William Hague and Iran
19 Feb 2012 Leave a Comment
Iran and the Iranian regime’s desire for nuclear weapons is a thorny issue for those of us of a vaguely left-wing disposition.
On the one hand we can’t help but be suspicious of any American, Israeli and British government sabre-rattling in the region. They only wish to get rid of a regime that has perversely been the chief beneficiary of the disastrous war in Iraq.
But on the other hand the Iranian regime is simply foul and butchered the left in its thousands in the years after they took power. Supporting Khamenei and Ahmedinejad in the name of “anti-imperialism” is brainless in the extreme.
On the one hand a world free of nuclear weapons would be lovely and it would be very nice if Iran wasn’t seeking to build one.
But on the other you can hardly blame them for doing so, and surely they wouldn’t ever be mad enough to use them first.
Israel, American and Britain have them too, so on what consistent grounds would they deny them to anyone else? The constant rumours of an impending Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites seem motivated more by domestic political opportunism rather than any genuine fear of an Iranian nuclear strike if they developed the weapons and a delivery system.
If all the media reports are to be believed then Israeli is planning a pre-emptive strike in the autumn. There is a feeling in the air that we are now moving in the direction. The Western rhetoric is being ratcheted up and the economic and diplomatic screws gradually tightened on Tehran.
While I am not inclined to think that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would lead to global chaos, as some doom-mongers are predicting, it would surely have pretty grave regional consequences and would surely be counterproductive if the real long-term aim is a nuclear-free Iran and further democracy in the region. An Israeli/US bombing would probably only set Tehran’s nuclear programme back a couple of years and the Iranian regime’s determination to get a nuclear weapon would surely redouble following an attack. Having the ability to strike back with devastating effect would surely deter Israel from anything similar in future……
One gets the feeling that much of the posturing from the Israeli government is domestic political politicking rather than genuine fear of a nuclear-armed Iran. Netanyahu’s apocalyptic language is more a product of his fanatical neoconservatism than any facts on the ground. I simply don’t accept that a nuclear-armed Iran poses more of a threat to Israeli security than a non-nuclear Iran. If Tehran launched a nuclear attack on Israel they would be signing their own death warrant.
The basic irrationality and likely consequences of military action are leading many in the Israeli defence and security establishment to oppose an attack. Some quite heavyweight former Israeli military figures have said that they think the exercise would be foolish.
Netanyahu and much of the Israeli political class on the other hand seem determined to launch an attack at some point, and the final decision lies with them.
Here in the West, governments are keen to avoid taking a clear stand for or against bombing. William Hague’s intervention the other day was belligerent in its language about the Iranian government, whilst warning against a rush into conflict, but lacked anything concrete. He is keeping his options open.
That said the language Hague used was extremely emotive. He talks about a ‘new Cold War’ and arms race in the Middle East if Iran develops nuclear weapons. I’m not sure if the facts actually bear this out, as countries that have nuclear weapons have been notoriously reluctant to use them, thankfully, and I don’t think the Iranian regime would be different. They are extremely obnoxious but they aren’t suicidal.
There is also a slight hint of the colonial mentality running through Hague’s comments too. Surely these mad Arabs can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons…… He is worried about nuclear proliferation in the region. Of course it is worrying. But surely then he should be also directing his criticism at Israel and their large nuclear arsenal? Is that really helping to keep the peace and deter their neighbours from seeking similar weaponry?
And is the belligerent language, sanctions, and likely military action really going to dissuade Iran from seeking to develop the technology that would probably guarantee their immunity from future attack?
In the US there is considerable public and administration support for any possible Israeli strike, and many sections of the Obama administration, whilst preferring the use of sanctions in the short term, seem to have accepted that they aren’t ‘working’ and that the Israelis will launch an attack at some point anyway. Naturally Obama is reluctant, especially in an election year, to unambiguously demand that the Israelis refrain from such a course even though he could easily stop them if he was so inclined.
Even so, senior American officials are warning against precipitate action without ruling it out in the future. Whether that will deter Netanyahu and the Israeli hawks is an open question. On past evidence probably not. The Likud government may act independently and present the action to the Americans as a fait accompli.
Clearly sanctions, as per usual, aren’t having any positive impact on the process. As this excellent article demonstrates (along with a very well-informed general analysis of the situation) the attempt at an economic blockade is effectively shoring up support for a regime that would otherwise probably be in serious trouble right now.
The American/British/Israeli long-term strategy is about regime change, and the replacement regime they have in mind isn’t going to be one that acts in the interests or ordinary Iranians. That’s why it is key, in my humble opinion, to oppose military action, sanctions and the barbaric rule of the Ayatollahs. The Iranians can and will settle matters with their own government in due course as the position of the Iranian government is extremely shaky at best (the Iranian economy would probably be struggling even without sanctions) and only benefits from a belligerent external enemy that they can rally the Iranian people against. The Ayatollahs and Likud, for all the abuse they direct at each other, actually need their ‘enemies’ as without them much of their raison d’être would disappear.
Recent Comments