Iranian missiles: Hypocrisy and paradox

By Peter Jenkins

It is hard to know why Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, claimed, in a statement on December 5, that Iran’s testing of a medium-range missile on December 1 demonstrated that Iran’s missile-related activities “go beyond what can be justified for national defence”.

The claim suggests the existence of some kind of agreed international norm that can be used to assess whether or not a weapon system is justified as a defensive tool. But no such norm exists. And we can imagine how the British government would react if some UN member were to opine that British possession of a nuclear deterrent goes beyond what is “justified for national defence”.

Hypocrisy

The claim also seems unreasonable. Israel, a possessor of medium-range missiles and an open enemy of Iran—especially under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu—is located well beyond the range of Iranian short-range missiles. Is Iran not justified in acquiring missiles capable of reaching Israel in order to create the “balance of terror” on which mutual deterrence rests?

Another feature of Mr. Hunt’s statement was the omission of any mention of Saudi Arabia and Israel. If one is concerned for regional stability in the Missile East, one should not single out Iran’s medium-range missiles as uniquely destabilising, as Mr. Hunt did. Saudi medium-range missiles and Israeli possession not only of such missiles but also of nuclear and chemical weapons deserve places in the picture. They too have a bearing on stability.

Regrettably, it is not only the United Kingdom that applies such double standards. France’s foreign minister has been equally eager to single out Iranian missile-related activity for condemnation. Yet such one-sidedness runs counter to Europe’s “soft power” need to appear just and even-handed when addressing a global audience. Given Europe’s wish to preserve the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, such British and French diplomacy is also unwise: applying double standards can affect how Iran sees that deal. 

Paradox

In reality Iran’s missile-related activity may not be as destabilising as the UK and France believe. 

It is possible that over the next decade Iran’s missiles will gain in accuracy and reliability, and that the explosive force of their conventional payloads will increase. This is a trend that has been apparent in the United States and Russia, for instance. It has created potential for conventional missile strikes on strategic targets that can reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in strategic calculations.

A similar trend in Iranian missile technology could lead Iran to calculate that it has the capacity (augmented by ever more effective cyberweapons, perhaps) to inflict sufficient damage on the strategic assets of an adversary for there to be minimal benefit in developing a nuclear deterrent once restrictions on Iranian uranium enrichment fall away.

In other words, paradoxical though this may seem, Iranian conventional medium-range missiles can become a basis for strategic stability in the Middle East, as well as a reassurance to those who doubt the sincerity of Iran’s 2015 pledge never to acquire nuclear weapons.

More Hypocrisy

As a footnote, in connection with the British and French proclivity for double standards, it has to be stressed that neither the UK nor France has condemned publicly a U.S. “inconsistency” with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2231, even though this “inconsistency” is far more egregious than the Iranian missile-related “inconsistency” to which Mr. Hunt drew attention on December 5.

In fact the United States is guilty of much more than an “inconsistency”: the United States is in violation of UNSC 2231. Since denouncing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States has failed to comply with paragraph 7 of UNSC 2231: “[the Security Council] Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter… that …. All states shall comply with paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 [of UNSC 2231]”.

“Decides, acting under Article 41” creates a legally-binding obligation. Paragraph 1 urges full implementation of the JCPOA. Paragraph 2 calls on all states to take appropriate action to support implementation and to refrain from undermining implementation.

The United States is neither implementing the JCPOA nor refraining from undermining its implementation by others. On the contrary, the United States is doing its damnedest to undermine implementation by others. Surely, Mr. Hunt, this deserves regular public condemnation until such time as the United States returns to compliance. In yuletide parlance, what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.

(Source: Lobelog)

Hunt completed the dirty Britain case with Iran's threat to war and famine

By Mohammad Ghaderi

TEHRAN - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the UK Jeremy Hunt, who came to Iran on Monday, in an interview described the Middle East as a tinderbox and warned against a First World War-style catastrophe in the Middle East.

Hunt said, “The Middle East is a tinderbox where one small event could lead to a catastrophe on the scale of the First World War. We have the issue of sanctions, we have a regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia which is getting more and more dangerous and has led to a proxy war.  If we put all these together and look at the warning signs of WWI, we will see that small incidents like a chain of events can have big consequences with a catastrophic aftermath.”

He called the Zionist regime another important issue in the Middle East.

He also pointed to the arrest and imprisonment of two dual nationals in Iran and warned Tehran against such incidents and went on to claim that Britain remains one of the major players in the Middle East.

 Britain’s hand in the Middle East crisis

Hunt’s warning about WWI and the importance of his country in the Middle East proves the role of Britain in the Middle East crisis.

Hunt’s referral to World War I could contain several messages for Tehran. One of the darker times in Iranian history occurred at the end of that war and the occupation of Iran by an alliance that brought about the Persian Great Famine of 1917–1919. About 2 million Iranians died of hunger and disease in that period while occupying armies were confiscating foodstuffs.

England’s hoarding of food aggravated the condition and caused the massive famine in Iran. Unfortunately, this part of Iran's history and the role that Britain played is not addressed and may be one of the reasons that the missionaries of London allow themselves to threaten Iran.

Hunt's words “First World War-style catastrophe in the Middle East” is also important at a time when Europe hypocritically talks about holding on to the JCPOA. First, given the British and Saudi partnership, Iran is threatened and finds itself in the heinous triangle of the West, the Zionists, and the Arabs. Secondly, it has put the Iranian people and government in a tough position with the unreasonable and aggressive demands and sanctions of the U.S. and Europe that could threaten another great famine. The BBC Persia has been on the mission to create a psychological war on the Iranians.

The threat of a global war in the Middle East comes at a time when Britain has recently begun to establish a military base in Oman and now pushed for the end of the Yemeni war.

Prior to his trip to Iran, Hunt had traveled to Saudi Arabia and discussed the necessity of ending the war in Yemen with Riyadh leaders.

Looking at Britain’s dirty laundry in the region, from the formation of the Zionist regime, to Pakistan and Afghanistan border disputes, the Iraq war, arms sales to terrorists in Syria and so on, all show that Britain has not stepped in to help end the suffering of the Yemeni people out of good will, but has another agenda in mind.

One can predict that if Britain’s’ plan to end the Yemen War comes to fruition, its influence in the region will expand.

In his recent trip to Riyadh, Hunt called Saudi Arabia Britain’s strategic partner and in his visit to Iran, he threatened Tehran with another war in the Middle East. Since earlier times, the British have been called ‘old foxes’ in Iran for being dishonest and cruel. However, it seems this time the Brits like Hunt are mistaken because Iran won’t bow down to intimidation and threats.