Trump gives Iran a lesson why it should become a nuclear power
There is talk in Iran about taking that first step of withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Introduction
This is long, but I hope you will read it through because what happened in the past in the Middle East is always an influence on the present. Just think of the Arab world reaction when George W Bush, after 9/11, used the word “crusade” to describe his country’s response. In the history applicable to Iran two western powers, the UK and the USA, played roles that helped create that country’s regime in 1979.
Trump is very pleased with himself. He has exercised the muscle power of the USA, bombed a sovereign state which presented no military threat to the territory of the United States, as much a breach of international law as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and is now in the grip of hubris. He has warned the members of OPEC: “EVERYONE. KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”
Trump has assumed the role of the world’s Chief Executive, expecting all to obey and bend to his will. So omnipotent that can condescend to inform the Iranian head of state that he can sleep easy, as he is not going to be assassinated.
Trump lives in the moment. But that is not how it is in the Middle East.
The ignoramus has been let loose
In a letter published in The Herald Thursday 19th June, I described Donald Trump as “a President whose knowledge of the world outside New York real estate hustling, is non-existent“. I noted that while the United States has had a mix in its Presidents, “none until now has ever qualified as the world’s number one ignoramus”.
That was not meant as an insult, just an accurate description of a man, Trump, whose conduct in the international sphere shows a complete absence of knowledge of the historical, cultural, religious, and political complexities that have shaped the world of today. All the qualities required of a leader of a superpower are missing - exercising diplomacy through deed and language, cementing alliances, acknowledging the interests of lesser powers, respecting the international law your own country has created and expects others to follow, using power to promote stability, all in the context of understanding how the tides of history have washed up on the shores of today, and sculped its present political contours and realities.
Trump has insulted allied leaders – Trudeau, Macron, Zelensky – called into question America’s commitment to NATO partners, insulted the national pride of Canadians and Greenlanders, showed his disdain for the G7 by walking out early, destroyed the trade treaties he personally made with neighbours Canada and Mexico, sabotaged the world trade system, and recently, with no recognition of international legal norms, demanded the “unconditional surrender” of a country with which at that time the US was not at war. This is the man who gave himself two weeks to decide on whether he would openly intervene militarily in that country, as though such a decision, with all the deaths and destruction that would follow, was one of a kind that he alone was entitled to make.
Now that he has unleashed US military might on Iran, this ignoramus has handed to every adversary of the USA a potent propaganda weapon that will weaken, if not destroy, what influence it has in the global south where new powers have risen; and will give every jihadist a spur towards wreaking terrorist revenge on the peoples of the states lining up with him.
The world order has changed: but some have not yet grasped this
For some three hundred years as major European states carved their empires, followed since 1945 by the USA, our leaders did not have to bother with the views of others. De-colonialisation and the rise in power of states in Africa and Asia made that old world redundant. In that geopolitical setting, with a slow burn, due principally to the writings of Egyptians Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, there has been a resurgence of belief in Islam and its teachings.
After the defeat of the Ottoman empire and its dissolution in 1918, Islam went into a period where it was putty in the hands of western imperial powers, France and Britain. They dictated who would rule and ensured they ruled always in the imperialist interest. In the Gulf the tribal leaders were in the pocket of the British. Syria and Lebanon were in the hands of France. In Asia, Muslims were ruled by Britain in India and in Indonesia by the Dutch. Egypt was nominally independent, but British controlled. For Muslims it was the years of humiliation.
The first backlash was not Islamic but Arab, when Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company, owned jointly by Britain and France, in 1956. This was proclaimed as a victory for Arab nationalism, a secular idea, and held sway until Israel crushed the secular Arab alliance of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in six days, in 1967. First, tribal chiefs had never stood against foreign powers, now Arab nationalism too had failed, opening the way for the idea in Hassan al-Banna’s famous book “Islam is the solution” to become a driving force in Islam.
Over the last 60 years or so there has been a resurgence of belief in the value and importance of Islam as set out in the Koran among Muslims worldwide. Moreover, something that is hardly mentioned in the West, is that Islam by comparison with Christianity or Judaism is a young religion. In the Islamic calendar this is not 2025, but 1446. Today Christianity and Judaism, those old two, are fairly settled, institutionalised, whereas the young Islam is in a dynamic period. Wisdom decrees that the leaders of western states, especially that of the US with its wide each, will tread carefully in dealing with every part of that Islamic world. I doubt in Trump’s limited vocabulary the word wisdom is to be found.
Shia: the added factor in Islam
There is an added factor of Islam when dealing with Iran. It is Shia not Sunni. Shia represents around 10-13 per cent of the whole body of the religion. Often in Islamic history the Shia have been persecuted, regarded as heretical by the majority. They are the majority in Bahrain, but ruled by a Sunni monarch. They were the majority but did not rule in Saddam’s Iraq, but do now. There is a Shia minority in Lebanon, ignored until recently. There is a significant Shia minority in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia, who have cause for complaint and frequently rebel. The Shia are used to being picked out for punishment; the US attack fits their experience, and as ever, gives them the cause for striking back. If I was an American, I would ponder and fear the implications of what that Shia woman in Iran told the world when saying “death is sweeter than honey.” It is what every suicide bomber believes as he presses the button, and takes him straight to paradise.
The consequences of not understanding history and Islam today
Sensible conduct of international relations today, as distinct from imperial times, requires looking at issues from the point of view, and interests, of those you are engaged with. Anyone who has read the extensive material that has come from Arab and other Islamic country leaders, writers, commentators, students, street demonstrators, should be aware of the “double-standards” accusation; the citing of historical wrongs, and the lies and hypocrisy employed when attacking an Arab or Islamic country and people.
Always when I talked to Arab friends I got told along the lines of “Israel can do whatever it wants, ignores international law, hasn’t a finger laid upon it, whereas Iraq was subject to the most severe sanctions, had lies told about it having weapons of mass destruction, and was invaded. The west, especially America, preaches the rule of law to us, lectures us on human rights, but breaks the laws it preaches, and itself engaged in torture, water-boarding, at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Stinking hypocrisy.”
With that background of attitudes among Arab and other Islamic people, within a Pandora’s box of anti-American anger, it would be wise for any US President to tread carefully. Blow open the lid of that box, and trouble, real trouble, will emerge; if not immediately, eventually.
Iran and external powers: a toxic history
The present regime is a nasty bit of work
I doubt if anyone reading this has a good word to say about the regime that has been governing Iran since 1979. It is an Islamic theocracy, brutal against political opponents, savage in its policies against people who are gay, with serious questions as to its claim of legitimacy, with the 2024 elections at a low turnout of 41%, with 5% of the ballots papers spoiled in protest at what many saw as a rigged event.
It is anti-Semitic to a level not witnessed since the Nazis. The founder of this regime Ayatollah Khomeini, wrote that “From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present.” He saw the Jews as agents of the west. This conspiracy theory does not accord with the history of Islam, where Jews and Christians, between periods of persecution, were tolerated, paid extra taxes, and lived in safety as minorities who never challenged or tried to subvert their Islamic rulers.
The present supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has an Israel Doomsday Clock set up in Tehran, ticking away (when it is not stopped by electricity cut offs) to the day in 2040 when, as the Ayatollah’s prophecy puts it, Israel will be destroyed. This foolish stuff gives Iranian diplomats a sore head, and is meat and drink to Netanyahu. One minute’s consideration shows it is just word stuff with no substance.
If the Ayatollah’s clock means Iran gets the Bomb and obliterates Israel, it is not only the end of Israel but also the end of Iran, because Israel is a nuclear power and would retaliate. There is no indication that the Iranian regime is suicidal.
Moreover, the present supreme leader, despite his prophecy, issued a Fatwa a long time ago against Iran acquiring and using a nuclear weapon as it is against Islamic teaching. It was explained by an Iranian general that the only way Iran would escape from the Fatwa is if it was threatened by the two nuclear powers United States and Israel – thus invoking the deterrent theory, and exposing the Clock as a stupid piece of useless but damaging theatre.
This nasty bit of work is a result of Western action in Iran
The 1979 Iranian revolution was no random accident. The causation lies in Iran’s involuntary involvement, to its disadvantage, with Soviet, American and British governments’ interests.
In World War II there were two ways of getting United States lend lease material and weapons to the Soviet Union: by sea via Icelandic convoys and landward through Iran. The USA was not at that time in the warn, but committed to supplying the USSR with aid. Iran was a neutral state, with the ruler Reza Shah Pahlavi favourable to Germany, and thus not amenable to the allies using the Iran route.
In August 1941, with no complaints from the American President FDR, the USSR and Britain invaded Iran, deposed the Shah, replaced him with his compliant son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and opened the way for supplies of considerable volume. Although Iran had a parliament dating back to 1906, the Soviets and Britain paid no heed to it, and were effectively in control of Iran, with the promise to leave six months after the end of the war. For Britain there was the added bonus that the Iranian oil field, which Britain had owned and controlled, remained in our hands.
At war’s end, eventually both occupiers left, but Britain maintained its ownership and control of the oilfield. There was no share allocated to Iran.
The MI6 & CIA Coup to topple Mosaddegh
In 1952, following elections, Mohammad Mosaddegh, a lawyer, longstanding member of parliament, an Iranian nationalist, became Prime Minister. He, with the support of the parliament, nationalised the oil company, just as government in Britain had done with several utilities and industries in our country.
Democracy alive and kicking in the Middle East, with a government enforcing its legitimate power to take control of the nation’s resources? This idea might catch fire elsewhere in the Middle East, and America and Britain’s grip on the Gulf oil producers could be in danger. Mosaddegh was denounced in the west as a dangerous radical, and the CIA along with MI6 organised a coup against him, something now openly admitted here and in the USA.
Iran’s parliament was stifled. The Shah, delighted with the coup, centralised authority on himself, used the US army to train his military, and the CIA to train SAVAK , his secret police, with its well-known torture routines practised on opponents, one of which was to tie a naked person to a bed with no mattress, link the springs to electricity and heat them until they were red hot. When confronted with this in an interview, the Shah ended it abruptly. His regime was oppressive, and detested. There was a quiet little reported side-show in 1954 after Mosaddegh was ousted, when the British agreed to a 50/50 split on ownership of the oil field. That made the Shah, who acted as though he owned the country, personally very rich, and helped cement his role as the West’s man whom we could rely on.
By their actions from 1941 onwards the USA and Britain helped create the Shah-ruled Iran against which the people revolted in 1979, and opened the way for Ayatollah Khomeini, an outspoken opponent of the Shah, with the legitimacy of having been exiled, to come to power. US and UK sowed the seeds. He got the harvest.
Again, we have a policy of military attack larded by lies and facts upside down
It is an astonishing mind that can lie, or stand facts upside down, and expect the world to believe it. We had an example at the time of the Iraq war preparations when the USA vice-president claimed Saddam Hussein was in bed with al Qaeda, which everyone knew was a whopper.
Trump has that mind. That he won in 2020 is but one example. That he never met Stormy Daniels while paying her $130K is another. Over the weekend we got two upside down facts. He said Iran should come back to the negotiating table, when in fact it never left it, but the US did. Then he called for Iran to end the war, which it never started, but the US and Israel did. He also claimed that Iran was within weeks of having a nuclear weapon, when there is no such evidence, as explained by his own Director of national intelligence, who draws on information from 18 US intelligence agencies.
It is Iran as a state we need to look at
As I have written earlier, this Iranian regime is a nasty bit of work. But it is one among many, with whom we must live in the international world of states.
With Iran, whatever one thinks of the regime, it is in the context of state interests we have to examine the situation now created. As a state there is at present little it can do to hurt the USA without inviting a total blitz from the sky. That reality was manifest when Iran signalled to the USA it was going to mount a token missile attack on its base in Qatar, giving plenty of time to make sure they were shot down with no damage done.
Iran has the ability to close the Hormuz strait but that would damage China which gets 80% of oil from Iran, and it would also inflict pain on its Arab neighbours’ trade with the world, with whom it is anxious to maintain good relations. With America it can wait. The Shia are used to enduring, biding their time, until they get an opportunity, however far down the line of time, to get even. But it is not powerless in the short term. It still has options as a state.
The Iran state can now do what the USA- Israel doesn’t want it to do
“Long Term, this makes an Iran bomb likelier”
William Hague, The Times 24th June
Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This allows it to have a civil nuclear power programme that includes, of necessity, the ability to enrich uranium. It is, under the treaty, subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It reports Iran having enriched uranium well beyond the level required for civil needs: to 60% which can quickly be geared up to weapons grade of 90%.
Why would Iran do that while claiming it is not in pursuit of nuclear weapons? It reflects what academics, from knowledge of the regime, have been saying: that with constant threats from the USA and Israel, there is a strong faction arguing that, given the deterrence theory worked in the cold war and since, Iran should acquire its own nuclear weapons and so gain protection from attack. Going up to 60% provider that future option.
One of the consequences of Trump’s attack, is that the future option has become a likely present one. That would require two things. First, resigning from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, membership of which has allowed the AIEA to inspect its nuclear sites and tell the world what Iran is doing. Out of the treaty and Iran would be as secretive as Israel. Second, the Ayatollah cancelling the Fatwa, which so far he has not done, and is not likely to do until Iran has nuclear weapon capability. Then it is just a matter of a signature on a piece of paper.
As I write there is talk in Iran, but so far only talk, about taking that first step of withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does so, the pro-nuclear weapons faction will have won.
What about regime change?
Netanyahu has been open about it being his objective, and Donald Trump has more than hinted it is his too. But as neither intends to invade with feet on the ground, they must expect it to happen from within. If they think the Revolutionary Guard, who own one-third of the Iranian economy, will give up power easily then Bibi and Donald live in a fairyland.
Dictatorial regimes are never overthrown until the people are unafraid of them, and the military will not shoot the people.
In Tiananmen Square the students were unafraid, by the PLA was prepared to shoot, and the Communist Party of China remained in power. The GDR fell when the people demonstrating in Leipzig were unafraid and the armed militia refused the order from the politburo to shoot. There is no sign that the Iranian people are no longer in fear of the regime, and every sign that the Revolutionary Guard would not hesitate to shoot.
The talk of regime change that came from Trump, and the open call for it from Netanyahu, did no favours to the Iranian people. It put the regime on their guard.