Here’s something you really don’t need me to tell you: We need to prepare for a fresh wave of hate.
The past 19 months, since the October 7 massacre, have seen regular hate marches on the streets of London, social media become a sea of poison, and much of the media acting as de-facto Hamas propagandists. It’s so overwhelming that we have almost got used to it.
But there’s nothing the Jew haters like more than a fresh angle, and when you’re protesting against attacks on Hamas it’s a short stretch – no stretch at all, really – to protesting against attacks on Iran. And I’d venture to suggest that if you asked a random marcher what they thought of Iran, they’d tell you it was standing up to “Israeli aggression”. Today, I’d similarly suggest, they’d say they stand in solidarity with Iran against Israel. And right on cue, CND – who knew it still existed? – has issued a statement that, “Nuclear-armed Israel must stop its illegal attack on Iran.” Jeremy Corbyn has said that “they are a threat to the safety of humankind across the world” – which might have been the only sensible thing he had ever said if by “they” he meant Iran. Which he didn’t.
But obvious hate is easy to spot and thus easy to reject. What is more pernicious is when supposed experts and analysts spout nonsense but do so with a veneer of credibility. They may not be “haters” themselves, but what comes from their mouths provides fuel for the haters.
Experts such as Dr Jim Walsh from MIT’s Security Studies Program, a self-described specialist in “Int'l security, Iran/N Korea, terrorism”. Dr Walsh shared his thoughts on the BBC this morning, telling viewers that Iran would now, having never before had the slightest intention of actually developing a nuclear weapon, decide to go full steam ahead: “For twenty years we’ve had Iran on the edge, never making the nuclear decision. Always being close but never making it. Now Israel has taken action to PUSH them over the edge. Yeah, we’re going to do it, we’re going to go for it.” That’s certainly an interesting take, whether it’s the idea that Iran has had no intention of developing a weapon until now, or the notion that Israel’s destruction of Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapon programme means it will now go ahead.
According to Dr Walsh, “When Israel hit Osirak in Iraq, what was Saddam’s response? He doubled down on the nuclear programme.” Again, it’s an original take on the Israeli strike in 1981 which destroyed Saddam’s imminent capability.
Sky News offered us first the take of its US correspondent, David Blevins, whose considered view was that “Israel defied Trump and chose to act now” – he has even written a piece for its website with this assertion – taking at face value the statement of US Secretary of Marco Rubio that Israel acted alone and that even if President Trump had wanted to stop the Israelis, he simply couldn’t. Seriously?
That’s the same view as expressed by Andrew Roth in – quelle surprise – the Guardian, who told readers that “Israel’s strikes on Iran show Trump is unable to restrain Netanyahu as Middle East slips closer to chaos…Critics have said the US decision to retreat from the region has led to a greater likelihood of conflict. The unilateral strikes indicated a collapse of Donald Trump’s efforts to restrain the Israeli prime minister and almost certainly scuttled Trump’s efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran that would prevent the country from seeking a nuclear weapon.” Well, it’s a view.
Then again, according to Sky News’ International Affairs Editor, Dominic Waghorn, this has all come about because Benjamin Netanyahu “made it a lifetime ambition to make happen”. For his entire life, according to Waghorn, all Netanyahu has wanted to do is attack Iran as an aim in itself, rather than as the last resort possibility for preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Anyone familiar with Waghorn’s work will not be surprised by this take, or with his view that it's all really the fault of Trump’s decision in his first term to pull out of Obama’s nuclear deal, under which Iran agreed to give up enriching uranium: “Donald Trump ripped up the Americans’ signature on that deal and Iran went back to enriching uranium”. Because, of course, Iran had complied fully with the deal and everything was going so very well, all light and happy and joyful, and Iran behaving perfectly, and then suddenly for no good reason the nasty Americans went and ruined everything and the Iranians went back to doing something they had entirely given up under the deal. (Bernard Levin had the wonderful idea that there should be a sarcasm font; that last sentence would needed it.)
As I write, we have yet to hear from the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen. For this small mercy, much thanks.
