War-war is sometimes preferable to jaw-jaw. That's a truth the BBC and Trump don't get
This week, Sir Keir Starmer called for 'negotiation to resolve the crisis ' of Israel/Iraq. Lyse Doucet, the BBC's chief international correspondent, pleaded on Thursday that 'Iran was negotiating' before Israel's raids, so there was 'a narrow sliver of hope' of further talks, but 'unfortunately, it does come down to President Trump.' Yet if negotiations could resolve everything, Iran would never have got near developing the Bomb.
For its entire, almost half-century existence, the Islamic Republic of Iran has publicly preached and frequently practised war-war against (in descending order of severity) Israel, the United States and Britain. It has used different forms of violent aggression – hostage-taking, the murder of dissidents, acts of terrorism, the funding, training and directing of proxy armies (above all, Hezbollah) - while engaging in just enough jaw-jaw to keep us at bay.
A comparable phenomenon, abused for comparable purposes, was the 'Minsk process' of talks between Russia, France and Germany (on behalf of the OSCE), and Ukraine. Vladimir Putin exploited this talkathon to advance his war against Ukraine until, in 2022, he invaded, repudiating the process. Jaw-Jaw gave cover to war-war.
In this century, Iran sought more war-war. It began a nuclear programme, eventually including uranium enrichment whose only purpose is to make nuclear weapons. Trying to contain this, Western powers, led by the United States, jaw-jawed with Iran, producing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). The Joint bit hampered the Action bit and so first-term Trump closed it down, but new negotiations later began.
As the International Atomic Energy Agency recently confirmed, Iran went ahead with enrichment anyway. Without Israel's recent intervention, Iran would not have been seriously punished. By now, it might even have nuclear bombs ready to go.
Last year, Iran went beyond covert measures and directly bombed Israel on two occasions. Again, Western condemnation was muted; today, although Israeli courage and professionalism have decapitated so many heads of the Hydra, Western diplomacy still seems determined to let those heads regrow.
Since Thursday, it has even seemed possible that Donald Trump, exercising his jaw-jaw muscles, might revert to his 'Give me the Nobel Peace Prize' mode and offer Iran a positively last chance to avoid the destruction of its Bomb.
The reason why all this jaw-jaw has been so unsatisfactory is not solely because Iran has such a horrible regime. Sometimes, extremists do change their minds or can be persuaded their aggression is unprofitable. Such a claim is often made, for example, about the IRA and the Belfast Agreement (although personally, I have my doubts). But no jaw-jaw can work without trust.
In decade after decade, the ayatollahs have proved they cannot be trusted. They love fooling the West. They will be rejoicing today that so many of our legal experts, diplomats and politicians have already managed to forget the countless examples of Iranian aggression against Israel and speak of Israeli bombing as 'unprovoked'.
Currently, great efforts by experts in the West are trying to show that US (or British) military support for Israel's attack on Iran would be illegal, although in fact Israel's claim of self-defence, and our consequent right to support that self-defence, is legally strong.
If, as President Trump now hints, he backs off, the Iranian theocrats will not respect him or America. They will simply believe more fervently that Allah is on their side. Rather than thanking Americans as doves, they will mock them as chickens.
Here in Britain, rhetorically at least, the Government is belatedly focussing on national security. It is increasing defence spending (although much of this involves reclassification rather than more money). But all the time, the instincts of Sir Keir Starmer, human rights lawyer, pull the wrong way.
Sir Keir's Attorney-general and old legal chum, Lord Hermer, enthusiastically amplifies his master's voice, having from the start committed the Government to what critics call 'hyper-legalism' – a controlling role for lawyers in all relevant aspects of domestic, defence and foreign policy.
The classic, and now alarmingly relevant, example is the Chagos Islands deal. Before he was in office, Lord Hermer, as a lawyer, attacked British rule in the islands. As Attorney-General, he is the strongest advocate of Britain handing the islands over to Mauritius and paying for the privilege. That damaging agreement has now been made, though not yet ratified.
Lord Hermer is further arguing behind the scenes in Whitehall that, under the Chagos deal, Britain should prevent the United States from sending its bunker-busting bombers from the Diego Garcia base there which we lent them. He seems to think Britain would be complicit in 'illegal war' if it helped its main ally.
A new paper from the think-tank Policy Exchange warns that the Chagos Islands agreement could be used against us and, by extension, against America, by Mauritius, the country to which we are ceding the islands. Mauritius has unhealthily close relations with China, a major supporter of Iran. It could claim that the treaty's obligation to 'expeditiously inform' it, means that we could be forced to disclose in advance missions flown from Diego Garcia. It would be entitled to take 'counter measures' against us if we did not comply.
It rather looks as if President Trump forgot his own 'America First' policy when he let Britain's Chagos deal go through without complaint. The Starmer/Hermer legalistic mindset is a severe impediment to the alliances which help keep the world safe. You cannot imagine the Attlee Labour government of 1945, the first to acquire our atomic bomb, getting Britain into such a tangle.
Hyper-legalism is characteristic of the Left, but if that were the only problem the West faces, it would be containable. The other alarming factor is Trump. His oft-proclaimed love of a deal is his buccaneering, Right-wing version of jaw-jaw. Could they but see it, those Maga men have plenty in common with the prissy diplomats, international lawyers and Lyse Doucets of this world, shunning the power of the West.
Like those diplomats, lawyers and Doucets, but with a lot more swagger, Mr Trump believes that talking (especially talking by him) has a sort of automatic magic which can melt cold-hearted dictators and bring peace and prosperity. Unlike same, he envisages it not as part of a global legal order but as one big guy (him) shaking hands with another – and winning.
In these pages on Tuesday, I 'half-satirically', floated the idea that a peace deal between Israel and Iran could now come from President Putin, 'slyly endorsed by President Trump'.
Do not rule out this possibility. This week, Putin – who happily buys Iranian drones to kill Ukrainians – held his version of Davos, in St Petersburg, surrounded by his satraps. There he repeated his offer to mediate in the war. Trump's right-hand man, Steve Witkoff, a Putin groupie, is talking to him.
It would suit Mr Trump's version of jaw-jaw if he and Putin could club together to bring 'peace' to the Middle East and in the process – why not? – to Ukraine, dividing a large part of the world between them. If you like that sort of peace, dear reader, we must part company. The peace of the world needs the collapse of this Iranian regime.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Hezbollah threatens to restart firing missiles at Israel if it intensifies operations in Lebanon
The leader of Lebanon 's Hezbollah warned Tuesday that if Israel intensifies its military operations against his group, the Iran -backed armed faction will resume firing missiles toward Israel. Naim Kassem's comments came as Lebanon's Cabinet was meeting to discuss Hezbollah 's disarmament. Beirut is under U.S. pressure to disarm the group that recently fought a 14-month war with Israel and was left gravely weakened, with many of its political and military leaders dead. Since the war ended in November with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire, Hezbollah officials have said the group will not discuss its disarmament until Israel withdraws from five hills it controls inside Lebanon and stops almost daily airstrikes that have killed or wounded hundreds of people, most of them Hezbollah members. Israel has accused Hezbollah of trying to rebuild its military capabilities. Israel's military has said the five locations in Lebanon provide vantage points or are located across from communities in northern Israel, where about 60,000 Israelis were displaced during the war. Since the ceasefire, Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for one attack on a disputed area along the border. In a televised speech Tuesday, Kassem said Hezbollah rejects any timetable to hand over its weapons. 'Israel's interest is not to widen the aggression because if they expand, the resistance will defend, the army will defend and the people will defend,' Kassem said. 'This defense will lead to the fall of missiles inside Israel.' Since the war ended, Hezbollah has withdrawn most of its fighters and weapons from the area along the border with Israel south of the Litani river. Last week, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterated calls for Hezbollah to give up its weapons, angering the group's leadership. The ceasefire agreement left vague how Hezbollah's weapons and military facilities north of the Litani river should be treated, saying Lebanese authorities should dismantle unauthorized facilities starting with the area south of the river. Hezbollah maintains the deal only covers the area south of the Litani, while Israel and the U.S. say it mandates disarmament of the group throughout Lebanon. Kassem said Hezbollah rejects a government vote over its weapons, saying such a decision should be unanimously backed by all Lebanese. "No one can deprive Lebanon of its force to protect its sovereignty,' Kassem said. Hezbollah's weapons are a divisive issue among Lebanese, with some groups calling for its disarmament. The Israel-Hezbollah war started a day after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas -led attack against Israel from Gaza. It left more than 4,000 people dead and caused damage worth $11 billion.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
What to know as Israel considers reoccupying Gaza in what would be a major escalation of the war
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering ordering the full reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, according to Israeli media, a move that would draw fierce opposition internationally and within Israel. It would mark a stunning escalation of the nearly 22-month war in the territory that has already been largely destroyed and where experts say famine is unfolding. It would put the lives of countless Palestinians and about 20 living hostages at risk, and deepen Israel's already stark international isolation. It would also face fierce opposition within Israel: Families of the hostages would consider it a virtual death sentence, and much of the security establishment is also reportedly opposed to an open-ended occupation that would bog down and further strain the army after nearly two years of regional wars. The threat to reoccupy Gaza could be a negotiating tactic aimed at pressuring Hamas after talks mediated by the United States, Egypt and Qatar appeared to have broken down last month. Or it could be aimed at shoring up support from Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners. His governing allies have long called for escalating the war, taking over Gaza, relocating much of its population through what they refer to as voluntary emigration and reestablishing Jewish settlements that were dismantled when Israel withdrew in 2005. Whether they prevail will likely depend on the one person with leverage over Israel — U.S. President Donald Trump, who has not yet weighed in. Ground operations in the most densely populated areas To take full control of Gaza, Israel would need to launch ground operations in the last areas of the territory that haven't been flattened and where most of Gaza's 2 million Palestinians have sought refuge. That would mean going into the central city of Deir al-Balah and Muwasi, a so-called humanitarian zone where hundreds of thousands of people live in squalid tent camps along the coast. Such operations would force another wave of mass displacement and further disrupt aid deliveries as the U.N. agencies and humanitarian organizations are already struggling to avert famine. Israel already controls around 75% of the territory, which has been declared a buffer zone or placed under evacuation orders. With Israel also largely sealing Gaza's borders, it's unclear where civilians would go. It would also pose a major risk for the remaining 20 or so living hostages, likely held in tunnels or other secret locations. Hamas is believed to have ordered its guards to kill captives if Israeli forces approach. Hamas-led militants abducted 251 hostages in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that ignited the war and killed around 1,200 people that day, mostly civilians. They are still holding 50 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive, and recent videos have shown emaciated captives pleading for their lives. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were civilians or combatants. The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government and run by medical professionals, is seen by the United Nations and other experts as the most reliable source on casualties. Israel disputes its toll but has not provided its own. International outrage and further isolation Israel's wartime conduct has shocked much of the international community, and prompted even close Western allies to call for an end to the war and to take steps to recognize Palestinian statehood. The International Court of Justice is considering allegations of genocide, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a method of war. Israel has rejected the allegations and accused those making them of antisemitic 'blood libel." It says it has taken every effort to avoid harming civilians and blames Hamas for their deaths because the militants are deeply entrenched in heavily populated areas. Israel has said it will keep fighting until all the hostages are returned, Hamas is defeated or disarmed, and Gaza's population is given the option of 'voluntary emigration,' which the Palestinians and much of the international community view as forcible expulsion. Hamas has said it will only release the remaining hostages in return for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal. It says it is willing to give up power but will not lay down its arms as long as Israel occupies territories the Palestinians want for a future state. Another open-ended occupation Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war. The United Nations, the Palestinians and others continued to view Gaza as occupied territory after the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers, as Israel maintained control of its airspace, coastline, most of its land border and its population registry. The full reoccupation of Gaza would pose long-term challenges that Israel is well aware of given its long history of occupying Arab lands, including the likelihood of a prolonged insurgency. Israeli support for the war already appears to have declined since Netanyahu ended a ceasefire in March, as soldiers have been killed in hit-and-run attacks. As an occupying power, Israel would be expected to maintain order and ensure the basic needs of the population are met. In the West Bank, it has largely outsourced that to the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited autonomy in population centers. But in Gaza, Netanyahu has ruled out any future role for the PA, accusing it of not being fully committed to peace, and has not produced any plan for Gaza's postwar governance and reconstruction. Long-term repercussions Even if Israel succeeds in suppressing Hamas, the reoccupation of Gaza could pose an even more profound threat to the country. It would leave Israel in full control of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, which is home to around 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians — most of the latter denied basic rights, including the vote. Even before the war, major human rights groups said the situation amounted to apartheid, something Israel vehemently denies. Unless large numbers of Palestinians are expelled — no longer merely a fantasy of Israel's far-right — Israel would face an all-too-familiar existential dilemma: Create a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories and preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, or rule over millions of Palestinians indefinitely and hope they never rally behind the idea of equal rights in a binational state. Israel would no longer be able to point to Hamas' rule in Gaza, or factional divisions among Palestinians, as reasons to avoid such a reckoning. And when Trump leaves office, it may find it has few friends to back it up. ___
North Wales Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Hezbollah threatens to resume firing at Israel if it intensifies Lebanon action
Naim Kassem's comments came as Lebanon's Cabinet was meeting to discuss Hezbollah's disarmament. Beirut is under US pressure to disarm the group that recently fought a 14-month war with Israel and was left gravely weakened, with many of its political and military leaders dead. Since the war ended in November with a US-brokered ceasefire, Hezbollah officials have said the group will not discuss its disarmament until Israel withdraws from five hills it controls inside Lebanon and stops almost daily airstrikes that have killed or wounded hundreds of people, most of them Hezbollah members. Israel has accused Hezbollah of trying to rebuild its military capabilities. Israel's military has said the five locations in Lebanon provide vantage points or are located across from communities in northern Israel, where about 60,000 Israelis were displaced during the war. Since the ceasefire, Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for one attack on a disputed area along the border. In a televised speech on Tuesday, Kassem said Hezbollah rejects any timetable to hand over its weapons. 'Israel's interest is not to widen the aggression because if they expand, the resistance will defend, the army will defend and the people will defend,' he said. 'This defence will lead to the fall of missiles inside Israel.' Since the war ended, Hezbollah has withdrawn most of its fighters and weapons from the area along the border with Israel south of the Litani river. Last week, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterated calls for Hezbollah to give up its weapons, angering the group's leadership. The ceasefire agreement left vague how Hezbollah's weapons and military facilities north of the Litani river should be treated, saying Lebanese authorities should dismantle unauthorised facilities starting with the area south of the river. Hezbollah maintains the deal covers only the area south of the Litani, while Israel and the US say it mandates disarmament of the group throughout Lebanon. Kassem said Hezbollah rejects a government vote over its weapons, saying such a decision should be unanimously backed by all Lebanese. 'No one can deprive Lebanon of its force to protect its sovereignty,' Kassem said. Hezbollah's weapons are a divisive issue among Lebanese, with some groups calling for its disarmament. The Israel-Hezbollah war started a day after the October 7 2023 Hamas-led attack against Israel from Gaza. It left more than 4,000 people dead and caused 11 billion dollars (£8.3 billion) of damage.
