30.06.2016

War criminals all

The Labour right is guilty of much more than plotting against Jeremy Corbyn, writes Yassamine Mather

At a time when news in the United Kingdom, Europe and North America is dominated by Brexit and the political and economic turmoil it has created, the wars of the Middle East are continuing to take their toll, with tens of thousands of refugees suffering terrible conditions in sweltering heat. And, of course, the wars and their consequences are very directly connected to the issue of migration, so hotly debated during the EU referendum campaign, as well as to the infighting within the Labour Party.

Let us not forget that the hero of the Labour right wing, Hilary Benn, owes his current prominence to the opportunistic speech he gave in support of UK military intervention in Syria in December 2015. At a time when some on the left are calling for Tony Blair to be charged as a war criminal for his role in the invasion of Iraq, Benn displays blatant ignorance of Middle Eastern issues, combined with a short-termism characteristic of those whose politics are determined by personal ambitions. Such individuals are obviously unsuitable to lead any party, never mind one that claims to represent the interests of working people.

So let us remember who voted for the Iraq war: not just Hilary Benn, but, amongst others, Angela Eagle, Vernon Coaker, Chris Bryant, John Healey and Maria Eagle. No wonder they are keen to divert attention from Chilcot, which might remind us all of their cooperation with a government complicit in war crimes.

First on Benn’s ignorance. Last week Iraqi Christians, victims of so many horrific crimes (perpetrated by both the Shia government and its Jihadist opponents), were quoted on social media as asking, ‘How come the United States has the technology to find water on Mars, but cannot find Islamic State bases here on Earth?’ The answer is very simple: the United States is well aware of the exact location of IS bases, not to mention individual leading figures, in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. But its current policy is not one of defeating IS, at least in Syria, but merely to curtail its ability, to make sure it is weakened in Iraq. It is continuing to support Saudi Arabian and Turkish intervention on the side of Islamist groups such as Al Nusra, while turning a blind eye or cooperating with IS, at least as far as its financial activities are concerned. Only a complete fool - or a politician committed to keeping British foreign policy totally in line with that of the US - would have made the kind of speech he made in Westminster during the Syria debate last December.

The recent Wikileaks revelations, which include quotes from Hillary Clinton’s emails, show the fundamental mistake made by all those who still believe the civil war in Syria is simply an issue of Assad vs ‘moderate’ Islamists. This is from a Clinton email in November 2015:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma … It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security - not through a direct attack, which in the 30 years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance.¹

Then there is Israeli Defence Forces intelligence chief, major general Herzi Halevy, who stated that Israel not only “prefers Isis” to the Syrian government, but does not want to see IS defeated.²

It is true that, as the Arab spring brought hope and encouraged the opposition in many Arab countries, a protest movement took shape and rightly called for the overthrow of the Assad regime. However, it was the regime’s brutal repression, as well as the virtually unlimited funds poured in to the jihadists by the Saudi and Gulf royals that led to the current disaster. So the Americans know exactly who funded IS and, as Clinton and Halevy both confirm, the overwhelming concern remains Israel’s ‘security’ in the region, which means taking action against any force capable of challenging this.

IS and Iran

On June 26, Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi announced the recapture of Fallujah. Although IS had already been driven out of most of the town centre, the capture of the north-western suburb of Golan - the stronghold first of al Qa’eda and later of IS - was said to mark a breakthrough in the battle between the Shia state and its jihadi opponents. However, it is possible that IS decided simply to withdraw - unless we believe the Iraqi army’s claim that 1,800 of its fighters were killed in the battle for Fallujah. Iraq’s defence minister is now also claiming that Mosul will be taken back by the end of the year. An ambitious aim, as the town remains a major source of income for IS and the militia withdrawn from Fallujah are presumably moving to Mosul to strengthen the defence of the caliphate’s main town in Iraq.

However, the military setbacks suffered by IS have coincided with rumours of a change of policy in Tehran, whereby Iran is ready to accept Russian proposals regarding the future of Syria. Throughout the last few years, supreme leader Ali Khamenei and his foreign policy advisors have been emphatic in their support for Assad - his removal was declared to be a red line, as far as Iran is concerned.

If Tehran has changed its mind about Syria, a number of events might have played a role in this. Last week news agencies reported clashes between Hezbollah and the Syrian army near Aleppo - Hezbollah troops are supposed to be in Syria to support Assad. This followed accusations by the Syrian army that Hezbollah had refused to fight IS. A second concern of the Iranian regime is the number of body bags returning from Syria, and its effect on even the most die-hard supporters of the clerics. A recent move in Iran, whereby some policy-making powers regarding Syria have been transferred from the offices of the supreme leader to the ministry of foreign affairs, have fuelled speculation that Iran is about to ditch Assad.

As if the situation was not bad enough, we are witnessing signs of a new conflict in the Middle East. The Bahrain government has often accused Iran of arming its Shia opponents and now the Bahraini authorities have revoked the citizenship of ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim, the most senior Shia cleric in the emirate. General Qasem Soleimani, leader of the elite Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was quoted by the New York Times complaining about this “mistreatment” of a senior cleric, which could “create flames of fire in Bahrain and the entire region”. Soleimani went on to threaten Bahrain by stating: “The people will have no choice but armed resistance.”³

All this is, of course, part of the continuing regional battles between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile in north Iran, another battle is brewing - this time between the Islamic Republic and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran. Although the Kurds have legitimate reasons to mistrust the Iranian regime, including under its ‘reformist’ presidents, and they are justified in calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, those of us who support the cause of the Kurdish people have never considered the opportunist, centre-right KDP (Iran) as a genuine force for Kurdish emancipation. My concern is that this latest episode is part of a bigger picture. It is alleged that the KDP (Iran), together with other Iranian Kurdish groups, has accepted US funds over the last few years - funds which clearly come with strings attached.

In summary, an entire region, with its failed states and civil wars, is up in flames, creating misery for millions. And at the end of the day who is responsible for this current situation? The answer is simple: George Bush and Tony Blair and their cynical “45 minutes” lie. Chilcot is unlikely to say that openly, but anyone with an iota of intelligence will be able to read between the lines.

And all this relates directly to the current conflict within the Labour Party. The right is determined that the Blairite policy of support for US foreign policy and the state of Israel must continue at all costs - accusations of anti-Semitism against those critical of Israel are part of the same scenario. The Labour Party right believes that by attacking Corbyn it can divert attention from its own culpability in US-UK crimes against the peoples of the Middle East. They are mistaken: it makes us even more determined to expose them as cronies of Blair’s war in Iraq who have learnt nothing - as shown by their support for military intervention in Syria.

yassamine.mather@weeklyworker.co.uk

Notes

1. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328.

2. www.almasdarnews.com/article/israeli-intelligence-chief-not-want-isis-defeat-syria.

3. www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/world/middleeast/iran-bahrain.html?_r=0.