Latest news with #Anglo-US
Middle East Eye
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Israel's war on Iran: Why the UK must stay out
For three decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling the world that Iran is on the cusp of joining the nuclear weapons club. He has obsessed about bombing it, engaging in a full-scale war, and bringing about regime change. In 2002, Netanyahu pressed the US and others to invade Iraq, on the falsehood that it had a nuclear weapons programme. He proclaimed how much safer the region would be in evidence to the US Congress. 'If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,' Netanyahu said. 'And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.' As ever, it is best to ignore Netanyahu's advice. The Anglo-US war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation ended Washington's period as the world's sole hyper-power. It paved the way for Iran to dominate not just Iraq, but Syria and Lebanon too. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters It allowed al-Qaeda to prosper and open a new murderous front in Iraq, and it saw the genesis of the Islamic State group, which took over much of Iraq and Syria for a period of time, and mounted deadly attacks across Europe and elsewhere. Fast forward to 2015, when Netanyahu was in Congress hammering former President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal, the one mechanism that could limit Iranian nuclear ambitions and put its facilities under detailed and intensive supervision and monitoring. He then persuaded President Donald Trump to rip up the deal in 2018. Had that deal been adhered to, war with Iran would not be happening today. It was not Iran that pulled out of the agreement, but the US. War of choice On Iraq, Netanyahu pressed the US to do the job while Israel watched. This time, he opted to make a pre-emptive strike not on Iran, but on any chance of a viable US-Iranian nuclear deal. By attacking Iran, he is trying to engineer the necessary conditions to suck in the US and its European allies. Netanyahu promotes the line that Iran is days away from a nuclear bomb, without providing precise evidence for this claim. What we do know is that the latest assessment by the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, this past March found that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003'. There was time for diplomacy to resolve the issue. But already, the UK looks to be falling for this. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government wisely started by calling for de-escalation, but this line has faltered. Ministers are talking about backing Israel's right to self-defence, a complete inversion of the objective reality. Netanyahu has a coterie of useful idiots on both sides of the Atlantic willing to echo and amplify his every warlike utterance It was Israel that unilaterally launched major strikes on Iran, almost certainly a violation of international law and a crime of aggression. This was a war of choice, and the choice was Netanyahu's. The UK was not even given prior warning. Israel's attacks might have incapacitated Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes for a time, but more likely, this will drive Tehran to pursue both as a priority for its own preservation. Netanyahu has a coterie of useful idiots on both sides of the Atlantic willing to echo and amplify his every warlike utterance. Very few of them demonstrate any sophisticated understanding of the Middle East, let alone the countries targeted for bombing and invasion. In the UK, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is goading Starmer with the childish argument that his government is 'so weak they make Neville Chamberlain look positively robust'. Starmer has dispatched additional British military assets to the region and will not rule out a deployment in defence of Israel. Even by saying this, the UK government has lurched - without proper strategic assessment or parliamentary debate - closer towards a war that it should stay well clear of. Bulldozing red lines If British forces are deployed to defend Israel, they would be actively facilitating the attacks on Iran. This is how Tehran and others would see it. Britain would not only be complicit, but it would have zero influence on Israel's aggression against Iran, or whether it was in accordance with international law. Imagine, as Israel has done repeatedly in Gaza and Lebanon, that Israeli bombs took out civilian infrastructure, including power stations and waterworks. A complaint from Starmer or his foreign secretary, David Lammy, would not stop the next round of Israeli bombing. UK military assistance might start out with the intent of just knocking out Iranian drones and missiles. But it would not end there. Iran would not hesitate in responding, and it could include British targets as a result. If Britain dips its toes into the bloody waters, before long, it will be up to its neck. If British targets are hit and personnel killed, then British forces would soon be in active participation against Iranian targets as part of a war that Netanyahu orchestrated. The Iraq play book is back for Israel's attack on Iran. But it fools no one Read More » Above all, the UK should not be treating Israel in any way, shape or form as an ally. This Israeli government, as it prosecutes a war on Iran, is simultaneously carrying out a genocide in Gaza. It has bulldozed through every red line. It has systematically destroyed all of Gaza's healthcare system, forcibly displaced almost the entire population of two million people, and openly used starvation as a weapon of war. Its ministers have routinely and without consequence uttered chilling genocidal comments, calling for the annihilation and destruction of Gaza - a threat that is being played out every single day. One hopes that this is not a government with whom the UK shares interests or values. Starmer claims to support international law, but allies himself with a state that the International Court of Justice is investigating for genocide. Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is, as so many leaders have found out over decades, a brazen liar and deeply untrustworthy. Staying out of this conflict would not be weakness, but a wise choice to avoid a reckless gamble on a war pursued by a leader desperate to save his own skin and political future. The UK should take the lead in returning to a rules-based international order where war is the last resort. It is not de-escalation that is required, but credible conflict resolution, secured with iron-clad diplomatic deals to end the Iran-Israel war and the genocide in Gaza. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
The Guardian
08-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt, experts say
Britain's ability to rely on the US to maintain the UK's nuclear arsenal is now in doubt, experts have warned, but working with European states to replace it will be costly and take time. An existing debate about the future of Trident – Britain's ageing submarine-launched nuclear missile system – has taken a dramatic new turn in recent weeks amid fears Donald Trump could pull out of Nato. A range of concerns had already loomed over the £3bn-a-year programme, not least around its efficiency and effectiveness after a second embarrassing failed test launch last year. Costs have also been a longstanding challenge but replacing Vanguard submarines on time has been prioritised over coming in under budget. Downing Street sought to play down concerns earlier this week after diplomatic figures including the former British ambassador to the US Sir David Manning floated the scenario of an end to Anglo-US nuclear cooperation. However, calls for Britain to make alternative plans have been joined by the former UK foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who initiated talks in the 90s between the UK and France on nuclear weapons cooperation. 'It really is necessary for Britain and France to work more closely together because if American reliability ever came into question, then Europe could be defenceless in the face of Russian aggression,' he said. 'The contribution by America must now be to some degree in doubt, not today or tomorrow, but over the next few years and certainly as long as Trump and people like him are in control in Washington.' A No 10 spokesperson insisted this week that Keir Starmer viewed the US as a reliable ally, saying: 'The UK's nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent.' Yet the UK is – unlike France – highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement. Britain had 50 missiles left as of 2008 after purchases from a US stockpile, according to research by the University of Bradford. 'Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it, of course, is absolutely not,' said Hans Kristensen, who monitors the status of nuclear forces for the Federation of American Scientists, a US thinktank. 'It may be that Britain can fire weapons independently of the US, but below that, the entire infrastructure covering missile compartments on submarines, the missiles themselves, all are supplied by the Americans.' Defence analysts are emphasising the need to plan for a scenario where a transatlantic relationship fractures to the extent that the US declines to give the UK missiles. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Dr Marion Messmer, a senior research fellow at Chatham House and an expert on nuclear weapons policy, said: 'It would be a big risk if it wasn't being planned for, but it's something the UK government can't be too public about, as it wouldn't want to give the Trump administration or Russia any ideas.' Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be 'hugely complicated' and costly, she emphasised, but added that ideas being floated included looking at ways for Britain to launch nuclear weapons by air rather than at sea. 'You wouldn't necessarily be able to take the warheads which the UK uses for submarine launches and fit them for air launch. You would very likely need to develop a whole second warhead. That would require everything from new assembly facilities and workforce planning, but it could be a worthwhile investment for Britain,' she said. 'You could hope that France – the most obvious contender for Britain to work with – has a delivery vehicle similar to Trident that could easily be adapted, but it would require the French government and the French nuclear enterprise being willing to share those designs with the UK.' Other factors are also coming in to play, including an openness by France's president, Emmanuel Macron, to talks on extending its nuclear umbrella over the rest of Europe, and comments by Germany's likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, that it could pay towards French and British nuclear costs. Calvin Bailey, a Labour MP on parliament's defence committee and a former RAF officer, said it was 'difficult to conceive' of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK, stressing that this had been strengthened by the Aukus alliance between Australia, Britain and the US. But he added: 'We now also have to look at how we as Europeans ensure and guarantee our own safety and security. We're showing leadership on this with the French, who are the most obvious partners for us.'
The Independent
28-02-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Let's not get carried away with Starmer's White House ‘love-in' – he got zero on Ukraine
As he jets back to Britain after his trip to the White House, Sir Keir Starmer is entitled to breathe a sigh of relief. Fears that stiff Starmer would endure a repeat of Theresa May's awkward hand holding incident with Trump when she visited the Oval Office in his first term proved unfounded. The president was gushing in his praise for the prime minister, and went out of his way to salute the Anglo-US 'special relationship' that some feared had sunk mid-Atlantic. Starmer, looking relaxed and more statesmanlike than usual, returned the compliment in kind. Barring one or two characteristically eccentric moments, when Starmer's heart must have been in his mouth, Trump did not pull one of his famous stunts, such as ostentatiously picking a piece of dandruff from Emmanuel Macron's suit, as he did a few years ago. Then again, Starmer arrived at the Oval Office laden with such generous gifts it is a wonder he wasn't asked to pay a tariff on them by US Customs. Just before boarding the plane in London he announced a multi-billion-pound increase in defence spending. Coincidentally or not, it was just as Trump had been demanding of him and other European leaders, so the US doesn't have to fork out to defend them from his bestie Vladimir Putin. Far from complaining that he had had to cut Britain's overseas budget in half as a result, Starmer actually thanked Trump. It was only right that Europe rose to the challenge, he said. To put it another way, Trump says 'jump!' and Starmer says: 'How high?' Starmer's bottom had barely touched his Oval Office chair when he pulled from his inside jacket pocket a present that even billionaire dealmaker Trump could not put a price on. It is customary for visiting British prime ministers to arrive at the White House with a present for their host. It is usually a first edition, a sculpture or other artefact – it is rarely a signed letter from the monarch promising a trumpet fanfare, banquet and roll of red carpet which stretches all the way to Buckingham Palace. After giving gold obsessed Trump the metaphorical Crown Jewels of a state visit to Britain, even Trump would have been hard put not to respond graciously. And it is only fair to say he did, though he laid it on with a trowel so heavily that when, with a theatrical flourish, he lauded cautious lawyer Starmer as a 'tough negotiator,' was I alone in wondering if it was a presidential wind up. Not that Starmer is returning empty handed. Trump backed his plans to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and suggested Britain may escape his trade tariff war on the EU. These gains are not to be sniffed at. But before Starmer gets the Downing Street bunting out it is worth looking beyond the banter at key aspects which did not go his way. Trump rejected his demand for US troops to provide a 'backstop' for British and other European troops in any peace keeping force in Ukraine. He fobbed him off with warm words about the US plan to send civilian workers to Ukraine as part of a minerals deal between the two countries as being a form of 'backstop.' It is nothing of the sort. To underline this, Trump stamped on the notion – supported by many in Europe but violently opposed by Putin – that Ukraine might join NATO. He went even further, repeatedly stating his trust in Putin, regularly denounced in blistering terms by Starmer. Though the 'tough negotiator' did not do that in the Oval Office to Trump's face. Funny that. Similarly, Trump took gleeful delight in dodging the question when ITV's Robert Peston challenged him outright to apologise for calling president Zelensky a dictator. And at one point, he appeared to mock Starmer, asking him if he thought Britain could take on Russia on its own. Starmer smiled. The truthful answer would have been, 'No, Mr President, not without America.' For all the warm words in the White House, that is where Britain stood before Starmer went to Washington. And it is where it stands afterwards. No sooner than Starmer's plane lands will he then host vital meetings on Ukraine this weekend. Everyone will be there: all the main European leaders – and president Zelensky. But Starmer's new best friends the Americans will not be there. That is the reality of the new 'special relationship.'
