Mr Corbyn: Urges Caution on Tanker Attacks.
Corbyn, Trump and Rouhani
Iran has been accused, of launching attacks on tankers, travelling through the Gulf, off the coast of the Islamic Republic, itself. Off the Iranian port of Jask, two tankers, one Japanese, (Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, was in Tehran, at the time) set on fire, as if struck by a missile, a mine or indeed, a torpedo.
The US later released, what it said, was video evidence, of Iranian forces, removing a limpet mine, from the side, of one of the tankers. The film is a black and white, grainy image, of men on a small vessel, at the side of a larger vessel, doing something.
The US said this was hard evidence of the Iranians having attacked the vessels, in the act of removing a limpet mine, in other words, removing damning evidence. The US will no doubt want to examine the holed tanker/tankers concerned, for evidence, which would lead, to a pinpoint, accurate record for the origin, of the explosives. Is forensic science that good, these days? Well, it would appear to be and if Iran is, behind these attacks, it may not bode well, for the Islamic Republic.
The US with its forces in the Middle East, including a dispatched aircraft carrier, its deck bristling with fighters, is well capable of landing, a destructive blow, to Iran. The temperature between Iran and the US has been rising steadily, over the last few weeks.
The US has accused the Iranians of being behind the sabotage of other ships in the Gulf, recently. Also, Trump has accused the Iranians of being a danger to US forces, in the region.
The Iranians for their part, have strongly denied, any involvement of sabotage or attacks on tankers. The UK has gone along with the American assessment, that Iran was involved in the attacks on shipping. However, the UK's Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has urged caution, not to escalate, an already tense atmosphere.
Mr Corbyn, is correct, in his assessment, saying there is no strong evidence, of Iranian involvement in the attacks, (despite the described, grainy footage).
Conservative leadership hopefuls and others have attacked, Mr Corbyn's response. Sajid Javid has described Mr Corbyn's response, as pathetic. Saying whether it be the alleged involvement of Russians using Novichok in Salisbury, his defence of Nicolas Maduro or his relationship with the IRA, Hamas or Hezbollah, Corbyn always seems to give the enemies of the UK, the benefit of the doubt. Fellow leadership contender, Dominic Raab, has also attacked Mr Corbyn, for his cautious response. Labour MP and member of the shadow cabinet, Emily Thornberry, has defended Mr Corbyn's statement.
Mr Corbyn has been accused of being anti-American, it is easy to see why, given Mr Corbyn's track record, of why some would think that. Corbyn refused to attend the dinner for Trump, that the Queen had arranged, at Buckingham Palace. Corbyn, took part, in anti-Trump rallies, during the Presidents visit to the UK. It turned out later, during a press interview with Mrs May, Corbyn had approached Trump, for a one on one, meeting. Trump, said he declined, because of the name calling of Trump, from Corbyn. In one sense, the fact that both men did not meet, is a shame. If Corbyn becomes Prime Minister and Trump is still President, they will need a working relationship, if the so-called special relationship, is to continue. Both men, politically speaking are at different ends of the political spectrum, however, both men are near enough the same age and both are populists. Both men are either loved or hated, in equal measure, so they are not that different, after all.
Could the grainy film, have been faked? Well, it wouldn't be the first time, the US has used dubious evidence, to support, it's modus operandi, for offensive action. Look at Iraq, 2003, the Bush regime used the excuse of alleged WMD ( Weapons of Mass Destruction) to invade and occupy, the country.
Iran, has many enemies on the Arab side of the Gulf, chiefly, the other big regional player in the region, Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi, are locked in a proxy war in Yemen, supporting their chosen side in the conflict. The UAE and other Arab nations are also enemies, not just because of regional power rivalry, but religiously too. Iran is the leading Shia Islamic nation in the world, just as Saudi fancies, itself, as the chief, Sunni Islamic nation, on earth.
Israel too is a bitter enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of these nations (mentioned above), have been urging the US, to do something about Iran. The US, Western and Arab military action could take place. it only takes one thing, whatever that thing is, to escalate tensions and set off a destructive conflict.
Iran, of course, is a military power in the region, it should not be underestimated, it has a capable navy, air force and army. It has the regimes Revolutionary Guards, who also have their own naval, aircraft and land forces. Iran also has a missile potential to hit US bases and sink the US ships.
Yes, Iran could do vital damage, in a war, but ultimately, up against the might of the US and it's Allie's, it would fail. Iran, however, has a large land mass, which should it lose, a conventional fight, and face invasion, it could fight a guerilla war from. Iran has been in this situation before, when it faced Saddam's Iraq, armed to the teeth, by the latest western and Soviet-supplied weapons. Despite, being the weaker opponent, Iran hung on during the 8-year war and survived. Iran back then was fighting for its very survival, using every facet of its huge population, for the war effort. Back then, it attacked enemy tankers and clashed with the US Navy. Iran is used to fighting with it's back against the wall, so any enemy thinking of attacking Iran should think soberly, about this.
Question is why would Iran, attack tankers now, years after the Iran-Iraq war finished? The answer may be because sanctions are hurting Iran's economy. Iran depends on its oil industry to bring the money in, as it were. So Iran, maybe demonstrating the fact that if it's oil industry is suffering and it is losing money, the rest of the world will feel it's pain too. If Iran is adopting this strategy it is a very dangerous strategy that could lead to conflict, but maybe Iran is desperate and has no other choice. Also, Iran is demonstrating perhaps, it is well capable of blocking the Straits of Hormuz, just 21 miles across. This vital artery supplies much of the worlds oil supply, and any blockage would affect, this dramatically.
Trump has supposedly offered talks to Rouhani, just as he talked to Kim, of North Korea. Iran for its part though does not appear to want to talk, as long as US sanctions are in place.
Trump said he did not want any more US involvement militarily, in the Middle East. However, if a conflict arises, he will be going back on his election promise and may face the wrath of his supporters, come election time. Iran, unless it doesn't care any more, seems to want to avoid conflict too, it wants to survive and preserve the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution.
Of course, finally, there is the danger that Iran's allies, Russia and China, could aid Iran. Either by direct military involvement or by supplying weapons, advisers and material.
Right now, the pressure in the Gulf and the wider Middle East is dangerous. Let us hope, the parties concerned, draw back from conflict, and, agree to talks. Any conflict in the Gulf, could quickly spill out of control and end up, as a global war. This is something that anyone with a rational bone in their body, would not want or welcome.
Trump's Pro-Israel Agenda.
Right from the offing of President Donald Trump's tenure of the White House, he was on good terms, with Israel's, Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump, has a Jewish son in law, who serves in Trump's White House.
Trump and Netanyahu, are, after all, right-wing populists, who put their nations first, so why wouldn't they get on? Both are mavericks and controversial, both could not care less what anyone thinks about them and both, are politically, especially, Trump, unconventional. Trump and Netanyahu, are a symptom of populist leaders, that seems to be sweeping the world right now.
Trump's recognition of Jerusalem, as the once and future capital of Israel, sunk any hope of a two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace. The world reacted in astonishment at Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, whereas most of the world, recognises Tel-Aviv. This is because, in any long-lasting peace agreement, the Palestinians want East Jerusalem, as their capital.
Trump is backed not only by right-wing Zionist Jews in the US, but also, Zionist Christians. Zionists Christians see any peace deal with the Palestinians as going against what the Bible teaches (from their point of view) about the end times.
Trump has also recognised, that the Golan Heights, captured by Israel, in conflict, with Syria, as Israeli land. Netanyahu has even given the name of a potential Jewish settlement of the land, a name that would honour, President Trump, The land is to be called 'Trump Heights', but as yet, no building work for Jewish settlers, has begun.
As for any peace deal with Israel and the Palestinians, Trump says he has a plan, but it would appear, the Palestinians, would be the losers of any implementation of this plan.
The Palestinians for their part, would appear, not happy with the Trump plan, and who can blame them?