weeks earlier of Morgan McSweeney, Mandelson’s protégé who propelled Starmer to high office. He was forced to quit as the the prime minister’s chief of staff over his involvement in Mandelson’s appointment.

Around the same time, Josh Simons, then a minister in the Cabinet Office and a Starmer loyalist, was investigated – by the Cabinet Office – over revelations that he funded a covert smear campaign against journalists critical of Starmer.

Simons has since stepped down from the government.

There is a thread connecting all three figures – a thread that ties them intimately to Starmer and the current furore.

They were each essential to the operations of a shadowy think tank called Labour Together. It was founded in 2015 in the immediate wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.

The group quickly strayed from its ostensible remit of uniting a party divided by Corbyn’s election between, on the one hand, hostile MPs and a hostile party bureaucracy and, on the other, the Labour membership. Labour Together’s real, covert task was to deepen those divisions.

With the help of rich donors, Labour Together created a secret slush fund worth at least £730,000 to wage a public relations war against Corbyn and the left – a campaign that was enthusiastically supported by the establishment media.

With Corbyn finally ousted, Labour Together then mounted a new operation, using those same funds, to deceive party members into crowning Starmer as leader on the basis he would continue Corbyn’s policies.

Following his election, Starmer immediately set about purging Labour of its left wing, driving down the record membership numbers brought in by Corbyn and relying instead on rich business donors.

Labour under Starmer became another party entirely captured by the business class. The Conservative and Reform parties were thereby given permission to hew even further to the right, to distinguish themselves from Labour.

Skating close to illegality

For the past decade, Labour politics has been a charade – and one that not only betrayed the values it publicly claimed to espouse but skated constantly close to illegality.

The Electoral Commission fined Labour Together for unlawful conduct after McSweeney repeatedly failed to abide by its warnings to declare the money wealthy benefactors were pouring into his slush fund.

This was not an oversight. It was because McSweeney did not want Labour Together’s activities – subverting the democratic process by using Big Money – to become public knowledge. The very nature of Labour Together’s anti-democratic agenda necessitated operating in the shadows.

It was for that reason that Corbyn called in February for an independent public inquiry into what he termed the “sinister operations” of Labour Together.

Video Link

The government responded dismissively. But that is because, were the threads to unravel further, they would almost certainly lead directly to Starmer’s door.

Mandelson was one of the driving forces behind Labour Together, famously alluding to his role in a 2017 comment that “every day, I try to do something to save the Labour Party from his [Corbyn’s] leadership”.

That same year McSweeney took over the reins of Labour Together, using the undeclared funds to covertly character-assassinate Corbyn and then dupe Labour members into voting for his and Mandelson’s preferred candidate, Starmer.

In late 2023, a year after taking over Labour Together, Simons turned to the same character-assassination playbook developed by McSweeney.

This time, instead of smearing the Corbyn-supporting Labour left, he targeted a handful of journalists who had started to dig into the covert, and unlawful, operations behind Starmer’s rise to power.

Simons commissioned a report, codenamed Operation Cannon, into the journalists’ “backgrounds and motivations”. It helpfully claimed, without evidence, that these journalists had colluded in a supposed Kremlin-backed hack of the Electoral Commission.

Slush fund

 

Israel has used the steady decline in Palestinian Christian numbers to promote a claim that Muslims are hounding them out of the region. But the real blame lies with Israel and the foreign Churches

The photo of an Israeli soldier striking a statue of Jesus with a sledgehammer in a village in south Lebanon went so viral on social media this week that even establishment outlets like the BBC felt compelled to note the desecration. Its reporting, of course, was peppered with plenty of “allegedly”s and “apparently”s, despite the Israeli military confirming that the image was real.

In fact, though rarely reported, the Israeli state has a long and ugly record of oppressing Christians, most usually Palestinian Christians, as part of concerted attempts to drive them out of the birthplace of Christianity. Why? Because the traditional and central place of Christians in Palestinian national and resistance movements undermines Israel’s efforts to promote a false narrative of an ideological divide between, on one side, a supposed Judeo-Christian civilisation and, on the other, supposed Muslim barbarity.

The very existence of Palestinian Christians complicates a simple narrative Israel needs to justify the erasure of the Palestinian people.

The desecration of the statute, though it has attracted a lot of attention, is far less significant and abhorrent than attacks on churches orchestrated by the Israeli state through its military and its settler militias. Gaza’s three churches were targeted during Israel’s genocidal rampage, part of the wider destruction of religious and cultural sites central to the local population’s identity. In July last year, settlers tried to torch the fifth-century Church of St George in the town of Taybeh, the last exclusively Palestinian Christian community in the West Bank.

Part of the reason why this systematic violence by Israel over decades against Palestinian Christians has gone so unreported is because the foreign Churches have chosen to avoid raising their voices. I explain in the latter section of the essay below why they have been so cowardly.

I was based in Nazareth, the largest Palestinian Christian community inside Israel, for 20 years. I had plenty of time to reflect on the issues I report on below. This essay was written in summer 2020 in the early stages of a Covid pandemic that left the West Bank even more isolated – and at the mercy of Israeli malevolence – than normal. But the experiences of Palestinian Christians are essentially unchanged since I wrote the piece, which is why I am republishing it now.


[First published by AMEU on 6 June 2020]

It was inevitable that when the coronavirus pandemic reached the occupied Palestinian territories, as it did in early March [2020], it would find its first purchase in Bethlehem, a few miles south-east of Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank.

Staff at the Angel Hotel in Beit Jala, one of Bethlehem’s satellite towns, tested positive after they were exposed to a group of infected Greek tourists. Israel worked hurriedly with the Palestinian Authority – the Palestinians’ permanent government-in-waiting in the occupied territories – to lock down Bethlehem. Israel was fearful that the virus, unlike the city’s Palestinian inhabitants, would be difficult to contain. Contagion might spread quickly to nearby Palestinian communities in the West Bank, then to Jewish settlements built illegally by Israel on Bethlehem’s lands, and finally on into Israel itself.

The Palestinian territories were under a form of lockdown long before the arrival of the coronavirus, however. Israel, the occupying power, has made sure that the entire Palestinian population is as isolated from the world as possible – their voices silenced, their experiences of oppression and brutality at Israel’s hands near-invisible to most of the Israeli public and to outsiders.

But Bethlehem, the reputed site of Jesus’s birth 2,000 years ago, is the one Palestinian area – outside East Jerusalem, which has been illegally annexed by Israel – that has proved hardest for Israel to hermetically seal off. During visits to the Church of the Nativity, tourists can briefly glimpse the reality of Palestinian life under occupation.

Some 15 years ago Israel completed a 26ft-high concrete wall around Bethlehem. On a typical day – at least, before coronavirus halted tourism to the region – a steady stream of coaches from Jerusalem, bearing thousands of Christian pilgrims from around the world, came to a stop at a gap in the concrete that served as a checkpoint. There they would wait for the all-clear from surly Israeli teenage soldiers. Once approved, the coaches would drive to the Nativity Church, their passengers able to view the chaotic graffiti scrawled across the wall’s giant canvas, testifying to the city’s imprisonment and its defiance.

Like the plague-bearing Greeks, visitors to Bethlehem could not avoid mixing, even if perfunctorily, with a few locals, mostly Palestinian Christians. Guides showed them around the main attraction, the Church, while local officials and clergy shepherded them into queues to be led down to a crypt that long ago was supposedly the site of a stable where Jesus was born. But unlike the Greek visitors, most pilgrims did not hang around to see the rest of Bethlehem. They quickly boarded their Israeli coaches back to Jerusalem, where they were likely to sleep in Israeli-owned hotels and spend their money in Israeli-owned restaurants and shops.

For most visitors to the Holy Land, their sole meaningful exposure to the occupation and the region’s native Palestinian population was an hour or two spent in the goldfish-bowl of Bethlehem.

A taste of occupation

In recent years, however, that had started to change. Despite the wall, or at times because of it, more independent-minded groups of pilgrims and lone travelers had begun straying off grid, leaving the Israeli-controlled tourism trail. Rather than making a brief detour, they stayed a few nights in Bethlehem. A handful of small, mostly cheap hotels like the Angel catered to them, as did restaurants and souvenir stores around the church.

In tandem, a new kind of political tourism based in and around Bethlehem had begun offering tours of the wall and sections of the city, highlighting the theft of the city’s land by neighboring Jewish settlements and the violence of Israeli soldiers who can enter Bethlehem at will.

A few years ago, the famous anonymous British graffiti artist Banksy gave a major boost to this new kind of immersive tourism by allying with a Bethlehem tour guide, Wisam Salsa, to open the Walled-Off Hotel. They converted an old building boxed in by the wall, liberally sprinkling it with Banksy’s subversive artworks about the occupation, as well as installing a gallery exhibiting the work of Palestinian artists and a museum detailing the occupation’s history and Israel’s well-tested methods of control and repression.

 

From Jimmy Savile to Peter Mandelson, Starmer has followed a trajectory of career-enhancing ignorance. He knows far more than he lets on. It’s the reason, after all, why he was knighted

Sir Keir Starmer must be the most ignorant man ever to have entered high office.

Here are a few highlights:

* As Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer was apparently never consulted on his office’s decision, in late 2009, not to prosecute prolific, and highly connected, paedophile Jimmy Savile, despite Savile being one of the most famous figures in Britain. Starmer claims he didn’t even know that his own Crown Prosecution Service had opened a file on Savile, a friend to the then Prince, now King, Charles. It will never be possible to confirm or dispute Starmer’s account because all the CPS files related to the case were destroyed – under Starmer’s watch.

* Again as DPP, Starmer was supposedly not informed that the CPS was insisting through 2010 and 2011 that Sweden press on with sexual assault allegations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, despite a lack of evidence. Assange had deeply embarrassed the UK and US by exposing their war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Starmer’s officials again secretly destroyed the email trail between the CPS and Sweden that would likely have illuminated his role in the affair.

* As Labour leader, Starmer apparently had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities being carried out by Labour Together, the shadowy think tank that brought him to power, including its covert campaign to smear journalists who tried to expose its criminal acts.

* As prime minister, Starmer claims to have had no idea of the depth of the ties between Peter Mandelson and serial paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, even though Mandelson was the most influential figure in the Labour party backing his bid to become leader. In return, Starmer would promote Mandelson in late 2025 as ambassador to the US.

* Starmer said this week that he was kept in the dark that Mandelson had, in fact, failed vetting by the British security services for the post of ambassador. That requires that we believe his own Foreign Office, which overruled the security services’ decision, did so without consulting with him.

This is one long trajectory of career-enhancing ignorance and incompetence. Does any of it sound even vaguely plausible?

There are lots of clues as to what might really be going on.

Such as a spate of secret flights to Washington by Starmer in 2011, when he was DPP, to meet top US law officials that, against protocol, went unrecorded. What was discussed will never be known because all CPS files related to the flights were, once again, destroyed. However, the meetings are likely to have included discussions, later acted on, to seek Assange’s extradition to the US for political crimes so he could be disappeared into one of its super-max jails.

Or Starmer’s decision in 2017, as a shadow cabinet minister, to secretly join the shadowy, CIA-linked Trilateral Commission without telling the Labour party’s then leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Notably, Lord Mandelson has also enjoyed the rare “privilege” of being invited to join the Commission.

https://twitter.com/xxx/status/1802995177167962521

Or Starmer’s failure to declare to Labour members that his campaign to become Labour leader had been underwritten by prominent pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn.

Secrecy and destruction of records have been a consistent pattern under Starmer. Chinn was also the key funder of the Labour Together think-tank, which failed to declare its funding – and main donors – in violation of Electoral Commission rules, most likely to prevent Labour members knowing that its activities were being bankrolled, and the party captured, by billionaires like Chinn.

Starmer is far more in the loop than he lets on. After all, that is precisely why he is Sir Keir Starmer. For nearly two decades, his job has been to do exactly what the British establishment has demanded of him.

 

Britain former PM shows there’s no price to be paid for engineering mass slaughter in the service of western empire. Which is why those crimes not only continue, but grow in scale

Tony Blair, the man who led Britain into a disastrous and illegal war on Iraq more than 20 years ago based on false information, is still very much a sought-after commentator in the UK media.

His regular political pronouncements are treated as pearls of wisdom; his columns as consequential insights from a globe-striding elder statesman.

Even his leading role on Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, the US president’s panel of autocrats seeking to elbow the United Nations – and international law – off the world stage, appears to have done little to dent his claim to moral authority.

Blair, more than anybody, illustrates the capacity of western leaders – with the help of a complicit establishment media – to rewrite their criminal past and escape accountability in perpetuity.

The former British prime minister’s latest political intervention is a lengthy, and typically repugnant, article published by the Sunday Times newspaper. It effectively blames “the left” for an arson attack last month on four ambulances owned by a Jewish charity in London.

No, Blair hasn’t unearthed any startling new information tying leftwingers to the attack. His article is a pure disinformation – propaganda designed to malign those critical of Israel.

More on that in a moment.

But as a prelude, let us note that there are many terrible things going on in the world right now that might be considered more pressing for Blair to write about than the torching of a handful of ambulances: whether it be a genocide in Gaza – where Israel destroyed not just four ambulances but the enclave’s entire health sector – or an illegal, joint US-Israeli war on Iran that has similarly targeted medical centres and other civilian infrastructure.

Twisted logic

Blair once served as a Middle East envoy to an international body known as the Quartet. In that role, he spent several years shuttling futilely between his eponymous institute in London and Israel and the Palestinian territories.

There are, however, two self-evident reasons why Blair may have been averse to dedicating his latest column to the catastrophes unfolding in the Middle East.

First, because his close allies – the leaders of the US and Israel – are indisputably the ones committing the crimes of genocide and aggression respectively in Gaza and Iran.

And second, because Blair was himself responsible for launching, alongside the US, a war of aggression on Iraq in 2003.

But it is not just that Blair is in no position to moralise on matters of the utmost global importance.

He has made it his primary duty in public life to excuse the West’s supreme crimes – crimes that, were there meaningful accountability for western leaders, would necessitate that he stand trial at the international war crimes court in the Hague.

That is the context for understanding both why Blair penned his column on the arson attack in London and the twisted logic that underpins his argument in that article.

Dirty war

Anyone who has studied Blair’s back-catalogue of opinion pieces will hardly be surprised by the Sunday Times headline: “We must end left’s unholy alliance with the Islamists.”

Or its subhead: “Parts of the left cast Jewish communities as supporters of Israel and Jews become ‘fair game’.”

Although the article ostensibly concerns an arson attack on a Jewish community ambulance service in London, Blair has much larger – carefully veiled – ambitions.

This is his latest manoeuvre in a dirty war to silence and crush Britain’s progressive left – waged by those, like Blair, who duplicitiously claim both to belong to that left and to serve as its natural leaders.

Blair is central to a cabal of so-called Atlanticists who view the world in Manichean terms, as “a clash of civilisations” between a supposedly superior, enlightened Judeo-Christian West, led by the US, and a backward, primitive Islamic East, now, it seems, led de facto by Iran.

Israel is presented as a first line of defence against this dangerous “Muslim” enemy.

Everything for Blair is seen through this racist prism.

He would sound more obviously like some Victorian, pith-helmeted empire-builder were it not for the fact that his fundamental, and fundamentalist, worldview continues to be shared by the entire UK ruling class, including the billionaire-owned media and the main political parties.

And for good reason. A Britain belonging to a “superior” West can openly aid Israel’s genocidal campaign of carpet-bombing and starvation in Gaza, and loan air bases to assist the US in its illegal war of aggression on Iran, and still pretend to itself that this is all being done “defensively”.

Video Link

Christendom is still, apparently, “defending” itself against the rampaging barbarian hordes.

Achilles’ heel

In fact, Blair’s column in the Sunday Times should be seen as another front in a continuing war being waged by British prime minister Keir Starmer – a disciple of Blair – on the Corbynite left.

Their joint aim is to shepherd back into the Atlanticist fold a Labour party that supposedly lost its way under Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn’s crime was to have taken Labour towards internationalism – and the prioritising of human rights for all, not just westerners. That project necessarily entailed treating British Muslims as an integral part of British society, no less than British Jews.

Corbyn’s politics were an ideological assault on – and continue to pose a threat to – the Blair-Starmer worldview.

In other words, Blair’s article is part of a running battle – as the British establishment’s claim to moral authority is steadily eroded by its collusion in Israeli and US crimes – to prevent the progressive left ever reviving its political fortunes.

With the help of the Israel lobby, Blair and his ilk believe they have identified the achilles’ heel of a British left determined to highlight a brutal US-led western imperialism and its inherent hypocrisies.

The goal is to crop out the left’s increasingly persuasive critique of US imperialism and zoom in instead on the left’s parallel criticisms of Israel: its apartheid rule over Palestinians, its ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and its genocidal campaign of destruction in Gaza.

Blair wishes to wave all this away, as if wielding a magic wand, by labelling it as “antisemitism”.

After that move worked so successfully in fatally wounding Corbyn as Labour leader, Blair and Starmer assume the same smear can be repurposed more generally – in this case, to implicate an undefined “left” over the torching of a handful of ambulances.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must have persuaded Donald Trump that a war on Iran would unfold much like the pager attack in Lebanon 18 months ago.

The two militaries would jointly decapitate the leadership in Tehran, and it would crumble just as Hezbollah had collapsed – or so it then seemed – after Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese group’s spiritual leader and military strategist.

If so, Trump bought deeply into this ruse. He assumed that he would be the US president to “remake the Middle East” – a mission his predecessors had baulked at since George W Bush’s dismal failure to achieve the same goal, alongside Israel, more than 20 years earlier.

Netanyahu directed Trump’s gaze to Israel’s supposed “audacious feat” in Lebanon. The US president should have been looking elsewhere: to Israel’s colossal moral and strategic failure in Gaza.

There, Israel spent two years pummelling the tiny coastal enclave into dust, starving the population, and destroying all civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals.

Netanyahu publicly declared that Israel was “eradicating Hamas”, Gaza’s civilian government and its armed resistance movement that had refused for two decades to submit to Israel’s illegal occupation and blockade of the territory.

In truth, as pretty much every legal and human rights expert long ago concluded, what Israel was actually doing was committing genocide – and, in the process, tearing up the rules of war that had governed the period following the Second World War.

But two and a half years into Israel’s destruction of Gaza, Hamas is not only still standing, it is in charge of the ruins.

Israel may have shrunk by some 60 per cent the size of the concentration camp the people of Gaza are locked into, but Hamas is far from vanquished.

Rather, Israel is the one that has retreated to a safe zone, from which it is resuming a war of attrition on Gaza’s survivors.

Surprises in store

When considering whether to launch an illegal war on Iran, Trump should have noted Israel’s complete failure to destroy Hamas after pounding this small territory – the size of the US city of Detroit – from the air for two years.

That failure was all the starker given that Washington had provided Israel with an endless supply of munitions.

Even sending in Israeli ground forces failed to quell Hamas’ resistance. These were the strategic lessons the Trump administration should have learnt.

If Israel could not overwhelm Gaza militarily, why would Washington imagine the task of doing so in Iran would prove any easier?

After all, Iran is 4,500 times larger than Gaza. It has a population, and military, 40 times bigger. And it has a fearsome arsenal of missiles, not Hamas’ homemade rockets.

But more important still, as Trump is now apparently learning to his cost, Iran – unlike Hamas in isolated Gaza – has strategic levers to pull with globe-shattering consequences.

Tehran is matching Washington’s climb up the escalation ladder rung by rung: from hitting US military infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states, and critical civilian infrastructure such as energy grids and desalination plants, to closing the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which much of the world’s oil and energy supplies are transported.

Tehran is now sanctioning the world, depriving it of the fuel needed to turn the wheels of the global economy, in much the same way that the West sanctioned Iran for decades, depriving it of the essentials needed to sustain its domestic economy.

Unlike Hamas, which had to fight from a network of tunnels under the flat, sandy lands of Gaza, Iran has a terrain massively to its military advantage.

Granite cliffs and narrow coves along the Strait of Hormuz provide endless protected sites from which to launch surprise attacks. Vast mountain ranges in the interior offer innumerable hiding places – for the enriched uranium the US and Israel demand Iran hand over, for soldiers, for drone and missile launch sites, and for weapons production plants.

The US and Israel are smashing Iran’s visible military-related infrastructure, but – just as Israel discovered when it invaded Gaza – they have almost no idea what lies out of sight.

They can be sure of one thing, however: Iran, which has been readying for this fight for decades, has plenty of surprises in store should they dare to invade.

No trust in Trump

The main problem for Trump, the US narcissist-in-chief, is that he is no longer in charge of events – beyond a series of soundbites, alternating between aggression and accommodation, that appear only to have enriched his family and friends as oil markets rise and fall on his every utterance.

Trump lost control of the military fight the moment he fell for Netanyahu’s pitch.

He may be commander-in-chief of the strongest military in the world, but he has now found himself unexpectedly in the role of piggy in the middle.

He is largely powerless to bring to an end an illegal war he started. Others now dictate events. Israel, his chief ally in the war, and Iran, his official enemy, hold all the important cards. Trump, despite his bravado, is being dragged along in their tailwind.

He can declare victory, as he has repeatedly sounded close to doing. But, having released the genie from the bottle, there is little he can actually do to bring the fighting to a close.

Unlike the US, Israel and Iran have an investment in keeping the war going for as long as either can endure the pain. Each regime believes – for different reasons – that the struggle between them is existential.

 

Binary thinking in the argument over whether the US or Israel is driving the illegal war on Iran obscures far more than it illuminates. The truth is the dog and the tail are wagging each other

The joint US-Israeli war on Iran has thrust back into the spotlight a divisive debate about whether the dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog. Who is in charge of this war: Israel or the United States?

One side believes Israel lured Trump into a trap from which he cannot extricate himself. The tail is wagging the dog.

The other believes that the US, as the world’s sole military super-power, is the one that writes the geo-strategic script. If Israel acts, it is only because it serves Washington’s interests as well. The dog is wagging the tail.

Certainly, the idea that the tail, the client state of Israel, could be wagging the dog, the military juggernaut that is the US, seems, at best, counter-intuitive.

But then again, there is plenty of evidence that suggests advocates for the tail wagging the dog scenario may have a case.

They can point to the fact that Trump launched this war of choice on Iran despite winning the presidency on an “America First” platform in which he promised: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

His secretary of state, Marco Rubio, openly stated that the administration was rushed into war, finding itself apparently unable to restrain Israel from attacking Iran.

Jonathan Kent, Trump’s top counter-terrorism official, noted in his resignation letter that the administration “started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.

Addressing the Israeli parliament last October, Trump appeared to confess to being under the thumb of the Israel lobby. As he praised himself for moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the illegally occupied city of Jerusalem, he repeatedly pointed to his most influential donor, the Israeli-American billionaire Miriam Adelson, before observing: “I actually asked her once, I said, ‘So, Miriam, I know you love Israel. What do you love more, the United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That means, that might mean, Israel, I must say.”

https://twitter.com/xxx/status/1977743336350830671

A video from 2001 shows Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, caught secretly on camera, telling a group of settlers: “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”

Former US President Barack Obama, who ran up against Netanyahu repeatedly as Obama tried and failed to limit the expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements, thought the same. In his 2020 autobiography, he wrote that the Israel lobby insisted that “there should be ‘no daylight’ between the US and Israeli governments, even when Israel took actions that were contrary to US policy.”

Any politician who disobeyed “risked being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election”.

Messy arrangement

But any rigid, binary way of framing the relationship between the US and Israel obscures more than it illuminates.

I addressed this issue in my 2008 book on Israeli foreign policy, titled Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iran, Iraq and the Plan to Remake the Middle East. My conclusion then, as now, was that the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv was better understood in different terms: as the dog and the tail wagging each other.

What does that mean?

Israel is Washington’s most favoured client state. It must, therefore, operate within the “security” parameters for the Middle East laid down by the US.

In fact, part of Israel’s job – the reason it is such an important client state – is because it has, until now, been able to enforce those parameters on others in the region.

But the story is more complicated than that.

At the same time, Israel seeks to maximise its ability to influence those parameters in its own interests, chiefly by shaping military, political and cultural discourse in the United States, through the many levers available to it.

Zionist lobbies, both Jewish and Christian, mobilise large numbers of ordinary people to support whatever Israel claims to be in both its and US interests.

Mega-donors like Adelson use their wealth to cajole and intimidate US politicians.

Think-tanks with murky funding write legislation on Israel’s behalf that US politicians wave through.

Legal organisations, again with opaque funding, weaponise the law to silence and bankrupt.

And media owners, all too often in Israel’s camp, mould the public mood to stigmatise as “antisemitism” anything that opposes Israeli excesses.

This makes for a very messy arrangement.

Disappearing Palestinians

The trouble with the idea that the US simply dictates to Israel – rather than that the two are constantly bargaining over what constitutes their shared interests – becomes apparent the moment we consider the two-and-a-half-year genocide in Gaza.

Israel has long had a fervent desire to disappear the Palestinians, whether through ethnic cleansing or genocide.

It wants the whole of historic Palestine, and the Palestinians are an obstacle to the realisation of that goal. Should the opportunity arise, Israel is also keen to secure a Greater Israel that requires grabbing and annexing substantial territory from neighbours, particularly Lebanon and Syria – as it is doing again right now.

After the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, Israel seized on the chance to renew in earnest the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians it began in 1948, at the state’s founding.

It carpet-bombed Gaza, creating a “humanitarian crisis”, to force Egypt to open the floodgates into Sinai, where it hoped to drive the enclave’s population. Cairo refused. As a result, Israel tried to increase the pressure by slaughtering and starving the people of Gaza. In legal terms, that constituted genocide.

But the idea that the US was deeply invested in Israel carrying out a genocide in Gaza, or directed that genocide, or had any particular interest in the genocide taking place, is hard to sustain.

Washington – first under Biden, then under Trump – gave Israel cover to carry out the mass slaughter of the Palestinian population, and armed and financed the genocide. But that is very different from it having a geostrategic interest in the mass slaughter.

Rather, the US is and always has been largely indifferent as to the fate of the Palestinians, so long as they are contained. They can be locked up permanently in occupation prisons. Or ethnically cleansed to Sinai and Jordan. Or given a pretend statelet under a compliant dictator like Mahmoud Abbas. Or exterminated.

The US will bankroll whichever option Israel believes best serves its interests – so long as that “solution” can be sold by pro-Israel lobbies to western publics as a legitimate “response” to Palestinian “terrorism”.

 

Trump isn’t the first US president tempted by an Israeli plan to destroy Iran and thereby “remake the Middle East”, as this extract from my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations sets out

In 2008, Pluto Press published my book “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to remake the Middle East”. It was an attempt to explain how Israel had persuaded a group of hawkish allies in Washington – known as the neoconservatives (or neocons for short) – to work from within the administration of George W Bush to support a long-standing Israeli ambition to Balkanise the Middle East: that is, to use force to collapse the regimes there, most especially those resistant to Israel’s military domination of the region. The neocons started in earnest with Iraq in 2003, and then planned to move on to Lebanon, Syria and end in Iran.

The benefits for Israel were manifold. First, regime collapse would weaken Muslim majorities, allowing Israel to better manipulate existing tensions between Sunni and Shia communities; to more easily forge alliances with other minorities such as the Druze, Christians and Kurds that would bolster Israel’s strategic position; and to stymie any revival of a unifying Arab nationalism that had been so evident during the 1950s and 1960s.

Second, failed states, riven by permanent civil war, would leave Israel free to dominate the region militarily and secure its privileged alliance with Washington.

Third, at the time, Israel and the neocons were keen to break up Saudi Arabia’s control of the oil cartel Opec and thereby undermine Saudi influence in Washington, as well as its ability to finance Islamic extremism and Palestinian resistance. (These concerns were later superseded as a new broom in Riyadh, in the shape of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, abandoned the Palestinian cause and moved ever close to formal normalisation with Israel under the Abraham Accords.)

Fourth, with the region in chaos, Israel would be free to complete the expulsion of the Palestinian people from what was left of their homeland.

As my book documents, the 2003 Iraq invasion was an unmitigated disaster; Hizbullah gave Israel a bloody nose when it tried to invade south Lebanon in 2006; as a result, the expansion of the war to Syria had to be abandoned, much to the evident annoyance of the neocons in the Bush administration; and the ultimate goal of destroying Iran had to be put on hold.

Eighteen years is a long time in geopolitics. But I am publishing below an extended extract from my book’s second chapter, The Long Campaign Against Iran, because it offers a detailed record of how Israel and its neocon allies in the Bush administration made the same case for attacking Iran as they do now – and came very close to getting their way. They viewed a war on Iran as the second phase of the 2003 attack on Iraq. They believed the two came as a package. Attacking one only would strengthen the other. Which is exactly what happened after Israel and the neocons engineered regime collapse in Iraq but were unable to continue on to Iran.

Twenty years on, most of the coverage of the current US-Israeli war on Iran tends to make two mistaken assumptions. First, that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the main driver, from Israel’s side, of plans to attack Iran. In fact, as this chapter and the previous one on Iraq demonstrates, the idea was widely shared in Israel’s military and political establishments. And second, that Donald Trump was the first US president dumb enough to fall into the trap laid by Israel – or at least by Trump’s pro-Israel donors. Though there is some truth to this, it is also too simplistic. All the evidence suggests that the idea of attacking Iran – sold as “remaking the Middle East” – gained a foothold in the imaginations of US politicians and officials, including in the Pentagon, more than two decades ago.

Former Nato commander General Wesley Clark told us as much, when he recounted in 2007 that during a visit to the Pentagon he had been told of a plan, in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001, for the US military to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and in Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off in Iran.”

Seen from this perspective, it looks as if the US and Israel have been jointly plotting this course ever since. After the failed first attempt, during Bush’s administration, they rethought their strategy and held off until they believed all the pieces were in place. A genocide in Gaza had Hamas pinned down in the enclave. Hizbullah was largely beaten into submission in Lebanon. And the Syrian state was hollowed out, with the regime of Bashar Assad falling in 2024, after years of relentless scheming – much of it part of Operation Timber Sycamore – from the US, Israel and Britain.

The new Syrian president and former al-Qaeda leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, struggling to hold the country together as sectarian grievances surfaced, and deprived of anything resembling a national military following repeated Israeli attacks, is now effectively a US client.

In a prophetic quote from early 2005, Bush’s Vice-President, Dick Cheney, declared: ‘Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.’

The “mess”, of course, now extends far beyond problems of diplomacy.


Chapter Two: The Long Campaign Against Iran

Although the Bush Administration and the neocons had focused their early attention [after 9/11] on the supposed threat posed by Iraq, there are strong grounds for suspecting that, though Israel was pleased to see the Iraqi regime overthrown, Iran was regarded as the more pressing danger. Israel’s obsession with Iran had developed at least a decade earlier as Tehran grew stronger in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War and the effective emasculation of Iraq from the combined effect of Operation Desert Storm, the crippling sanctions regime and the imposition of no-fly zones. Tehran, in contrast, had begun a slow process of economic and military recovery after the exhausting war with Baghdad [in the 1980s]; was nurturing Israel’s main foe in Lebanon, Hizbullah; had an enduring alliance with Syria, Israel’s relatively strong and recalcitrant neighbour; and was suspected of assisting Hamas in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israel had started a prolonged propaganda campaign against Iran from the early 1990s that strongly echoed the climate being manufactured in the US more than a decade later. Then, as now, Iran was said to be only years or months away from developing nuclear weapons, and determined to destroy not only Israel but the whole world. In reality, Iran was quite open in the early 1990s about trying to find a European partner to help it develop a civilian nuclear energy programme, as it was entitled to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, under US pressure, European states refused to cooperate.

 

The High Court’s preliminary ruling this week in the libel case brought by the BBC’s online Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, against journalist Owen Jones is highly significant. It doesn’t settle the case – in fact, Berg’s lawyers say they intend to continue to a full hearing – but it does strike a blow against the Israel lobby’s years-long lawfare campaign to crush any meaningful criticism of Israel.

Berg is suing Jones for publishing an article that described “civil war” at the BBC – largely between executives and managers, on one side, and journalists on the other – over the state broadcaster’s efforts to obscure the criminal nature of Israeli attacks on Gaza.

The United Nations, international human rights organisations, Israeli human rights groups, and leading Holocaust scholars have all agreed that events in Gaza amount to a genocide. The western media, and most visibly the BBC, have all but banned the word “genocide” from their coverage. That has doubtless been a great comfort to both the Israeli and British governments, the latter having served as an active partner in the Gaza genocide.

This week’s ruling means that, should Berg continue the case, Jones will have to defend his article as an expression of his “honest opinion” – based on the evidence supplied by BBC insiders – about Berg’s role in the corporation’s coverage of Gaza.

Berg and his lawyers had hoped to force Jones to defend the article on the basis it was a “statement of fact”.

This distinction is crucial. Had the judge agreed with Berg’s team, responsibility would have fallen on Jones to prove what amounts to intent by Berg to skew BBC coverage – something that, in the absence of internal documents revealing what was being said behind closed doors – would have been nigh impossible.

Now the onus falls on Berg to show not only that Jones’ opinion was groundless but that Jones’ intent was to unfairly malign him. This time Berg and his lawyers won’t be able to rely simply on the usual antisemitism smears. They will actually have to produce evidence that Jones was acting in bad faith.

Tall order

In other words, Berg’s lawyers will need to show that Jones wrote the article out of malevolence towards Berg (and, doubtless his legal team would love to argue, towards Jews too) rather than the reality – that Jones wrote the article, first, because he takes seriously the duty of journalists, mostly honoured in the breach, to hold the powerful to account; and, second, because he believes, unlike Israel’s apologists, that war crimes and genocide are wrong, whoever the perpetrator and whoever the victim.

That is going to be quite a tall order for Berg’s team. In normal circumstances, lawyers would probably advise him to withdraw.

But notably, Berg did not choose normal defamation lawyers. He opted for Patron Law, led by Mark Lewis, a British-Israeli lawyer who moved to Israel in 2018 saying that, in his view, Britain and Europe were “finished” and that Israel was the only safe place for Jews.

Lewis is the former director of a highly controversial pro-Israel group, UK Lawyers for Israel, that is known for using legal threats to silence critics of Israel. His wife is the national director of Likud-Herut UK, effectively the British branch of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rabidly rightwing Zionist party.

Netanyahu himself, of course, is a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, which is seeking his arrest for crimes against humanity in Gaza.

One might have imagined that the BBC would have been quietly pressuring Berg to withdraw from the case from the outset, because it is drawing even more attention both to the scandalous failings by the BBC to properly cover Israeli crimes and give voice to the experiences of Palestinians facing genocide, and to the corporation’s refusal to listen to large-scale unrest among staff at those failings.

Berg may be fighting the court case but it is really the BBC in the dock – for employing someone like Berg as online Middle East editor when the BBC claims that not only does it strive to be objective, but it strives to be seen to be objective.

The Middle East is probably the most sensitive region the BBC covers. And yet as Jones and BBC staff make clear in the article, Berg – at a personal and ideological level – has done little to hide his own sympathies. He has utterly failed to present himself as objective.

The furore Berg has provoked among staff, and the reputational damage Jones’ article has caused the BBC, should have ensured that, at a minimum, the online editor was moved to another position. More properly, an internal inquiry should have been set up to investigate staff complaints.

But in fact, quite the opposite has happened. BBC executives have not only rallied to Berg’s side, suggesting that critics are being antisemitic. They also appear to be fine with him further airing the corporation’s dirty linen in a very public trial.

Extraordinarily, the BBC appears to have been so hands-off regarding Berg’s libel case that he has felt emboldened to hire a contentious firm like Patron Law to act as his legal representative.

‘Headless chickens’

All of which is making Jones’ case for him. Berg appears to have been protected from any repercussions at the BBC because his publicly partisan views on Israel and Palestine were exactly what BBC executives were looking for.

We can speculate why. In their 2009 book More Bad News From Israel, academics Greg Philo and Mike Berry report a senior BBC news editor telling them: “We wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis.”

A 2012 article in the London Evening Standard described BBC executives – the people who appointed Berg to the post of online Middle East editor a few months later – as in a state of permanent terror about potential complaints from Israel.

A BBC insider told the paper: “To describe them as like headless chickens running all over the place would be to convey an impression of too much order and cohesion. They are cowering in corners. The fear is palpable.”

Most likely Berg was hired for the job because BBC executives were confident that his own take on events in the Middle East would largely keep “the Israelis” happy. The extent to which, in the process, he would infuriate journalists around him was considered of much less significance.

Video Link

Jones’ article, The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza, published by Drop Site News last year, documents the ways Berg’s early journalistic work may have reassured them.

He started his career at US Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Speaking about that period, he says he was “absolutely thrilled” on later learning that the outlet was a front for the CIA.

 
The embers of resistance – in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen - have not been snuffed out. With the attack on Iran,...

It is near impossible to make sense – at least from the justifications on offer – of what US President Donald Trump really hopes to achieve with his and Israel‘s blatantly illegal war of aggression on Iran.

Is it to destroy an Iranian nuclear weapons programme for which there has never been any tangible evidence, and which Trump claimed just a few months ago to have “completely and totally obliterated” in an earlier lawbreaking attack?

Or is it intended to force Tehran back to negotiations on its nuclear energy enrichment programme that were brought prematurely to an end when the US launched its unprovoked attack – talks, we should note, that were made necessary because in 2018, during his first term, Trump tore up the original deal with Iran?

Or is the war supposed to browbeat Iran into greater flexibility, even though Trump blew up the talks at the very moment Oman, the chief mediator, insisted that Tehran had capitulated on almost every one of Washington’s onerous demands and that a deal was “within our reach“?

Or are the air strikes designed to “liberate” Iranians, even though the early victims included at least 165 civilians in a girls’ school, most of them children aged between 7 and 12?

Or is the aim to pressure Iran to give up its ballistic missiles – the only deterrence it has against attack, and which would leave it utterly defenceless against US and Israeli malevolent designs?

Or did Washington believe Tehran was about to strike first, even though Pentagon officials have confided to congressional staff that there was zero intelligence an attack was about to happen?

Or is the goal to decapitate the Iranian regime, as the strikes have already achieved with the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei? If so, to what purpose, given that Khamenei was so opposed to an Iranian nuclear bomb that he issued a religious edict, a fatwa, against its development?

Might Khamenei’s successor – having seen how utterly untrustworthy the US and Israel are, how they operate as rogue states unconstrained by international law – now decide that developing a nuclear bomb is an absolute priority to protect Iran’s sovereignty?

No clear rationale

There is no clear rationale from Washington because the author of this attack is not to be found in either the White House or the Pentagon. This plan was cooked up in Tel Aviv decades ago.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, admitted as much on Sunday. He gloated: “This combined effort allows us to do what I have hoped to achieve for 40 years: to crush the regime of terror completely. That’s my promise and this is what is going to happen.”

Those four decades, let us note, were also the timeframe for an endless series of warnings from Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that Tehran was only months away from developing a nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu has been peddling this same urgent, nonsensical pretext for attacking Iran all that time. For 40 years, each year has been proclaimed the very last opportunity to stop the “mad mullahs” from obtaining a bomb – a bomb that never materialised.

And all the while, Israel’s own arsenal of nuclear weapons, undeclared and therefore unmonitored, has been an open secret.

Europe helped Israel develop its bomb, while the US turned a blind eye, even as Israeli leaders espoused a suicidal doctrine known as the “Samson Option“, which posited that Israel would rather detonate its nuclear arsenal than suffer a conventional military defeat.

The Samson Option implicitly rejects the idea that any other state in the Middle East can be allowed to acquire a bomb and thereby level the military playing field with Israel.

It is that very premise that, for decades, has guided Israeli policy towards Tehran. Not because Iran has shown an inclination to develop a weapon. Nor because its supposedly “mad mullahs” would be foolish enough to fire them at Israel were they ever to acquire them.

No, it was for other reasons. Because Iran is the largest and most unified state in the region, one with a rich history, a strong cultural identity and a formidable intellectual tradition. Because Iran has repeatedly shown itself – whether under secular or religious leaders – unwilling to submit to western, and Israeli, colonial domination.

And because it is looked to as a source of authority and leadership by Shia religious communities in neighbouring countries – Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen – that have a history of similarly refusing to bow to Israeli hegemony.

Israel’s fear was that, were Iran to follow North Korea and acquire a nuclear weapon, Israel would be finished as the West’s most useful militarised client state in the oil-rich Middle East.

Stripped of its ability to terrorise its neighbours, stoke sectarian division and help project US imperial power into the region, Israel would lose its rationale. It would become the ultimate white elephant.

Israeli leaders – grown fat on endless military subsidies paid for by US taxpayers and given licence to plunder the Palestinians’ resources – were never going to willingly step off their gravy train.

Which is why Iran has rarely been out of Israel’s sights.

‘Birth pangs’

The extent of Israel’s extraordinary deception over the case for war on Iran can be gauged by comparing it to the hoax perpetrated by the George W Bush administration in launching its invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Iraq was another strong military state – if one more inherently fragile because of its deep sectarian and ethnic divisions – that Israel feared could develop a nuclear capacity that would wreck its top-dog status.

In the build-up to this illegal war – again cheered on by Israel – Bush claimed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had large, secret stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that predated the introduction in 1991 of a United Nations weapons inspection regime.

 
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism