Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, complained that Donald Trump was “trying to force the government” into “unilateral military action.” Keir Starmer should “stand strong,” he added, and take the issue to Parliament.
By Jake W. SIMONS
There was a time when Britain was able to identify the enemy and defeat it. Many of us miss those days; after all, there is a reason why Winston Churchill remains so revered. Today, our former security has eroded so much that our leaders make excuses for those who would destroy us, rather than taking action to stop them. Take Iran, for example. Countless protesters have been blinded by bullets in the face or rendered incapable of having children by bullets in the genitals. Regime thugs have patrolled hospitals, executing young activists in their beds.
The Ayatollah’s 48 hours of massacre in January, believed to have claimed more than 30,000 lives, found a precedent only in 1941, when 34,000 Jews were killed in the Babin Yar ravine near Kyiv.
This is not just a foreign problem. The regime is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and has planned kidnappings and assassinations on our soil. If that is not an enemy, then what is? Yet at the moment of the greatest violation of Iran, Britain has blocked American warplanes from using the air base on Diego Garcia to strike the murderers. The reason? “International law,” that degraded term that has become so beloved of our callous elites. One might suspect that the same justification would have been used to avoid bombing the railway to Auschwitz.
US MILITARY APPROACH TO IRAN
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, complained that Donald Trump was “trying to force the government” into “unilateral military action”. Keir Starmer should “stand strong”, he added, and take the matter to Parliament. Where have we heard this before? In 2013, Ed Miliband thwarted David Cameron’s attempt to uphold Obama’s red lines in Syria. As a result, Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons went unpunished and Vladimir Putin loaded his Kalashnikov and marched into Crimea. If this is “standing strong”, someone show me what weakness looks like. This nebulous liberalism may seem harmless, but it is weaving a blanket of British comfort for the vile Iranian regime. Ironically, if the Ayatollah falls from American power, his Revolutionary Guards will still not be banned from London and his ambassador will not be expelled.
It’s not just Britain. Earlier this month, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, sent Tehran a message of congratulations on the 47th anniversary of the Islamic revolution, which plunged the Region into decades of killing that are nearing a climax today.
On Thursday, an Iranian diplomat was elected vice-chair of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations, responsible for protecting the “rules of international law.” In 2024, the UN lowered its flag to half-mast to mourn the death of former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, known as the “Butcher of Tehran.” Meanwhile, the Security Council has yet to unequivocally condemn the attacks of October 7. You would laugh if you didn’t feel like vomiting. What a small step from universal standards to moral relativism, and from moral relativism to armament! From Britain’s thwarted deportation of foreign criminals to the attacks on the Ayatollah, not only is there a gap between “international law” and natural moral law, but the former is already destroying the latter.
This is not to say that Donald Trump is guided by ethics. As the Iranian bloodshed continued, he gave the world messy rhetoric and protracted negotiations with the regime, using protesters as leverage to secure a better deal for America and its allies in the Middle East. Many Iranians cannot forgive Trump’s promise that “help is on the way” – made after the two-day massacre of innocents in January – that sent thousands more into the streets to die.
US NAVY DISLOCATED CARRIER STRIKE GROUPS
Is this a repeat of 1956, when Americans welcomed the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet regime that ended with the bloody deployment of tanks? Or of 1991, when George HW Bush encouraged Kurds and Marsh Arabs to rebel against Saddam Hussein but did not support them, resulting in bloodshed? Probably not. More likely, the president is simply taking his time to reload. After all, this is the largest concentration of American force in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and his threats have been chilling. On Thursday, Trump suggested that the delay was related to logistical issues. “With war, you never know what’s easy and what’s not so easy,” he said.
This is true; when America opened fire in a reckless manner – Vietnam, Iraq – the results were devastating. Moreover, the more time passes, the greater the pressure on Tehran. This is the “Casablanca” logic: Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
It is clear that Trump is pursuing American interests, not protecting Iranians in the streets. Once the B2 bombers have done their job, the president may settle for a Venezuela-style regime softening, rather than the regime change so desired by the people.
Of course, America’s Gulf allies favor that outcome. A stable, democratic Iran would bring unwanted competition to oil markets and could even inspire another Arab Spring. The ayatollah might have to go, but they would be far better off with a group of weakened and submissive tyrants. Would that constitute a betrayal of the Iranian people? Perhaps. But at least Trump is not assuming the moral high ground. Our smug leaders, by contrast, are so in love with their own virtue that they fail to even name the enemy, whether at home or abroad. What would Churchill do? These days, the government seems to be asking itself that question and doing the opposite. (Politico.eu)