 |
| President Donald Trump points at the Winston Churchill bust (Image: MSN/Getty Images) |
I was struck by what United States President Donald Trump said in one of his latest criticisms of UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. At the time, Starmer stated that he was not going to help Trump, nor Israel's leader Benyamin Netanyahu in their current military campaign against Iran. Sure, the US can have a British base or two to park planes, but that's about it. That, according to Trump, isn't enough. When asked about the UK's role, he pointed at the bust of Winston Churchill he has at his Oval Office and said, "Starmer is no Churchill."
Churchill, for those want to be selective with history, is seen as a war-time 'hero' - leading the UK and allies' charge against Nazi Germany during the Second World War. When Adolf Hitler and his minions surrendered in 1945, then-UK Prime Minister, rightly or wrongly, took the plaudits and many war-time leaders ever since have used him as a symbol of 'how good can defeat evil.'
It is true that Churchill's persisted to resist the expansion of Nazi fascism, and without that we may be living in a different type of world today. He was influential, if not instrumental, towards that victory. The UK, unlike France, Poland and other European countries, never had the misfortune of having any land under Nazi occupation, so was uniquely placed to help. But one would also argue that, without Soviet resistance from the east, the war could have lasted much longer. I'll stop my Soviet gratitude there, because its leaders got greedy and bloody in Germany and across Eastern Europe for decades after 1945.
I have argued before that Churchill's legacy shouldn't be seen as black and white as perceived by those who choose to solely focus on events between 1939 and 1945. I look at the news in horror at what is happening in the Middle East right now, and cannot help but reflect on what Churchill wrote in 1922 that has created the context for the battle lines drawn up over a century later. There is a long timeline coming, so buckle up as everything links.
124 years ago, modern day Israel was 'Mandatory Palestine' - a largely Islamic/Arab sovereign territory, administratively governed by the UK. The land was previously governed by the Turks, but with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, hands changed. At the time, Jewish settlers had parts of Palestine they called home. This initially wasn't a problem with Palestinians, until these settlers started to expand, creating considerable restlessness among some of the more religious communities.
Also at the time, Churchill was UK's Secretary of State of the Colonies, responsible for Palestine, and in 1922, he wrote a White Paper. What he should have written, in recognition of the rising levels of restlessness, was the laying down of clear and robust boundaries; that Jewish settlers can settle, so long as they enable the wider population among it to mingle, and encourage more open communities - ensuring Jewish and Islamic faiths to co-exist systematically, like they had done, often wonderfully, for centuries before. Instead, Churchill's words were blurred, leaving them down to interpretation of these communities, while also completely misreading the ambitions of these settlers. As a result, the Jewish population in Palestine rose from approximately 60,000 in 1920 to more than 400,000 in 1938.
This, in turn, had led to considerable tensions within many local communities there (though, nothing to the scale we'd seen since), and no British law could stop these. Elsewhere, anti-Jewish sentiment was growing, particularly in Germany and its neighbours, sparked by Hitler's rise to power in the early 1930s. Things turned to a head during the Second World War where at least six million Jews were killed by Nazi forces, anti-Semitism at its brutal worst.
The Jewish community were separated, fractured and scarred by the greatest evil - and global leaders had to react, to heal the damage Nazism created. The biggest gesture was to hand the faith a state, to call it home - a place for safety, sanctuary and protection, something it didn't have for years previous. So in 1948, decided by a small handful of delegates at the United Nations, Israel was born, on Palestinian soil. To put that into context, Palestine in 1920 was just under 10,000 square miles. By 1948 the states were split in two (near enough 50/50), so Palestine was effectively cut in half, sparking the start of violence that hasn't really stopped since.
It is worth emphasising here that tensions between Islam and Judaism wasn't 'a thing' before all this. For much of the preceding Ottoman Empire, it is said that both religions often co-existed peacefully. So, for it to go from decent tolerance to hopeless division in less than half a century was unprecedented.
Into the 1950s and 60s, tensions persisted, bringing on a rise of fundamentalism and religious extremism. This led to events in 1967 which resulted in Palestine being reduced to Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights - all seen as Israel occupied land. In total, we're looking at approximately 2,300 square miles (quite the reduction compared to 40 years previous). Born out of this were further plots against Israel and Jews abroad - we should never forget attacks such as the one towards Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. Later, Israeli forces expanded its attacks to other Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
What does this have to do with the US and its current military campaign with Iran, I hear you ask. This is where both countries enter this bleak timeline. During all of the above, Iran, a largely Islamic nation, had a largely quiet first half of the 20th Century. This changed in 1953 when its democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was ousted in a coup, led by the US, over the fact he wanted Iran to nationalise its oil. He was replaced as outright political leader by the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who before didn't feel the need to interfere with politics, until he did. He led an arguably brutal dictatorship of his own, those who dared disagree with him saw themselves at the mercy of the secret SAVAK police that showed very little mercy. According to an Amnesty International report in 1975, there were approximately 120,000 political prisoners, the country had the 'highest rate of death penalties in the world' and human rights were of 'grave concern'. It seemed inevitable that these would lead to a rise in religious radicalism in Iran, and revenges be plotted - so we had a perfect storm of religious extremism brewing from both sides of the Middle East, with very little being done from external forces to do anything about reducing tensions, as incidents there would impact them, albeit indirectly.
It is interesting, therefore, that Pahlavi, in 1976, was famously interviewed by a US TV network and warned people about the influence of Israel in America (his words, not mine), and had been a follower of the Islamic faith. By the end of the 1970s, it was a revolution, which began by disenfranchised working and middle classes, as well as large portions of the Muslim population, that resulted in him and his family fleeing. This sentiment had been brewing for years, but Pahlavi ignored the signs and by the time he recognised that both Islamic fundamentalism and his anti-Jewish sentiments bit back at him, it was too late. He died of cancer in Egypt in 1980, aged just 60.
What came next for Iran was an even more brutal regime, evidenced as recently as this year with a crackdown on protests leading to thousands of people in Iran being killed (the official death toll has been wildly debated, but numbers have ranged from 7,000 to 50,000, it's really hard to estimate when actual figures have yet been counted, despite what some are convinced by), as well as the death penalty continuing to be enforced, even during the current war. But back in the 1980s, the "Islamic Republic" forces (IRGC) had expanded the tensions in the Middle East; embarking on an eight-year war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, while also responding to Israel's further assault on Lebanon by forming terror group Hezbollah in 1982 - an organisation still largely funded by the IRGC today. Another IRGC-funded group, Hamas, was formed in 1987 in response to the Palestinian crises. It is worth setting a side note here, that these groups were formed to preserve Islamic fundamentalism rather than to help the lives of those countrymen and women, the vast majority of whom want to live and practice their faith in absolute peace.
In all of this, successive US administrations had choices to say, "Hang on, guys. Let's all talk this though and think of peaceful and diplomatic solutions to these complex issues." Some former presidents tried. Jimmy Carter agreed some sort of miracle deal with Israel and Egypt in the late 1970s, but took his finger off the pulse when it came to Iran, which led to deepening anti-American sentiments in the country. Bill Clinton tried peace with Israel and Palestine towards the mid-1990s, but the Israeli leader at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated by a far-right compatriot that campaigned aggressively against any peace treaties Rabin signed. The two George Bushes had other ideas - George senior led the Gulf War in 1990 in Kuwait against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, while George junior went for the same Iraq in 2003, and Afghanistan two years previous, all of which adding to the anti-American sentiment and religious extremism in the region.
Judging by the above - which, sadly, barely touched the sides - you can see that, unfortunately, the current military interventions in the Middle East was years in the making. Current regimes in Israel and Iran, both in power for far too long, have been at each other's throats ever since. Their squabbling has been verbal, and any physical attacks prior to 2026, were between Israel and those IRGC-funded groups, namely the battle against Hamas in the wake of the October 7th attacks in 2023. Gaza and the West Bank has been under rubble ever since, with little chance or hope of rebuilding (no, Trump's "Board of Peace" won't achieve this). It will not surprise me if Palestine is no more come the end of this decade.
I fear the same for Iran too, if this military campaign continues. Donald Trump decided to "pre-emptively" launch attacks on Iran, because, according to government officials, "Israel was going to do it before." Initially, the move was to remove the IRGC and Islamic Republic leadership and thus bring regime change. As I write this, while a large chunk of the leadership have perished, including Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, the IRGC still stands, with very few signs of backing down. In fact, the regime has launched retaliatory strikes across the Middle East (majority of strikes have been on either US military bases in Arab states, or Israel government bases) and blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The rest of the world is feeling the pinch, with oil prices sky rocketing.
This is simply the latest chapter of the Middle East crises. As someone who is half-Iranian and anti-war, recent weeks have been hard for me - and I could myself to be the lucky one, as I know many others with closer ties to Iran and are struggling. Israel is hell-bent on destroying Iran's resources, cultural sites and residential buildings, as well as IRGC sites, that even if they achieve the goal of cracking down the regime, it will take years, if not decades, for Iran to rebuild to its full potential. Even the best and most qualified leader won't find it easy to bring Iran back - its economy is on its knees and even if every sanction imposed on the country is lifted, it won't do much to ease residents' fortunes. And neither Netanyahu nor Trump will pledge financial support to reverse the damage they caused, regardless of whether they approve the post-Islamic Republic leadership or not.
I say "post-Islamic Republic" because it is inevitable that the regime will change. If the war didn't happen, I genuinely believe this would have happened sooner than what we're seeing now. If they (Trump and Netanyahu) truly wanted regime change, it had to be done organically - Khamenei, for instance, should never have been killed. If he died naturally (he was apparently very sick anyway), it would have provided Iranians with an opportunity to form a stronger uprising, for then no Mullah to have the desire to be the next Supreme Leader.
But Netanyahu miscalculated the situation. By killing Khamenei on his terms (he wanted to be killed by Israel or the US, the 'enemy', be seen as a 'martyr' to his peers, and escape any persecution), it forced the IRGC to react and spin, appointing a rather unenthusiastic and low-profile replacement, Khamenei's son, Mojtaba, as Supreme Leader, and the regime has been able to continue, even if it's barely. And for each commander and leader who have also passed in this war, exactly how they'd rather go, Netanyahu and Trump have really fallen for it, and it is so frustrating to witness from afar. They can't hope for an uprising when they keep bombing Iranian cities, threaten 'boots on the ground' and an occupation. This is a tragic missed opportunity, but has any war proven any good?
The IRGC is saving face right now, and it is only fighting back because it is delaying what they know will come next, a significant change. What will come next, is anyone's guess. My guess is that it will now take longer to achieve change because of this war, where it could have been much sooner. In terms of other thoughts, Netanyahu wants the return of the Pahlavi dynasty, led by the Shah's son, Reza (despite the Shah's previous sincere concerns about Israel), Trump isn't so keen.
Those who think Netanyahu's aims and actions are justified, are disillusioned by justified hatred towards the IRGC. However, blind hatred can't heal an Iran that is split and confused by who to trust and who to support. There is no official polling in Iran for us to know what they truly want, anything you hear on social media or elsewhere are anecdotal. My opinions are anecdotal, but history doesn't lie, no matter how many times it can be interpreted to fit personal narratives.
My personal hope is that any opposition party or individual, currently living under house arrest or being silenced in other ways within the country, rises through the ashes and offers an alternative Iran, that can offer freedom and peace in the country while offering an olive branch to those across the Middle East, including Israel - someone who can bridge the gap between those against the IRGC and devout Muslims. With Reza Pahlavi offering just the appeasement of Israel, if he was given an ounce of power, I fear it could spell disaster for what remains of Palestine, plus Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. And those soon-to-be-former Hamas and Hezbollah members - because they can't survive without IRGC help - will then turn on Iran, sparking further unrest. Fine balances need to be met.
There is a strong urgency for adult conversations, about ways to provide the Middle East with a true reset. Unfortunately, we have delusional leaders from all corners, who prioritise on endangering their own subjects by harming others. Netanyahu and Trump need to go. Israel and the US need to find pragmatic replacements, and fast. The war must stop, right now, to allow people in Iran to heal. Those who fear the IRGC will go harsher on Iranians, they're already doing unimaginable harm right now in still imposing the death penalty, plotting on certain individuals, and shutting down internet and phone lines. They can't do much more. Their demise is coming, even if it's delayed by ego maniacs in Tel Aviv and Washington who are busy wondering, "What would Churchill do?"
Comments
Post a Comment