US-Israeli strikes on Iran aim for regime change but risk empowering more dangerous hardliners, drawing international criticism and uncertain outcomes.
THE attacks by United States and Israeli forces on the Iranian regime had no clear objective and no basis in international law.
Nevertheless, if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the clerical ruler who transformed Iran into one of the Middle East’s dominant powers, was killed by US-Israeli strikes on Saturday, we are waking up to a new reality.
What usually happens with a policy of “decapitation” is that dangerous leaders are replaced by even more dangerous hardliners. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had no good reason to suppose that the outcome in Iran would be any different.
Trump, it is true, has basked in the praise of his cheerleaders since the US military captured Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro from his fortified compound at the start of January. But this is nothing like Venezuela, which was closer in conception and execution to a specialised police operation. With the vast firepower involved and the potential for regional escalation, this is of a different scale entirely.
Almost unanimously, the international community agrees that the Iranian regime must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. But so far, it has not been demonstrated that the negotiations to that end have failed – and in any case, disrupting the Iranian nuclear programme was the purpose of the bunker-busting bombing of the Fordow and Natanz nuclear plants in June last year.
This time, the US-Israeli strikes seem to be aimed at political targets and the purpose seems to be regime change, although Trump has not used the phrase, calling instead on the Iranian people to “take over your government”. However, there is no evidence so far that airstrikes will enable them to do this.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was right, therefore, to refuse permission for US attacks to be launched from British bases, including Diego Garcia, the US base on the Chagos Islands, which are still British territory. Starmer was also right to decide that while British forces should stand aside from the attacks on Iran, they should be sent to the defence of nations in the region to help protect them from Iranian counterattacks.
It is not surprising that the initial attacks have divided opinion across the world and in Britain. The Saudi Arabian government, for example, supported the US-Israeli action.
More surprisingly, perhaps, Anthony Albanese, the Labour prime minister of Australia, backed it, too.
At home, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, and Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, supported it – in Farage’s case with a Trumpian exclamation mark: “The prime minister needs to change his mind on the use of our military bases and back the Americans in this vital fight against Iran!”
Most of the other parties in parliament are opposed, although from Jeremy Corbyn, who took Iranian state TV’s money, a period of silence would be welcome.
The division of opinion is to be expected because the Iranian people are entitled to our support and the Iranian regime richly deserves condemnation. But these strikes so far have not actually helped the brave Iranian people resist their oppressors; they will only answer bloodshed with bloodshed.
There are many in Iran who will welcome the US strikes. Perhaps, this time, they really will “take over their government”. But it must be said that when the president promised Iranian protesters that “help is on the way” six weeks ago, it did not materialise and tens of thousands of them were murdered by the regime. Now that this “help” has arrived, the emptiness of what he offered before will only be more evident. We can only hope that this time will be different.
With Trump, there is always a tweet. In fact, there are usually half a dozen tweets, including those some years ago in which he criticised Barack Obama for doing exactly what he is doing now.
In 2013, he wrote on what was then called Twitter: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President (Barrack) Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly – not skilled!”
Obama never did attack Iran, and, inconclusive as negotiations were, the Iranian regime never did acquire nuclear weapons. If only the US was still under such wise and reliable leadership. – The Independent
