Despite it having seemed unlikely that the situation in the Middle East could get more disastrous, the launching of war against Iran has signalled a doubling down on war crimes by the United States and Israel. As is generally the case, convoluted disagreements over nuclear weapons between officials provide the justification for ruthless violence against civilians. One need only think of the school-aimed missile strike killing 175 people, mostly children, to prove this chilling reality. These facts are significantly harder to swallow when the USA’s ideological opposition to Iran has been shown in the past to be so flimsy, and firmly subordinate to economic interests; their continued arms sales to Iran despite the embargo in the 1980s throws into question the principles they use to justify conflict.
The UK, having predictably relented to letting the American military use British bases, have pledged to remain uninvolved in offensive actions. The UK seems eager to prove that we have some ability for independent action, regardless of American interests. Indeed, it’s an attitude which is being echoed in many countries, with Mark Carney promoting the novel idea of a foreign policy which is not characterised by a dependence on the United States. In practical terms, this reiterates the UK’s stance of backing warfare but not too overtly – whether that’s a cowardly display of pragmatism or a commendable reluctance to engage in conflict, it’s up to you to decide.
In scrutinising the UK’s response, it seems a reach to suggest that it represents anything definitive apart from apathy. For many of us, it’s hard to imagine the UK taking a hard line in anything. Does it not feel strange that the general feeling appears to be of inertia regarding the prospect of literal international warfare and our own country’s military entanglement in Iran? Why are we desensitised to footage of missiles flying through the sky and our country’s allegiance to the sender of them?
Amongst many things, it can be in part attributed to our being, for better or for worse, in a post-nation age. To begin with, most of us don’t share a feeling of national identity – we are aware, instead, of our membership in a wider western network of relative stability, upheld by common business interests and multinational companies. It’s something akin to an Orwellian superstate in perpetual war. For good reason, we feel no connection or loyalty to our country, resulting in a general feeling that our foreign policy isn’t an all-important linchpin to be scrutinised. It feels more like a formality than anything meaningful in a climate where ‘allies’ is a palatable way of representing joint business interests of individuals whose power transcends national borders.
In a sense, there seems to have been an upending of the order; whereas before business affairs would depend largely on foreign policy, foreign policy now depends almost entirely on business affairs. At the very least, the relationship between profits and warfare is growing increasingly uncomfortable, with the accusations of insider trading and bets on the assassination of Ali Khamenei being reported last week. Maybe foreign policy has always answered to economic interests, but not until recently has it become so blatantly subordinate.
“B-52s go to war: RAF Fairford, February 1991.” by ATom.UK is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Related
Our Dependent Foreign Policy: How Britain is Following America’s Lead
Despite it having seemed unlikely that the situation in the Middle East could get more disastrous, the launching of war against Iran has signalled a doubling down on war crimes by the United States and Israel. As is generally the case, convoluted disagreements over nuclear weapons between officials provide the justification for ruthless violence against civilians. One need only think of the school-aimed missile strike killing 175 people, mostly children, to prove this chilling reality. These facts are significantly harder to swallow when the USA’s ideological opposition to Iran has been shown in the past to be so flimsy, and firmly subordinate to economic interests; their continued arms sales to Iran despite the embargo in the 1980s throws into question the principles they use to justify conflict.
The UK, having predictably relented to letting the American military use British bases, have pledged to remain uninvolved in offensive actions. The UK seems eager to prove that we have some ability for independent action, regardless of American interests. Indeed, it’s an attitude which is being echoed in many countries, with Mark Carney promoting the novel idea of a foreign policy which is not characterised by a dependence on the United States. In practical terms, this reiterates the UK’s stance of backing warfare but not too overtly – whether that’s a cowardly display of pragmatism or a commendable reluctance to engage in conflict, it’s up to you to decide.
In scrutinising the UK’s response, it seems a reach to suggest that it represents anything definitive apart from apathy. For many of us, it’s hard to imagine the UK taking a hard line in anything. Does it not feel strange that the general feeling appears to be of inertia regarding the prospect of literal international warfare and our own country’s military entanglement in Iran? Why are we desensitised to footage of missiles flying through the sky and our country’s allegiance to the sender of them?
Amongst many things, it can be in part attributed to our being, for better or for worse, in a post-nation age. To begin with, most of us don’t share a feeling of national identity – we are aware, instead, of our membership in a wider western network of relative stability, upheld by common business interests and multinational companies. It’s something akin to an Orwellian superstate in perpetual war. For good reason, we feel no connection or loyalty to our country, resulting in a general feeling that our foreign policy isn’t an all-important linchpin to be scrutinised. It feels more like a formality than anything meaningful in a climate where ‘allies’ is a palatable way of representing joint business interests of individuals whose power transcends national borders.
In a sense, there seems to have been an upending of the order; whereas before business affairs would depend largely on foreign policy, foreign policy now depends almost entirely on business affairs. At the very least, the relationship between profits and warfare is growing increasingly uncomfortable, with the accusations of insider trading and bets on the assassination of Ali Khamenei being reported last week. Maybe foreign policy has always answered to economic interests, but not until recently has it become so blatantly subordinate.
“B-52s go to war: RAF Fairford, February 1991.” by ATom.UK is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related