Lord Robertson, Blair’s Defence Secretary, former NATO Secretary General, well paid lobbyist for arms manufacturers, tells us we are not ready for war.
Peter FORD is deputy leader of the Workers Party of Britain and former ambassador to Bahrain and Syria.
Thank goodness for that!
Just imagine if we had been prepared to engage militarily over Iran. The US pressure to join would have intensified dramatically if our two aircraft carriers were fully operational and stationed in or near the Gulf. We would likely have been dragged into conflict without much say. Having additional frigates near Cyprus would not have made a difference. Iran could still have launched enough drones to cause localized alarm.
So what exactly do hawks like Robertson propose we should have done with more available military assets? They offer no specifics. In fact, it was our limited role, which included allowing the US to use bases in Suffolk and Diego Garcia for bombing Iran, combined with our long-standing antagonism toward Iran, that provoked the Iranian strikes against Cyprus initially.
What fools like Robertson fail to grasp is that true security is derived more from avoiding enemies than from being heavily armed. This basic fact eludes them entirely. It is the war-mongering rhetoric against Iran and Russia that has led us to a vulnerable position. By sanctioning Iran—a nation that has never posed a real threat to us—to support Israel, and by participating in Israel’s vilification of Iran, we enabled Trump’s reckless gamble. We never anticipated that this imprudence would backfire so severely. Now it has, with the UK facing greater economic consequences from the crisis than any other Western nation. A sensible defence policy would have recognized our vulnerabilities and prioritized conflict prevention over military preparedness.
This same week, following Robertson’s call to waste more money on failing policies, there were claims that we weren’t ready to respond to Russia’s alleged reconnaissance of our underwater cables. But, just like with Iran, this ignores our own provocations. We have threatened action against Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of civilian ships—a fleet that exists largely because we led the way in sanctioning Russia over Ukraine. The reported cyber-attacks and cable incidents only began after the Ukraine conflict started and in light of Britain’s leading role in trying to bring about Russia’s demise.
Are the Gulf nations who have invested billions in US arms contractors now thinking, “If only we had spent more on weapons”? No, they regret relying solely on military build-up and wish they had done more to pacify Iran. Appeasement, of course, means calming an adversary—a tactic we regularly use in personal relationships and that we practiced with Trump for a significant period.
For once, Starmer seems to have a decent grasp of public sentiment. He has gained some approval by somewhat distancing himself from Trump and limiting our involvement in the Iran conflict. Conversely, Farage has lost support due to his close alignment with Trump and apparent support for increased military engagement, provided more capabilities were available (which ironically supports our argument).
If Starmer were to respond to Robertson directly, he would do well to expose the old warmonger’s shameless advocacy for diverting welfare funds to military spending. By doing so, Starmer would align with popular opinion and invite comparisons to Attlee, who won in 1945 by replacing Churchill—who was favored by warmongers—at the earliest chance.
However, Starmer lacks the courage for such a stance. His supporters claim, “Oh, but we are actually spending a great deal on the military. We have the highest sustained defence budget since the Cold War ended.” Labour should be apologizing for this, not boasting.
No, increasing expenditure on what is misleadingly called defence is not the answer. Our security would improve if we spent less, engaged in less post-imperial grandstanding, aimed to de-escalate conflicts rather than heighten them, and concentrated more on the neglected and deteriorated domestic front.
Original article: workerspartygb.org
About the Author
