Blair and Iran

I never really liked Blair. There was always something a little too smug about him. As if he knew he was right. Of course he did know he was right, and there lies the problem. Too sure of himself by far. Well his autobiography is out now and, with the limelight cast upon him once more, Blair has told an assembled audience that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear capacity. He knows for a fact that Iran cannot be trusted with a nuclear arsenal.

Now I am no fan of the Iranian regime (their human rights record is appalling), but does anyone else think that this ‘Tehran Threat To World Peace’ thing is getting a bit old? At the very least Blair and the rest of the neo-cons are letting some kind of prejudice cloud their judgement on this issue. Say a prejudice to see all issues from a balcony in Tel Aviv. North Korea now has nuclear capacity (which Iran does not) and has threatened to use that arsenal (Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty). From a strategic point of view North Korea has a much greater destabilising effect on its geo-political region that Iran. From a human rights perspective the regime in Pyongyang is the last Stalinist state; despite the executions Tehran isn’t nearly as bad. In other words if we were playing ‘Top Trumps-Axis of Evil Edition’ North Korea would be the winning card. And yet...

And yet Blair and every other high ranking Western diplomat views Iran as a greater threat to the status quo. Why? Principally, I more than suspect, because Israel holds greater influence in Western capitals that its economic clout, military prowess or its population density would naturally allow. When faced with the threat of a nation in its geo-political orbit which could challenge its monopoly on nuclear warheads, Israel’s highly effective lobbying machine spurts into action. Iran is the focus of Western scorn for the principle reason that Japan/South Korea cannot match the Israeli PR machine. I think it is high time that diplomatic circles began to consider situations in their global, not purely Israeli, context.

Israel and the Double Standard

Israel has recently committed a new transgression against the international community by attacking a civilian boat in international waters. The boat was full of protesters intent in braking the siege on Gaza, and so was fair game in the minds of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). More information can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships

At the moment Israel is only allowing its version of events to be heard (journalists having been blocked from achieving full access to the injured protesters), but even if the IDF prove to be entirely within their rights on this matter (that would be a first) the international reaction highlights a double standard in relations. Imagine that it had been Iran, or Hamas, or Saudi Arabia, or Cuba, or Russia, or any other country that you care to think about had performed the same action that the IDF has recently pulled off. What would be the international reaction? Almost certain condemnation followed by swift diplomatic action and perhaps even sanctions. However, when Israel attacks civilians in international waters the Obama administration is ‘working to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy’. Similarly weak and non-offensive remarks can be heard in most Western Foreign Offices. Even although 9 people have been killed by an aggressive military not in its own waters the governments of ‘the West’ are paralysed with an indecision which they simply do not show to any other nation on earth-or at least not to the same level. Are victims of Israeli bullets any less dead? Are Israeli wars any less illegal (this is illegal by Israeli as well as international law)? Of course not. European and American governments must end the double standards: once Israel is treated like any other nation a proper peace process can begin.