Keir Starmer makes impressive points so lets break them down
- One moment he talks about protecting International Law and the other he seems quite supportive of US actions on Iran (or at least does not condemn it) an act that undermines International Law in every possible way.
- One moment he condemns Iranian retaliatory strikes on US bases in the region (not as suggested targeting civil population…that’s not the media story we’re getting) – as they’ve threatened to do if attacked – and in the other moment again no condemnation whatsoever of US attacks on Iran.
- At one moment he suggests that Iran is an existential threat to UK based dissidents and a brutal regime to its own citizens while on the other hand a) the UK has been quite laxed when dissidents (or even British nationals) are detained in foreign jails and even assisting US citizens flee prosecution when involved in crimes on British soil b) you can pretty much make the same arguments about the so called “allies” in the region in terms of form of regime.
This in my opinion is an open/shut case about 2 things; oil & regime change and have absolutely nothing to do with any form of national threat-at least not in the form that requires breaking international law and in this flagrant manner of murdering leaders to force regime change; this is disgusting under any law; and legal accountability- had we been a true democracy – would be the first order of business.
But beyond all that and as I mentioned in a previous post, Keir Starmer’s allegiances are suspect and worse yet – again in my opinion – the entire UK political establishment to one degree or another is compromised. Immigration/culture threats – while valid to a degree – supercharging them has been a convenient distraction (whether anti or pro) while the real threat is that democracy has been taken for a ride for far too long and because powerful people may well be implicated this matter is constantly shoved out of sight; kinda Mandelson on steroids when it comes to national security vulnerability.
Now comes a bigger question; is the security establishment also compromised and if not are they in a position to constantly monitor behaviour/attitudes of public servants and if they are how did the Epstein revelations be allowed to go on for decades – and if they’re not monitoring behaviours of public servants well, we’re all in big trouble fellas cause in this day and age we need more advanced/proactive forms of protection for our democracy that’s being attacked from left, right and centre particularly from foreign actors, or so it seams. In other words when citizens are legitimately tracked for security protection, politicians should also be well monitored for national security protection/vulnerabilities while getting this lobbying jazz under control. As mentioned in previous posts about the time when I was closely associated the Liberal Democrats I was shocked when I learned about the different factions within the party (pro Palestine/pro Israel) as a form of importing foreign conflicts into our political space and diluting our values in the process-here we are 11 years later. A good starting point is to get the head or representative of the JCHQ to come out with some clarifications on matters above because they are extremely consequential, and in many ways more than anything else because these are issues with a direct co-relation with the functioning of our democracy.
In a nutshell friends and irrespective of your political affiliation the question we should all be asking and we should all insist on an evidence based answer is simple (who’s really driving our foreign policy and the narratives associated with it and who’s the real beneficiary); these should not be a matter of opinion but one of fundamental/evidence/non-partisan based assessment.
On the other hand if this “setup” is to be a permanent governance model going forward – whether or not you agree there is indeed foreign meddling in our affairs – then lets at least have an open debate about this approach and if its the choice of the majority to maintain the status quo; well there’s true democracy for you – subject closed/lets swiftly move on.