In Iran, the now killed old guard has been replaced by the murderous fanatical Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Islamists, who are part of the brutal repression of the people of Iran. Trump says he has achieved regime change; but the idea was always for that to be for the betterment of the Iranian people, even democracy. The war remains to be won. It is likely beneficial regime change will eventually only come from within the country although outside pressures could hasten the process. Will a new campaign of assassination of IRG leaders by Israel and the USA ensue with unknown consequences?
In Hungary, the replacement of Orban as President with Magyar, through the democratic election process, is from a Western eye a benefit, and damages Putin, notably something Trump will not do. It may also be good for Ukraine and the EU. In Venezuela, Trump has changed things through removal physically of Maduro, the Corbyn hero. Time will tell if Venezuelans benefit. Trump seeks a result in Cuba. In fact, because of the abject poverty caused by past regimes, perhaps both Venezuela’s and Cuba ‘s peoples relatively speaking will have more prosperity, as long as the old corruption is not matched by a new corruption.
Some may wish for regime change in the USA but it does not seem imminent! However, Trump should be gone in 3 years’ time and so perhaps patience is the virtue most required. But what about the UK?
REMOVING STARMER COULD ALSO BACKFIRE?
The current UK Government engine is burnt out and rudderless, and fire in the county’s belly is barely smouldering. Arguably the change in Iran has made Iran more dangerous to the rest of the world. Arguably too, a change in the leader of the Labour party from Starmer to one of the touted alternatives would be dangerous for the UK.
Starmer is becoming more clearly recognised as a useless leader, a man who talks constantly of how strong leadership is now required and how he is providing it. He is either delusional, having at least one trait in common with Trump, or dishonest, another common trait maybe, or is plain incompetent in the role he is in, the conclusion most kind to him.
Intellectually he understands that things need to get done, and he promised on his arrival as PM to change things for the better, to be a doer not a talker: but he is doing the opposite. He announces key policies one day and overturns them the next when it is apparent relevant people may not agree. Most recently in front of the Parliamentary Liaison Committee, when asked what he was doing about a number of topics, such as defence or NEETS, his answer was “I am considering it”, “it is under review”, “I am consulting about it”. As to defence spending “it is on my desk”, or “we are holding a meeting with allies about it” and so it went on. Trump even mocked his inability to decide and his need to refer back.
As to the war in Iran, he takes the reasonable position that it is not the UK’s war and so can choose what he wants to do: which means he can do nothing, so he is comfortable. Especially as he knows that the UK is powerless to make a meaningful military contribution and so the only option is to stay away. As to the Straits of Hormuz and keeping it open for shipping, he says this is vital and is working on it but will do nothing until the conflict is over. Indeed, he is holding a summit with France as co-chair on the topic with a number of interested nations. But without the USA ‘s involvement is the Summit real? The answer so often is procrastination and deferral, but with words that portray him as action man. This is all deceitful.
Finally, as energy security becomes front and centre, he defers on opening up the UK North Sea resources to Milliband, refusing to lead. And when anyone suggests Europe must defend itself and spend urgently, he says he has been saying this for 2 years thus proving the point. Because still he has done nothing and the Strategic Defence Investment plan is not just 6 months late, there is no date scheduled to complete it. The UK is becoming a bottom of the league spender on NATO defence, and Starmer’s only commitment is a rise in the next Parliament: probably not his problem, but if it is by some chance, then only if the fiscal position permits. The most pressing priority facing leadership is being concealed from the public: and why? Because leadership requires a decision to spend money from other Government pockets, probably welfare, and some of his party will hate him for it, and so he deceives and ducks the issue.
Leadership means telling people what is necessary and persuading them of your vision and taking sometimes unpopular decisions. He is ill-equipped. And so surely he must be removed and some say he will be if the May local elections see Labour failure. But what is the alternative? Is any other candidate better equipped? Rayner, the bookies favourite, would be a left-wing disaster, like a nodding dog from the 70s world of “what about the workers”. She thrives on divisiveness, hating wealth but not paying her own taxes it seems. Wes Streeting, before he took office, said the right things, demanding NHS change and efficiency and better outcomes. But he has failed miserably, as maternity care and cancer outcomes are a disaster, and the NHS culture ignores him largely. Andy Burnham has a chip on his shoulder and is dangerous seeking to harden the soft left-wing. Who else? As with Iran, a change of regime may look attractive, but maybe the status quo is less dangerous, if wholly negative for the country. Maybe as with Trump, it is necessary to wait and sweat it out until democracy changes regime. But in both the UK and the USA will new regimes do better?
WILL A UK PHOENIX RISE FROM THE ASHES OF IRAN WAR?
As it stands, as he cannot create growth through policies, Starmer is trying to justify realigning to EU rules, undoing the exit from the EU, as a way to grow the UK economy. There is little evidence it will do that, but as ever he asserts what suits him. The war in Iran he says will define the UK for a generation and proves the UK must reset to Europe.Trump of course is only for a few years the face of the USA and the special relationship must be preserved beyond his tenure. Will EU realignment help that? A mutually fair and balanced friendship with the EU is vital. But piecemeal sector by sector surrender of power will inexorably lead to a return of the “in or out” debate which wasted so much resource and created pernicious division in the last decade.
Rather than letting the war define the UK, a true leader would surely see the chance not to be defined from the outside but to reset from the inside. The war is a chance for true leadership to revitalise growth by bigging up and enthusing entrepreneurs, small business and the private sector, giving incentives. And truly making defence a priority as well as technology and other sciences. But this requires Starmer to develop his own mind, stop dithering and delaying, and to defy his internal opponents who drag the UK down with public sector and welfare excess. The UK phoenix can emerge but only if the people of the UK are energised to pull their weight and more, and real leadership could do that.
Leave a Reply