No wonder Iran doesn't trust the US. Neither should we

The Herald Scotland

4 hours ago

America restored the tyrannical Shah to power. He lived in opulence and lavished enormous sums on vanity projects while his people struggled to afford the basics of life. Eventually, disparate Iranian groups from all across the political spectrum came together and drove the Shah out in 1979. Tragically, the ensuing power vacuum was filled by the clerics: Ayatollah Khameini is in power in Iran today because of what the US did over 70 years ago.
Don't forget, either, isolated acts of brutality inflicted by America's powerful military. On 3 July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when its captain, William Rogers, ordered his crew to shoot down an Iranian airliner that was en route to Dubai; there were 290 fatalities, 20 more than caused by the bombing of Pan Am 103 a few months later. Subsequently, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer… from April 1987 to May 1989". You can see why that might stick in the craw of those affected and why Iran distrusts America, as should we all while President Trump remains in office.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
Read more letters
• Once again the Middle East has rapidly descended into the maelstrom of conflict. Britain must at this time studiously avoid supporting any of the protagonists. The times that we have previously intervened in Iran, the outcomes were not good.
Back in 1953 both America and Britain decided to engineer the removal of the democratically elected President of Iran, Mosadeggh. He had courageously proposed that Iran's oil belonged to Iran and that Iran should control the marketing of it. However, the British and American oil companies did not see this as desirable. So they supported the imposition of the Shah on the Iranian people who was eventually overthrown.
Apart from the Iranian intervention should Britain be supporting Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems to have no respect for the tenets of international law in regard to the conflict with the Palestinians?
Sir Keir Starmer needs to show the world that Britain is prepared to take a moral stand in the Middle East. The first action must be to forbid the sale of weapons to any of the protagonists. This takes courage but he needs to show leadership on this matter.
Ed Archer, Lanark.
• When asked whether he had decided whether the US would be invading Iran, President Trump replied that he had not yet decided, adding: "Nobody knows what I'm gonna do".
And we should be worried about an Iranian finger on the nuclear button?
Tina Oakes, Stonehaven.
A deliberate distraction
Benjamin Netanyahu's war with Iran is a deliberate distraction from his Gaza war of mass murder, deliberate starvation and ethnic cleansing of civilians and children. The moment Iran retaliated against Israeli attacks, every western government which had begun voicing token criticisms and issuing token sanctions on Israel switched to saying they would help defend Israel if Iran attacked it. Keir Starmer has moved US military assets to the Middle East and refused to rule out 'defending Israel'.
Why should we help a government that is committing crimes against humanity in Gaza feel immune to the results of its own actions, ensuring it will continue both wars, when neither Hamas nor Iran could ever pose a credible military threat to Israel?
The Ayatollahs are certainly a dictatorship, and hostile to Israel. But Israel and the US are massively militarily stronger than Iran. And the story that if the Ayatollahs get a nuclear weapon they'll immediately fire it at Israel, ensuring that all of them and their entire country will be wiped out in either the Israeli or US nuclear or conventional counter-strikes, is ludicrous. Certainly they praise 'martyrs' including suicide bombers. They're not so keen on personal or national suicide .
Duncan McFarlane, Carluke.
Our reputation is at stake
Countries, like people, are often judged by the friends they keep. How then has the UK ended up being counted as an ally by the mad dogs of the Middle East, Israel, and insisting on our knees that we have a Special Relationship with the mad dog of the West, the USA under Donald Trump?
These relationships are taken to extremes, with a willingness to pitch in with America's follies like the second Iraq war and unwillingness to call out unequivocally Israel's slaughter of Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, and to go along with the destruction by Mr Trump in his first term of the workable compromise with Iran on nuclear issues engineered by Barack Obama and supported by us. This cannot stand well with our international reputation, for the blood of other peoples does not seem to matter much to us. We should be grateful for an earlier Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who despite pressures from America, had the guts to keep us out of the disaster of America's Vietnam war.
James Scott, Edinburgh.
Donald Trump (Image: Getty)
Labour's hypocrisy
In January, when the Tories put forward proposals for a national inquiry to be held into the grooming gangs scandal, Sir Keir Starmer voiced his disapproval and accused those calling for one of jumping on a "far-right" bandwagon. When the submission went before the House of Commons, Joani Reid voted against. Just over a month ago, based on the review carried out by Baroness Casey, Sir Keir changed his mind and ordered that an inquiry be held.
Lo and behold, the MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven changed hers as well and suddenly became an enthusiastic advocate for an inquiry. So much so that she made the following press statement: "If the Scottish Government does not intend to hold its own dedicated inquiry, we need some clear reasons why, not the vague responses we've had so far." This may sound like double standards to you and me but after all the broken promises to deliver change we should be used to rank hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party by now.
Alan Woodcock, Dundee.
A dubious guarantee
I note your coverage of the concept of a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) as a way of achieving the laudable aim of abolishing poverty. Gaby McKay explains the idea and gives some idea of the costs involved, Russell Gunson follows, enthusiastically promoting this benefit ("Call to move toward minimum income guarantee 'urgently'" and "There should be an income level below which nobody is allowed to fall", The Herald, June 18).
However, as ever, the devil is in the detail.
Firstly, although the word "poverty" is bandied around, what actually constitutes poverty? Mr Gunson defines it as living in a household where income is less than 60% of the UK average. To take an extreme example, if the average UK income was £100,000 per year, then as long as this 60% criterion applied, the poor would always be with us.
Secondly, how would it be paid – what mechanisms would have to be set up to ensure its equitable and economical distribution?
Thirdly, how would the MIG relate to other sources of income, such as other benefits, paid employment, pensions, dividends and interest? Would it be taxable, or set against these funds? In fact, could it be regarded as the Personal Allowance? I can see Rachel Reeves rubbing her hands with glee if she can start taxing people once their income passes £11,500, rather than the current £12,570.
Fourthly, in their desire to talk up the positive aspects of MIG, I wonder if your writers have considered the possibility that the achievement of a modestly comfortable standard of living might, in some cases, reduce the incentives to seek paid employment?
Finally, the cynic in me wonders how long it will be before the cry "it's not enough!" goes up, particularly when other figures regarding subsistence have been bandied around, such as the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which advises a minimum standard of retirement living requires an income of £13,400 (£15,800 for London dwellers) per year
Christopher W Ide, Waterfoot.