Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

I have been reflecting on just how illegal Israel's attack is. I was reminded by Al-Jazeera this morning that

(a) Ayatollah Khamenei issued a solemn fatwa that Iran may not develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances
(b) the CIA issued a report this year 'there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons'.

But, OK, Israel is entitled to do what it can to put off the evil hour on the grounds that Iranian nukes are an existential threat to its existence. Does that allow it to go in for regime change on top of that? Well, yes, a case can be cobbled together that only crazed religious fruitcakes develop nukes etc etc.

But where does that leave the Americans? Surely they are not allowed to join in. They are not threatened existentially by Iran, are they? No, but maybe their World Policeman duties make it permissible. They are after all the theoretical custodians of International Law.

But where does that leave Keir Starmer? Is keeping cosy with an unpredictable blowhard mentioned in any of the statutes? And where does that leave you? You voted for him.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Why is there no evidence of this solemn fatwa? Why can't they show it to anyone when asked? Why will Iran not enact the constitutional ban that the West had actually asked for, similar to Germany's and Japan's, if the fatwa exists. Problem sorted.

Puzzling.

Still, Al Jazeera mentions it. It must be fact.

[Pete Jones]

[Mick Harper]

[Wile E. Coyote]

The international rules-based order, established after World War II, is now facing significant challenges and potential decline. It used to be characterized by multilateralism, international law, cooperation, and a desire to settle disputes by peaceful diplomatic means.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

I didn't say it wasn't. All wars are rational.

[Mick Harper]

There may be a very great parting of the ways when Iran meets the so-called E3 (UK, France and Germany) in Geneva next Friday. I'm not saying it's likely, I am saying it's possible. Let's review what these three countries have in common when it comes to Iran:

* they are all signatories to the JCPOA
* they've all had their issues with the ayatollahs in the past
* they would all prefer Iran was not ruled by ayatollahs
* they would all prefer Iran not to have any nuclear facilities
* they have all had strong ties with Israel in the past
* they have all been getting more and more fed up with Israel
* they all think Israel's attack on Iran is beyond the pale
* they are all fresh from a G7 meeting when Trump agreed one thing and did another
* they all think Trump is irredeemably fruitcake
* they all understand they daren't let him know this

So what's the prognosis?

* Are they going to cohere around the weakest member, the UK?
* Are they going to cohere around the strongest member, France?
* Are they going to cohere around the swing member, Germany?
* Are they going to realise it's strength in unity and break with Trump?
* Are they just going to treat the whole thing as a talking shop?

Like I say, the last is favourite but these are changing times.

[Mick Harper]

All the talk is of 'bunker-busting bombs' and how Israel hasn't got any and only America does. What nonsense. You can find them at the Elephant & Castle, in the Imperial War Museum. We invented them.

Or rather Barnes Wallis invented them. Having discovered the bouncing bomb was of limited functionality he turned his hand to bombs that were big enough not to need a hop, skip and a jump on their way to the target but could be strapped to the underneath of a Lancaster bomber and dropped directly on it.