Blair’s strongly worded - almost admirable - statement on Iran yesterday may actually have been one of his ‘this’ll sound good so I’ll say it’ moments, designed to detract from the fact that his presidency of the EU has produced nothing and is another area of disappointment for his desire for a legacy. Either way, it was appropriate to the situation caused by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s remarks:
“As the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeini] said, ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ … The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland.”
Mr Blair responded:
“These sentiments are completely and totally unacceptable. I have never come across a situation where the president of a country says they want to wipe out another country - this is not acceptable. Their attitude towards terrorism, towards the nuclear weapons and towards Israel is not acceptable.
“If they continue down this path, people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability.”
“I have been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me, ‘Tell us you are not going to do anything about Iran’. If they carry on like this the question people will be asking is, ‘When are you going to something about it?’ “
Iran’s remarks open up all sorts of cans of worms. In the first place, it reminds us that Israel has, for decades, lived in a neighbourhood which contains countries whose greatest desire is to see it eliminated completely. If you can imagine what it is like to live with that hanging over your head - and, I might add, with mini-July 7ths happening here and there, year in, year out (5 killed, 28 wounded Wednesday in the town of Hadera) - it may well add a layer of understanding to Israel’s sometimes apparently harsh treatment of Palestinian terrorism.
Furthermore - and more ominously - this open call for genocide has been made by a country that is probably in the process of creating the means to enact that genocide. It is now impossible, I feel, for the international community to simply stand by and allow that country to continue its nuclear activity. If you doubt this then run this sentence through your mind a couple of times: “We must wipe [insert your country’s name here] off the face of the planet!” and then ask yourself what you might like to do with Iran’s nuclear project.
Then we have a situation where one UN member state is calling for the eradication of another. This requires a bit more than words of condemnation followed by business as usual. If the UN is to do anything at all to rebuild some of its rapidly depleting credibility, Iran’s removal from the UN must be seriously debated now. And if the UN is reluctant to remove it then it should explain clearly why not. The case for removal has already been eloquently made by Iran itself.
I understand the need to tread carefully and avoid doing anything that might worsen an already deteriorating situation. Shaking big sticks at someone you don’t like isn’t always the answer - however much the war-mongers in our countries might desire it. But the stakes in this game are very high - and not only for Israel. An emboldened and armed Islamic state isn’t a source of comfort for any of us; the possible exporting of its nuclear technology to other states could very well be lethal for us.
Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. Iran may well be obtaining them. If things continue in this vein the west might have more trouble justifying not attacking Iran than they’ve had in actually attacking Iraq.
