The British government has learned no lessons from the disaster that the US-UK invasion of Iraq was.
In March 2003, a million people took to the streets of London to oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq. Seeing straight through the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, protesters warned the British government in no uncertain terms: This action would trigger a spiral of misery, hatred and death.
More than 20 years on, most people now recognise the Iraq war for what it was: a catastrophic mistake that fuelled a string of subsequent conflicts and instability. The United Kingdom had followed the United States into an illegal war – and more than a million Iraqi men, women and children paid the price.
Unfortunately, not everybody has learned the lessons from the past. It has been almost a month since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran. More than 1,400 Iranians and more than 1,000 Lebanese people have been killed.
In seeking to justify the bombing, US President Donald Trump spoke of the need to eliminate “imminent threats from the Iranian regime”, whose “menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world”. He said the goal was to make sure Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon”. Sound familiar?
The first casualty of war is the truth, so let us get the facts straight: These are lies that have been peddled to justify an illegal and unprovoked war. As the National Counterterrorism Center Director, Joe Kent, said in his resignation letter last week, Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation” and that it was “clear that [the US] started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.
There is only one nuclear-armed state in the Middle East: Israel. Next month’s UN Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would have been the perfect place to call for an end to the nuclear arms race. A diplomatic solution was possible, but the US and Israel chose war instead. In doing so, they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world. So, too, have those nations that have decided to lend support to their war of aggression.
Shortly after the attacks on Iran began, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave the US permission to use British military bases for strikes on Iranian missile sites. Last week, his government agreed to let the US use British bases to strike Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz.
The UK could have followed in the footsteps of Spain and said, “No way, absolutely not. We will not be involved in this illegal war in any way whatsoever.” Instead, it has dragged itself into another catastrophic conflict.
Astonishingly, the prime minister still maintains that the British government is not involved – a line that has been regurgitated by many across our media. He says the UK is allowing its sites to be used only for “defensive” strikes. What nonsense.
The reality is, if a bomber takes off from Royal Air Force base Fairford and bombs targets in Iran, we are involved in that act of aggression. If civilians die, will their families stop mourning when they are told that they were bombed for “defensive purposes”? No matter how Starmer dresses it up, he cannot change the truth: The UK is directly involved in this war.
Mark my words: This is a historic mistake that jeopardises the safety of us all. That’s why, earlier this month, I tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would require parliamentary approval for any British involvement in military action. That includes the use of British bases by other nations.
So far, the prime minister has refused to pass this legislation. With no debate, no discussion and no vote, he is dragging Britain into another disastrous illegal war.
Just like with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, today, those of us who oppose the war on Iran are accused of giving succour to authoritarian regimes and leaders. Whatever one thinks of the governments of various places, there is no basis in law for an attack to bring about regime change. There is no basis in history that bombing from the sky would bring about human rights either.
Trump couldn’t care less about people’s human rights. Whether it’s in Iran, Venezuela or Cuba, he is interested in one thing and one thing only: seizing resources and political control around the world.
If the UK cares about international law, it would be standing up to Trump, not bending over backwards to appease him.
The story of US-led foreign interventions is a story of chaos, instability and misery. How many more of these catastrophic failures do we need before we learn the lesson? And what will it take for the UK to finally defend a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty and peace?
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Facts Only
* The invasion of Iraq occurred in March 2003
* The US and Israel launched attacks on Iran in recent times
* Over 1,400 Iranians and over 1,000 Lebanese people have been killed
* The US President justified the bombing as a means to eliminate "imminent threats" from Iran
* The National Counterterrorism Center Director stated that Iran posed no imminent threat to the US
* The UK has allowed the use of British military bases for strikes on Iranian missile sites
* The UK has agreed to let the US use British bases to strike Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz
* Critics argue that the UK's involvement in the war jeopardizes the safety of humankind
Executive Summary
Full Take
The article argues that the US and UK's involvement in wars in Iraq and Iran has been disastrous, leading to a spiral of conflict, instability, and death. The author suggests that the US is using the same justifications for attacking Iran as they did for invading Iraq, and that these justifications are based on lies and manipulation. The author criticizes the UK's involvement in the war and argues that the UK should be standing up to the US and promoting a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty, and peace.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0032 Emotional Exploitation
The article presents a strong argument against the US and UK's involvement in wars in Iraq and Iran, but it is important to note that it presents only one perspective and does not engage with counterarguments or alternative explanations for the US's actions. The author's language is emotionally charged and makes use of rhetorical devices such as fear appeals and moral panic to make its point. The article also presents a simplified and one-sided view of the complex political and military situations in Iraq and Iran, and does not engage with the nuances and complexities of these situations.
Root Cause: The article's perspective is driven by a belief in the need for a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty, and peace. This perspective is likely influenced by the author's personal beliefs and experiences, as well as by broader political and cultural trends.
Implications: The article's argument against the US and UK's involvement in wars in Iraq and Iran is likely to resonate with readers who share the author's perspective on foreign policy and international relations. However, the article's simplified and one-sided view of these situations may not be accurate or helpful in understanding the complex political and military situations in these countries. The article also does not engage with counterarguments or alternative explanations for the US's actions, which may limit its effectiveness as a critical analysis of these situations.
Bridge Questions: What are the complex political and military situations in Iraq and Iran, and how do they influence the US's actions? What counterarguments or alternative explanations for the US's actions in Iraq and Iran are there, and how do they compare to the author's perspective? How can the US and UK promote a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty, and peace?
Sentinel — Human
The analysis suggests that the text is likely human-written, displaying a passionate argument against war, idiosyncratic writing style, and no evidence of following a template pattern or containing verbatim talking points.