Westminstenders: War and Weirdos

[RedToothBrush]

With weirdos set to run No10 and Trump seemingly having started a new war in the Middle East, 2020 already looks set to be a cracking year.

To start off your year, it turns out that chinese curse about interesting times is actually a fallacy...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

Happy New Year.

May we make 2030...

Proxy war?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50997769

Trump seems to have little care for international law - he’s Twittering about targeting Iranian cultural sites if the Iranians retaliate. That would be be a war crime according to the UN. There are 22 UNESCO cultural world heritage sites in Iran.

International law only applies to little countries. The UK and US (and China and Russia) do what they like

Oh, that’s right. And of course Trump can just put Congress “on notice” via Twitter too

The UK govt may have the illusion that it has the power to ignore international law like the US - and Russia, China -
but would probably soon be brought down to earth if they tried

Even hanging onto USA coattails brings very limited immunity - only for as long as the POTUS cba over Britain

The govt would fall splat on its face if it annoyed a more powerful country or bloc, e.g. the EU over trade law or exit bill,
or even a smaller power like Canada or Australia

The UK's effective bullying is of small powerless people, like Chaos islanders, who have no important friends or leverage.

I could not but help think that Iran has powerful friends on its side in Russia and China. All the US can muster up so far is the UK, which has spent the last 3 and a half years tearing itself apart over Brexit, so is going to be of limited use anyway.

The UK probably only gets away now with bullying the Chagos Islanders because of US support.

It's ironic that the UK is so poorly regarded internationally precisely because it lodged itself up the US' rectum in Iraq.

If Blair had taken the other path, it would have enhanced the UKs standing, and who knows ...

Imagine a scenario where the UK security services were forced to carry out an operation in the UK in order to prevent the US raining down a drone strike on the Home Counties where they "think" they've spotted an "enemy of 'Merika" ?

Suez 1956 - The UK and France suffered the same humiliation and drew opposite conclusions: UK would always be the closest ally of the USA, like the weedy kid who sidles up to the playground bully and says, "I'm your best friend, aren't I?"

The French meanwhile decided that you could never trust the Americans, and by extension, the UK, and decided to develop their own independent security policy and genuinely independent nuclear deterrent.

And at the same time, the USA also betrayed Eastern Europe, after over ten years of propaganda radio promising to come to their aid when they rose up, the Hungarians were abandoned by the chief propagandist Dulles.

Proxy war?

Whats new?

Its been going on for some time with Syria. You've also forgotten the Turkish element too....

www.almasdarnews.com/article/the-new-proxy-war-in-syria-iran-and-turkey-vs-saudi-arabia-and-russia/
From last April.

Its all a massive mess, and stems directly from the power vacuum that arose after Iraq, with various parties stepping in to gain influence and control after Saddam went. Unfortunately that was the problem - as soon as you lose a dictator who however brutal and horrendous they are - you have a situation where there is a lack of authority and control in a region. That was always the mistake with Iraq - the lack of planning for what to do next. (And that was always my main concern about the war even back then and for a lot of other people at the time and why a lot of people were protesting, not just because they were pacifists. It was obvious it wouldn't end with the end of a war).

After WW2, this was generally understood in Europe and thats why the post war settle did last. But the middle east was ballsed up, because of racism and an attitude that it was a primitive area of the world which didn't really matter by the west.

Thats now the threat to Europe and the US.

With no small sense of irony at all.

sigh

And the involvement of Russia and Turkey in Syria in addition to the Iraq situation and the US / Saudi alliance is precisely why it has the potential to blow up into WW3.

These are not real countries: Jordan, Syria and Iraq were doodled on the back of a napkin by Winston Churchill in March 1921.

The French meanwhile decided that you could never trust the Americans, and by extension, the UK, and decided to develop their own independent security policy and genuinely independent nuclear deterrent.

And helped Israel with their nuclear programme ?

Just thought I'd put Johnson's exact words on Iran up here as the BBC and newspapers don't always quote in full.

Exact words were "Today I have spoken with President Macron, President Trump and Chancellor Merkel, and will be speaking with other leaders in the coming days.
"General Qassem Soleimani posed a threat to all our interests and was responsible for a pattern of disruptive, destabilising behaviour in the region.
"Given the leading role he has played in actions that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and western personnel, we will not lament his death.
"It is clear however that all calls for retaliation or reprisals will simply lead to more violence in the region and they are in no-one's interest."
"We are in close contact with all sides to encourage de-escalation.
"I will be speaking to other leaders and our Iraqi friends to support peace and stability."

What do people think? Perhaps slightly less Trumpy than Raab ?

Definitely less Trumpy.
Also he's apparently just told Trump off for his threat to bomb cultural sites. He is going up in my estimation if he keeps on... too early to tell though. It is a very wobbly tightrope he's walking.

I think that response is OK. Fairly benign and on the fence, says something but doesn't really say anything. We would be so much better off if we just kept out of it (although I appreciate this is difficult as we have troops and history there.)

I actually think that Johnson is less Trump than Raab who always seems quite aggressive to me.

.

^He is going up in my estimation if he keeps on... too early to tell though.

^
Against my own better judgments I kind of agree. Aghhh it's being too open minded giving Johnson the benefit of doubt on anything.

It worries me - I feel a bit like a gaslighted, dominated spouse. Still prepared to give him the benefit of doubt- wtf.
Even knowing his history from Darius Guppy to anti EU journalism, treatment of women, expelling moderates, trying to circumvent parliament, his voting record and his role in the Leave campaign.

Off to splash cold water on my face to wake myself up or something.

Raab who always seems quite aggressive to me

Roid rage?

Raab off to DC soon to see Pompeo. Hopefully this will not be the usual 'Special Relationship' exercise in political felatio: Do not accuse us of "Not Understanding" your position when you fail to inform us of what the hell you are doing or why. And Mrs Secolas is coming back to face the music or the one-sided extradition treaty goes in the bin.

It worries me - I feel a bit like a gaslighted, dominated spouse. Still prepared to give him the benefit of doubt- wtf.

I completely agree @lonelyplanetmum - argh!

Also he's apparently just told Trump off for his threat to bomb cultural sites

Easy win because it’s so clearly in breach of international law.

"the one-sided extradition treaty goes in the bin"

Nope
It's the way the US think any treaty should be

The UK has never been in a weaker position, so BJ would sacrifice UK defendants without hesitation

re Iran:
I'd be astonished if BJ does anything braver than promising the minimum support to Trump that he can get away with.

Hopefully just supportive words rather than providing military forces or use of bases

I don't expect any plain-talking from the British side on anything,
rather as much obfusctation as possible

He won't have dared "tell Trump off" for anything
I bet the US version of what happened is very different

BJ cares no more about international law - or British law - than Trump does
It's all about consequences

Trump - with good reason - assumes any POTUS is immune from the consequences of foreign law
whereas BJ would be daft to assume the same, for PM of a weakened medium-ranked power

He won't tell off Trump and as we see, can't stop him doing anything he wants

• difficult when he's not informed of it in advance ! -

however I expect BJ to avoid risking actual participation in any clear war crime

I guess my expectations are so abysmally low that anything not outrageous or remotely decent feels like such a relief...

I see the UK is "urging" (which I read as code for "begging") Iraq to allow British troops to stay.

(I suspect the main reason is we'd struggle to find housing for an extra 400 soldiers in the UK at short notice, but heigh ho).

One of the best comments I read recently is that it must be Irans fault for having a country so near to 52 US military bases.

Is this how it ends ? With a wimp, not a bang ?