STARMER’S ISLAND
Faced with pressure from the White House and the
British pro-Israel lobby over the Iran issue, Prime Minister Sir Starmer has
spoken out. What
do his comments mean?
By Sir Charlattam
In reality, it doesn’t matter which politician ends up in Downing Street –Labour, Conservative or independent– they all end up being mere lackeys of the White House. Sir Keir Starmer was never going to be the exception, as all the citizens of the island are now seeing and experiencing for themselves. And I do mean ‘the island’, because talking about the United Kingdom these days is rather like talking about a pretentious mirage that, in political terms, does not reflect reality.
The cautious stance he has adopted regarding the war
against Iran is not an act of moderation or an indirect acknowledgement of an
illegal and anomalous situation spearheaded by Tel Aviv and Washington. Not at
all. It merely highlights the appalling image his government has in the eyes of
the public, who are already fed up with the political and moral corruption so
well represented by officials such as the former ambassador to the US, Peter
Mandelson, and certain members of a royal family tainted by the sexual scandals
of the ‘Epstein Cartel’. And to highlight the level of impunity to which these
members of the elite were accustomed, when Mandelson was officially relieved of
his post, he flew into a rage and refused to leave his office until he was
removed by the police.
Dragging the country into a war started by Israel and
the US would not have been a bad idea if domestic conditions had been
favourable, but in the circumstances mentioned, which are further eroding Sir
Starmer’s already meagre popularity, the mere mention of the idea is
intolerable to a people who have already endured four years of economic
instability heading towards stagflation, an endemic employment problem and tax
increases to fund the war efforts of a corrupt neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine; it
would be an intolerable provocation. People have long since lost trust in the
government and everything associated with it, but even less so –and I would
say not at all– in the current one, which seeks to shackle the people with
digital restraints and the use of AI.
If immorality and corruption reign at the pinnacle of
political power, what can you expect from subordinate government bodies? In a
Britain mired in a severe economic, social, political and moral crisis, is
there any hope for anything better than the political system currently led by
Sir Starmer? If Nigel Farage’s so-called anti-establishment party has crossed
your mind, forget it, as it is becoming all too clear that the political force
led and represented by this right-wing thug is not about dismantling this
rotten system, but deepening it to reap benefits. The reformism proposed by
Farage is merely a change of personnel without touching the structure of the
system. It would amount to the British model of the botched job peddled by
Donald Trump.
The average British citizen is no longer easily
fooled, let alone by those who try to pass themselves off as anti-establishment
figures who claim they will overthrow the elite to look after the people, only
to line their own pockets with whatever they can get their hands on once in
office. The British have already had their fill of such clowns, such as former
Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Brexit campaign, who did much to entrench
that very idea.
Farage has unwittingly stated that if the British army
were in good shape, it should be directly involved in actions against Iran,
thereby demonstrating that he would love to recreate the insane policies that
Tony Blair pursued against Iraq in 2003 and that, when the criminal farce that
this entailed was exposed, he undoubtedly ordered the silencing of those who
denounced it.
As for the country’s role in the current Gulf War, the
Iranian attacks on British bases in Oman and Cyprus were to be expected, at
least by the senior staff of the General Staff and the leaders at the Vauxhall
Building, who are aware of the intelligence, counter-intelligence and
logistical support they have long been providing to Israel against Hamas in
Gaza, the Islamic resistance of Hezbollah in Lebanon and, obviously, against
Iran. Did they really think the Iranians didn’t know? With this in mind, why on
earth would the Iranians sit idly by?
Sir Starmer’s decision to involve the country in
‘defensive actions’ in the Persian Gulf amounts to saying nothing. He knows
that the armed forces are in such a dire state that they could not cope with a
direct conflict. Problems with equipment and personnel, and the long-standing
shortcomings in the Royal Navy’s ships and submarines, are compounded by a
budgetary situation that does nothing to help improve them. Nevertheless,
Starmer had to say something, but something that wouldn’t anger the orange
bloke, and he could find no better turn of phrase than the words already
mentioned.
This expression confirms the opacity of his foreign
policy portfolio and his blind adherence to US foreign policy, even when it is
as preposterous and unlawful as the current one. Given this picture, we might
ask ourselves: what would a ‘defensive action’ entail?
To begin with, the question should be: defend whom? If
we look at a map, we can see that the distance between Britain and the conflict
zone does not justify the need to defend itself, unless Iran possessed
intercontinental missiles – and as far as we know, it has not developed any.
That is, if we are talking about British territory. But perhaps what Starmer is
referring to, without mincing his words, is the defence of the pariah state of
Israel, demonstrating that perhaps he too (just like the orange man) is a slave
to his past and could feature in the sex files compiled by the Israeli agent
Jeffrey Epstein.
Be it out of his own volition or out of a sense of
servile obligation, Sir Starmer cannot avoid being drawn into this war which,
let us be quite clear, will not end with this aggression, since the Zionist
political and financial power of the Adelson faction—which clearly operates
within the United Kingdom—has other (Islamic) targets to bring down in the
region. Moreover, should they fail with Iran – a very likely possibility – let
no one doubt that they would launch another aggression, with Egypt or Turkey
being the most likely targets.
At the same time, and with the assistance of these
sectors, Starmer is building a veritable state of total control – digital
identification – with the veiled intention of identifying and eliminating,
through an unreliable judicial system of dubious impartiality, those who
question issues affecting the collective whole.
Britain’s interests go beyond maintaining its military
bases in Oman, Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain; for me, the most important aspect is
protecting the MI6 stations deployed in countries such as Syria, Iraq and
Turkey, where it maintains highly significant espionage networks to support the
covert operations carried out by the Americans and Israelis. This British
interference – which these countries are well aware of and which, in some cases
(such as Syria and Iraq), their governments do not challenge because they are
merely puppets installed by the West – is going to cause the British a great
deal of trouble through no fault of their own.
