Category Archives: United States

Britain, Economic, Iran, Society, United States

Gulf of Oman: The stakes could not be higher

US-IRANIAN TENSIONS

THE attacks on the Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman have brought the simmering tensions between the United States and Iran to a new incendiary level.

Even before last week’s incident, President Trump demonstrated his hostile approach by imposing heavy sanctions on Iranian oil exports and withdrawing from the conciliatory nuclear deal negotiated by President Barack Obama in 2015.

Washington has directly blamed Tehran for the tanker explosions, backing up the claim with the release of video evidence which appears to show members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard handling what looks like an unexploded Iranian mine on the side of one of the damaged vessels.

It should be acknowledged that Iran has “categorically” denied any responsibility, arguing that the attacks were perpetrated by someone who wants to damage the country’s international reputation.

It certainly came at an awkward time for the Iranian government, which was hosting talks with the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, whose nation is dependent on Iranian oil imports. In theory, at least, it seems irrational that Iran would damage the interests of its own fragile economy with an assault on one of the biggest customers of its oil supply. But economic rationality is not always paramount. And there are several reasons why certain figures in the Iranian regime might actually welcome an escalating crisis in the US.

Outsiders tend to regard the Tehran government as a theocratic monolith, but in reality, there is a division between the pragmatists, led by president Hassan Rouhani, and the fundamentalists who follow the head of state, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran’s hawkish hardliners, who are growing in confidence, contend that a more aggressive diplomatic policy would have a number of advantages. A coalition with America would serve as a distraction from Iran’s economic woes, which have left the country plagued by public discontent. Posing as the patriot saviour in a national emergency, the hardliners could rally the people against the US, crackdown on dissent and strengthen their grip on power.

According to this narrative, ruthlessness, not diplomacy, is the best way to force Washington to back down on sanctions.

And if things do escalate, the disturbing reality is that these Iranian hardliners certainly have the capability to wage war against America. For if war does break out, the US will find defeating Iran much more costly than Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime during the two Gulf war campaigns.

Iran is three times the size of Iraq and the Revolutionary Guards which make up the special forces are well-equipped and battle-hardened. The Iranian military possesses an array of sophisticated armaments, including stocks of ballistic missiles.

But even low-tech equipment could cause severe damage to the US if it came to war in the Gulf. If only one Iranian torpedo boat from a swarm of 40 or 50 managed to break through the US defensive screen, it could still sink or cripple an American ship. And it would only need a few drones to reach a target for the results to be devastating.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely the US will back down. Given its colossal military power, it is rightly still regarded as the world’s military guardian.

In Washington, an anti-Iranian sentiment prevails, a legacy of the hostage crisis of the 1970s. America’s anti-Iranian allies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain will also be ramping up demands for action.

 

BRITAIN will be left in an awkward position if conflict does erupt. It is unlikely that the UK will have any direct military involvement, but diplomatically – as Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said – it would be unthinkable if Britain does not tacitly support the US.

If that does happen, British expats and commercial interests in the Gulf would be in a vulnerable situation. And in Britain itself, our stuttering economy – like the rest of the western world – would be severely hit by an oil crisis arising from a war.

It came as no surprise that, following the tanker attacks, oil prices in global markets became extremely volatile. After all, 30 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz which borders Iran.

In this combustible situation, the stakes could not be higher. We can only hope that a mood of restraint and common sense will ultimately prevail.

Standard
Britain, Europe, France, Government, History, Military, Society, United States

75th Normandy Commemoration

NORMANDY

SEVENTY-FIVE years ago, Britain had embarked on its most momentous military mission. Upon the outcome of D-Day, June 6 – the largest seaborne invasion the world has ever seen – hinged the very freedom of all Europe. Events this week in Normandy have been an impassioned reminder of the huge sacrifice and human cost of liberating Europe from the tyranny of Hitler and the Nazis.

Codenamed Operation Overlord, it was an endeavour of mind-blowing scale and complexity. Some 156,000 British, American and Canadian troops landed on French soil in a heroic push to prise Hitler’s choking grip from the Continent.

Few were highly experienced, meticulously trained military men. Most were plucked from loving families and ordinary jobs: Insurance clerks, shopkeepers, postmen.

Displaying unimaginable courage, they stormed the chaotic Normandy beaches. It was, undoubtedly, hell on Earth – wading ashore into a hail of bullets, with shells exploding, the sea red with human blood, and the piercing screams of the dying.

Quite easily, the enterprise could have foundered – leaving Europe caught in the death roll of Nazi dictatorship. But thanks to the tenacity and sacrifice of the selfless men who fought that tumultuous day in 1944, the attack succeeded – altering the course of the Second World War.

Yes, the human price paid was huge. On D-Day alone, around 4,400 Allied troops paid the ultimate sacrifice. But tyranny was conquered, and the Continent liberated.

This week, a dwindling band of military veterans were joined by royalty and world leaders in Portsmouth – an embarkation point for the battle – to commemorate the anniversary. To witness the intrepid warriors – all aged over 90 – wiping away tears for fallen comrades was moving and humbling.

Her Majesty the Queen commended the resilience of the “wartime generation”. The bravery of those who fought – and died – would never be forgotten, she said. They deserved the thanks of the whole free world.

Truly, the debt our heroes are owed cannot be repaid.

 

YET, what would these exemplary men, who stoically stared death in the face when barely out of short trousers, make of today’s intemperance and bigotry?

In attendance was Jeremy Corbyn, who aspires to be prime minister, but who invariably fraternises with our enemies. His contempt at President Trump being an honoured guest at the anniversary was visceral – even though American GIs died to preserve our liberty. The US, via NATO, has ensured peace in Europe ever since.

Earlier, he whipped his Marxist acolytes into such a frenzy of hate an NHS worker ignorantly shrieked “Nazi scum” in the face of a Trump supporter.

Welcome, then, to the new intolerance of the hard-Left. Anyone failing to share their bigoted and hateful views is branded racist or fascist – even at events celebrating freedom.

Since these buffoons have clearly never read a history book, here’s a lesson: The Nazis murdered six million Jewish people, and stamped the evil of fascism across Europe. Someone who merely proffers a different opinion is not a Nazi.

Each time these screeching fanatics resort to such disgusting slanders, they cheapen the very ideals the veterans fought for.

250 giants of D-Day, now frail but burning with the valour that carried them to victory, returned to Normandy in an act of pilgrimage. They witnessed the inauguration of the first British monument on the coast of France to honour the 22,442 members of our Armed Forces killed there.

Seventy-five years ago, Britain had far more to worry about than the present political turmoil of Brexit. The future of the world was in the balance.

But even after we have untangled ourselves from the EU, Europe will remain our historical and geographical kin. In times of danger, Britain will resolutely defend the freedoms given to us by the band of brothers on D-Day.

Standard
Britain, Government, Islamic State, National Security, Politics, Society, Syria, United States

Victory against ISIL can’t mask the incoherent approach in Syria

THE DEFEAT OF ISIL

Intro: The defeat of ISIL has become a cause for celebration, but there are hard security lessons to be learnt as well

FOR those who have participated in the challenging mission to destroy Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) deserve richly awarded plaudits. In the summer of 2014, when ISIL seized control of vast swathes of territory in northern Syria and Iraq to establish its so-called caliphate, removing the fanatical zealots from well-entrenched positions in places like Mosul and Raqqa looked to be a nigh impossible task. At its zenith, ISIL’s caliphate occupied an area approximately the same size as Portugal and controlled the fate of around 10 million people.

Thanks to the relentless efforts of the US-led coalition, ISIL’s empire now consists of little more than a square kilometre of desert scrub on the Syria-Iraq border. ISIL’s barbarous reign of terror is effectively over.

In strictly military terms, the coalition has achieved its stated objectives. With ISIL no longer able to terrorise those living under its control, nor in a position to spread the twisted propaganda that persuaded so many young impressionable Muslims (in Britain and elsewhere) to join the jihadi cause, there is genuine cause for celebration that this brutal death cult is on the verge of annihilation.

It can even be argued, as the former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon has said, that in prosecuting the ISIL campaign the Western powers have finally found a workable paradigm for implementing military interventions in the Muslim world.

In this instance, the coalition has relied more on the judicious use of air power and special forces to achieve its goal, rather than resorting to the deployment of large-scale, and politically controversial, ground forces, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, before becoming too carried away with the success of the anti-ISIL mission, it is worth remembering that our initial involvement in the Syrian conflict was aimed at destroying an entirely different foe.

Back in 2011, the primary aim of the US and Britain, the two Western powers that have been most heavily invested in the Syrian tragedy, was the overthrow of tyrant and dictator President Bashar al-Assad, whose minority Alawite clan has run the country since 1971.

It is hard to believe now, but former prime minister David Cameron even signed a joint declaration with the then US president Barack Obama in the summer of 2011 calling for Assad to step aside, arguing that he should “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people”.

Mr Cameron’s briefly held enthusiasm for securing regime change in Damascus ended when he lost the 2013 Commons vote to launch military action against Assad over accusations the regime has used chemical weapons on civilians.

And, pertinently, given the way the conflict subsequently developed, Cameron and his anti-Assad acolytes had a fortuitous and lucky escape. For, had they succeeded in overthrowing Assad, the fall of the Syrian government might well have resulted in ISIL taking control of the entire country, rather than confining their Islamo-fascist creed to the less populous northern districts.

It was, after all, the very real prospect of ISIL and its Islamist allies seizing control of Syria in the summer of 2014 that persuaded Iran and Russia to come to the aid of the Assad regime, thereby helping to turn the tide of the war decisively in the dictator’s favour.

So much so that these days the British and American governments accept Assad’s survival as a fait accompli, to the extent that neither country has shown the slightest interest in attending the talks aimed at deciding Syria’s post-conflict future.

Hence, the lesson of the West’s inchoate handling of the Syrian conflict is that, rather than celebrating the demise of ISIL’s caliphate, politicians would be better advised to reflect on their incoherent and muddled approach over the past decade, one that, had events taken a different course, could easily have resulted in the establishment of an uncompromising Islamist regime in Damascus.

That is certainly not the outcome Britain and its allies imagined at the start of the conflict, when they manged to convince themselves that the overthrow of Assad’s regime would result in its replacement by a secular-orientated, Western-style democracy.

Given that Islamist extremists have been Assad’s most committed opponents since the early 1980s, this was wishful thinking in the extreme, and the reason why, when considering any future military intervention in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter), it is vital that our parliamentarians properly examine the likely consequences of their actions.

All too often in the recent past we have got ourselves involved in conflicts without fully grasping the possible outcomes. A good benchmark would be to give priority to those threats that directly impinge on our own national security.

On that basis, destroying ISIL – a movement committed to carrying out terror attacks in Britain – always made much more sense than seeking to overthrow the Assad regime.

Standard