Slipping the Leash

"I think the war is very complete, pretty much. They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no Air Force." So said Donald Trump, during an interview with CBS. The reason for the war has never been set out, because neither Trump, his office, nor the Israeli government have a justification. Judging by their commentary, they don't think one is even needed. This is aggression for aggression's sake, an effort to bedazzle and distract from domestic issues. But hard realities are biting. Far from being a bloodless affair, Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Tel Aviv to repeated missile strikes as stores of interceptor supplies remain depleted from last year's exchange with Iran. Meanwhile, despite suffering heavy damage and political decapitation the Iranian regime and military remain robust and have shown a capacity to fight back. Something the US and Israel are not accustomed to. And there is the small matter of Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the heart attack this has sent through oil and energy markets. The knock on consequences won't do Trump any political favours, and we'll see how much of his base are willing to stump up for this pay-per-view none of them asked for.

Unusually for a US war of aggression, the UK have proven extremely reluctant to get involved. Keir Starmer tried his best to be accommodating without actually committing British forces. After the initial raids over Tehran he was quick to call on Iran to show restraint, and was equally quick to condemn when their missiles and drones found their targets in reply. When British bases and Gulf "partners"/clients were hit, he announced that the US Air Force were welcome to use British facilities for "defensive strikes". Which is so much evasive lawyer babble to avoid admitting his government's complicity in something that, in theory, should see its instigators in the dock at The Hague. Not that this has impressed Trump, who branded Starmer "no Churchill", and downplayed belated UK efforts to move aircraft carriers in sortie distance from Iran. Trump's cheerleaders in this country couldn't help themselves either. The Tory/Reform press have been attacking Starmer ever since the bombs started falling for not joining in, with preposterous stories that the nature of Labour's voting coalition has stayed his hand. Oh yes, the same party so concerned with Muslim voters that they gave Israel a free hand in massacring Palestinians in Gaza. Kemi Badenoch has dived in, saying Starmer can find plenty of money for social security instead of bullets and bombs. Laughable. Nigel Farage said the UK should be dropping ordinance alongside the US. Both have received backing from Tony Blair. He, unsurprisingly, thinks Britain should follow whenever the White House says heel. Once a poodle, always a poodle.

Starmer's effort to keep Britain to a limited role has little to do with the niceties of international law, and even less to do with electoral embarrassment. On paper, the UK's interests in the Middle East and the Gulf are practically identical to the Americans. They want friendly, preferably autocratic regimes, and Israel's role in this set up is the quick-to-anger gendarme. Iran is the destabilising element who, through its own regional strength and networks of irregular allies and semi-state actors were checks on Israel's aggressive posture and, by extension, the challenger to Western hegemony. This suffered severe setbacks with the obliteration of Gaza, incursions into Lebanon, the bombing of the Houthis in Yemen, and missile exchanges between Israel and Iran over the last 18 months. From Britain and, by extension, Western Europe's perspective Iran had largely been put back in its box. There was now no real threat to Israel. Everything was fine.

Until Netanyahu and Trump started their war of aggression. Britain is not concerned about civilian deaths, be they Iranian, from the Gulf states, or fiercely patriotic tax exiles. It is worried about the consequences of destabilisation. As far as the government and the foreign office are concerned, the war is utterly reckless. The disruption to energy supplies, air travel, shipping, and the sloshing of Gulf money into and through the City are unwelcome costs with a range of politically undesirable consequences. Being at odds with the US is a rarity thanks to establishment slavishness - as typified by the repugnant axis of Badenoch, Farage, and Blair - but remaining separate and disengaged reduces political costs and keeps material costs to a minimum. The price shock and mess of Trump's war is not worth it when the overall outcome will largely be no different to when the bombing started, despite White House hyperbole. The special relationship has proven to be anything but since the razzmatazz of the second state visit, and it appears Starmer, David Lammy, and friends have - rightly - calculated that nothing would be gained from joining this criminal enterprise. All of which helps explain why, for once, we're not being dragged into an unwanted war by the government at America's behest.

Image Credit