Government, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Politics, United Nations, United States

Israel widens the war. Iran could soon be the arch enemy

MIDDLE EAST

NOT since the Saxon nobility were wiped out in the Battle of Hastings, including King Harold and his brothers, almost 1,000 years ago, has one side annihilated the leadership of its arch enemy so suddenly and thoroughly.

First the Israelis killed, blinded, and maimed thousands of middle-ranking Hezbollah fighters, by triggering explosions in their pages and walkie-talkies.

Then, in the last few days, in a series of surgical strikes – precise as they were powerful – Israel’s air force dropped up to 16 bunker-busting bombs onto the underground lair where Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah was huddled with his top brass.

They must have believed they were safe in their reinforced concrete hideaway, but for so many essential figures to be gathered in one place displayed reckless hubris which was ruthlessly punished.

Around 20 senior militia commanders were killed, including the security head of the organisation, Ibrahim Hussein Jazini, and Nasrallah’s closest confidante, Samir Tawfiq Dib. Nabil Qaouk, a key figure in Hezbollah’s central council, was killed in a separate air attack.

By any sane rationale, the war between Israel and Hezbollah should be over. But fanatics are neither sane nor rational.

This is a fighting force whose lower ranks are obsessed with martyrdom. They have been comprehensively defeated, but that does not mean they will surrender.

Until now, the Islamist militia was rigidly disciplined, with Nasrallah wielding supreme control. But with the decapitation of their leadership and the destruction of their communications network, the minions of Hezbollah will have nothing to guide them but their own maniacal – and perhaps suicidal – initiatives.

As much as half their stockpiles of rockets, shells, and artillery has been destroyed, but there is still a mass of weapons at the disposal of local commanders eager to burnish their own combat reputations and leadership ambitions.

Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu will probably feel he has no choice but to order a ground invasion of southern Lebanon to stamp out the smouldering remains of Hezbollah. But that is a high-risk strategy for three reasons.

Firstly, Israeli casualties will be higher. In the featureless plains of Gaza, their enemy has nowhere to hide. But in the hilly terrain of Lebanon, it can dart in and out of cover and wreak havoc with its armour-penetrating missiles.

Secondly, a ground invasion will create a huge refugee crisis. In the past week alone, some 80,000 civilians have fled Lebanon for makeshift camps in Syria. The Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati has warned up to a million people could be displaced.

This exodus could be the perfect cover for Hezbollah’s scattered remnants to spread insurgency across Europe. Unable to attack Israel, some might prefer to increase international pressure by exporting misery and violence to Israel’s supporters – with Britain chief among them.

Thirdly, perhaps ominously, the sheer effectiveness of Israel’s megaton assassinations is likely to accelerate the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

Israel has already shown it has no compunction about killing enemies on Iranian soil, with the elimination in July of the Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Now, the knowledge that no underground bunker is safe will galvanise Iran’s leaders. While under huge internal pressure to retaliate against Israel directly, they fear the consequences – be they their own assassinations, or airstrikes against their nuclear facilities.

The mullahs will not want to provoke such an attack, especially as they are only weeks away from producing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

They are likely to conclude it makes more sense to challenge Israel using its proxy militias, such as the Houthis in Yemen, whose rocket attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea are designed to strangle Israel economically.

For Iran to create a viable nuclear weapon, it will also need a detonator – not an easy piece of technology to build. But this project, too, could be near completion, possibly with North Korean help.

If Iran does successfully test an atom bomb, international efforts to avert nuclear war will become increasingly hysterical. The UN Security Council could attempt to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear programme in return for a ceasefire, but this would have little chance of success without the cooperation of the US, who might take the view there is no way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle once a test has been conducted.

It appears that Israel has won a spectacular tactical victory over Hezbollah. But the main strategic enemy could soon be a nuclear-armed Iran. Armageddon beckons for one side – or both.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Labour will be judged on deeds not words

LABOUR PARTY

THE CHANCELLOR, Rachel Reeves, with a rictus smile glued to her face at the Labour Party conference this week has sought to change the government’s central message from one of unremitting gloom to one of hope.

After weeks of relentless negativity over alleged black holes, broken Britain and “tough decisions” ahead, the Chancellor has laid out her vision for the promised land to come.

No one could argue with most of it. Who wouldn’t want a fairer society, great public services, better schools, higher growth, and a strong economy? However, Ms Reeves offered no discernible strategy for achieving these admirable goals. Nor did she touch on the price we will all have to pay.

Many will be surprised to hear her say there would be “no return to austerity”.

For millions of pensioners stripped of their winter fuel allowance it has already arrived and the Budget on October 30 is expected to be an assault on the finances of middle Britain.

The Chancellor claims she will not raise taxes on “working people” but what does that mean? Does she include those who have worked all their lives but are now retired? Those whose efforts and talents put them in the higher tax brackets? Entrepreneurs? Savers?

More likely she will deliver selective austerity, in which the private sector will be fleeced to ratchet up the pay and pensions of state employees.

The process has already begun with inflation-busting wage increases across the public sector which, incidentally, account for around half of the £22billion black hole supposedly left by the previous Tory government.

There will be a crackdown on welfare, fraud, and worklessness. The Government has said it will make special provisions in law for the most vulnerable.

The Trade Unions, far from being grateful, are ravenous for more. RMT chief Mick Lynch is demanding nothing less than “the complete organisation of the UK economy by trade unions”.

Mr Lynch wants to sweep away the Thatcher reforms and make it easier to shutdown workplaces and even entire industries if employers fail to meet demands on pay and conditions. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Other unions are coming in hard and fast. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said the recent 5.5 per cent pay award for nurses in England was not enough and must be improved.

By giving train drivers 15 per cent and junior doctors south of the Border 22 per cent, Ms Reeves has begun a wage spiral which could strangle any hope of economic growth.

Hardened by years of industrial trench warfare with the Tories, union barons are not about to bow down to a weak and inexperienced Labour government. On the contrary, they believe they can control it.

The constant talking down of the economy is having baleful effects. It is now hard fact that UK businesses are freezing both vital investment and the hiring of staff ahead of the Budget. There is an alarming collapse in business confidence.

Ms Reeves has said this would be “the most pro-business government we have ever seen”. But with the constant negativity and parlous state of the UK economy why would anyone invest in a country when its Chancellor has been saying for weeks that it is effectively a basket case?

This speech was an attempt to inject some positivity into the Labour narrative, but she will be judged by her deeds, not her words.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Starmer needs to recalibrate the mood

LABOUR PARTY

ELECTED to office less than three months ago, the Labour Party has begun its annual conference – this year in Liverpool – already weighed down by incumbency: rows over gifts from wealthy party donors and tickets to football games as well as rifts about Keir Starmer’s chief of staff’s pay are feeding into the public disquiet. These come amidst the burden of government in difficult economic circumstances. Coupled with the low public trust and the needless surplus of gloom, the political honeymoon period for Labour is well and truly over. We knew change was high up on the political agenda for Labour, but since day one of government it has set out with the explicit objective of dampening expectations of how soon change might come. The gloom is palpable.

There is a degree of urgency for Starmer to recalibrate the mood with a sense of optimism and purpose. He needs to give the country reasons to be glad of a Labour government in ways that go beyond relief at no longer being governed by Tory rule. New governments often come to power blaming the last for what it has inherited. The PM has given the nation an unvarnished account of the dismal legacy left for Labour; a bleak audit that covers a record of political and financial maladministration.

Conservative ministers, driven by ideological fanaticism and self-serving cynicism, squandered energy and vital resources on ill-conceived, unworkable policies. Public services were starved of the means by which they could effectively operate. With that in mind, it is easy to see that Sir Keir has a difficult job because the country is in a dire mess. Putting things right will take time. Nevertheless, that morose message has been bitterly soured by a performance of fiscal discipline, delivered without a hint of uplifting accompaniment.

The prime minister says things will get worse before they get better. His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, cites “black holes” in the budget, withdraws winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners, and continually pledges that there is more pain to come. Ms Reeves’ argument is that government departments under the Conservatives overspent by £22bn in the budget and that deep cuts are needed to compensate. This is a self-imposed restriction that stems from ill-advised fiscal rules. The force of that constraint, and the zeal with which it is applied as austerity across Whitehall, is also a matter of political choice.

The government’s strategists argue that adherence to Tory spending limits was a “non-negotiable” condition of persuading the public that Labour could be trusted on the economy. Possibly, possibly not. There is no way to test the counterfactual scenario, where Ms Reeves could have fought the election with a wider range of tax-raising options still open. However, the decision to lean into unpopularity so hard, so fast, and without a countervailing narrative of hope looks like very poor strategic judgment.

Labour’s election manifesto contained plenty of reasons to expect a substantial departure from a grim status quo. A marked progressive shift was promised in the areas of workers’ rights, a robust commitment to net zero, improved relations with the rest of Europe and, perhaps most significantly, readiness to embrace a more interventionist model of economic management, including public ownership of utility companies.

The Starmerite script contains rather too much fiscal conservatism, but the hope on the left of the party is that there is a social democratic framework at its core. That would express the opposite of the Tory conviction that government’s main function is to facilitate market supremacy and then get out of the way. Many Labour MPs, activists, and Labour supporting people in the country will feel unsure which of the two strands – cringing continuity or bold departure – will dominate. Keir Starmer’s task is to answer in terms that give hope of meaningful change to come.

Standard