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.