Why we should back Iran over Saudi Arabia

Why we should back Iran over Saudi Arabia.

In this whole embassy fiasco, we can see that Saudi Arabia is clearly to blame. There is a strong moral case for choosing Iran over Saudi Arabia, as well as a practical one.

Ever since the signing of the framework for the nuclear deal in 2013, Saudi Arabia has been opposed to the deal for two reasons. Firstly, with sanctions being lifted, they will lose quite a bit of their share in the international oil markets and lose much significance and influence in the west when it comes to oil. Secondly, Saudi Arabia appears to be using the nuclear issue as a smoke screen to shield its illegal activities sponsoring terrorism.

The West’s denial concerning Saudi Arabia is remarkable: It praises the autocratic regime yet turns a blind eye to the fact that Saudi Arabia is the chief ideological sponsor radical, ultra-conservative Islamic culture. ISIS is a perfect manifestation of this attitude. In the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the backing came with the thumbs up from those administrations. Often Saudi royal family members bypassed money laundering protection systems to contribute funds to ISIS directly. The regimes of Qatar and Saudi Arabia have indeed half-heartedly passed laws to limit the flow of illegal resources to ISIS, but many supporters still operate with minimal secrecy.

Saudi Arabia is Daesh. They both slits throats of gay people, kill, mame. They both despise archaeology, look down on women view the west with contempt. However Saudi Arabians are better dressed and neater but do the same things. The Islamic State= Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spreads and spurs the puritanical ultra-conservative version of Islam throughout the Middle East. Even though Saudi Arabia itself is a target for Daesh terrorist attacks, using this as a point to discount the deep relationship between Saudi Arabia and Daesh would be wrong. This shallow notion does not account for the Saudi ruling elites close ties to the clergy, and the clergy’s close ties to other radical elements.

If the West is serious about destroying ISIS, it must get to the root of the problem; Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia, in a rather provocative manner executed a government critic and a Shia cleric, Sheikh Nimr-al-Nimr, and 47 others. They were either “terrorists” (according to Saudi state TV) or government opponents. In response, Iranians stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and then escalating things further, the Saudi government bombed the Iranian embassy in Riyadh. Now this might seem like an even response by the Saudi’s, but it is not. Iran took immediate safety precautions to assure the security of every Saudi diplomat. Iranian authorities have condemned the attack and have caught many of the perpetrators. Iran’s government did not support the attacks.

But Saudi Arabia responded with a government bombing of the Iranian embassy, indicating that actual government policy is at play here. This is institutionalised, official aggression by the Saudi’s towards Iran, as opposed to Iran’s less aggressive official policy towards Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian authorities refused to return the bodies from the hajj stampede in Mecca to the grieving families. They have directly targeted Iranian nuclear scientists and Iranian diplomats in Yemen and Lebanon. Iranian pilgrims in Medina have often had to endure systematic abuse. Saudi Arabia’s government appointed preachers preach hate towards Shia minorities. The bias in the media is clearly displayed in the lack of reporting of these events. If Iran had been committing all these acts, I am sure that fox news would have seized on the opportunity to criticise the Iranian nuclear deal.

It is difficult to see why morally, the West would even consider an alliance with Saudi Arabia over Iran. Iran had no desire to escalate tensions in the region, as opposed to Saudi Arabia’s constant inflammatory rhetoric and hateful actions, its support (official or unofficial) of Sunni terrorist groups and its immoral executions of innocent people. Although Iran does this as well, true, Iran’s actual population is very liberal and progressive, and the government’s official attitude towards the west and liberal views are shifting in response to this, as opposed to Saudi Arabia’s new king, Salman, an ultra-conservative who is committed to keeping the old way of doing this. The USA really should stop trying to justify its alliance with the House of Saud, and shift it slightly to Iran.

Being allies with Iran also has practical value. Iran and the United States share the same enemies in the current conflict. They both want to eradicate ISIS; Iran to halt the threat of Sunni Islam and to keep Assad in power (one of Iran’s only ally), and America to prevent more terrorist attacks. In a bizarre situation, the Iranian militias are fighting alongside the United States to defeat ISIS, one of the largest current threats to Western civilisation. Iran provides a useful and practical base for the United States attack from, as well as providing the USA with useful intelligence networks in the region. Iran and United States have a history of friendship and cooperation in the Middle East, up until 1979, the Islamic Revolution. The pool of revolutionary fervour among ordinary Iranians has certainly dried up, and so I believe that ordinary Iranians will work with the United States in a helpful manner.

Before 1979, the Middle East was a very stable and prosperous place. Essentially, before the revolution the Iranians and Israeli's had a special bond in the Middle East. They were the two superpowers in the region backed by the United States. Israel and Iran’s very strong presence in the region allowed them to keep the region stable and secure. Without this mutual cooperation between the two major powers in the Middle East, power vacuums were not allowed to form along the lines of ethnic tensions. Eventually, when the revolution happened and the bond between Israel and Iran broke, the strong bond or “glue” holding this very volatile region together, simply disintegrated. This is what we see today, with Shia’s fighting Sunni’s and Kurds fighting whoever!!! 

I am not saying that Iran and Israel will become best friends again, but demographics hint at an alliance potentially being reformed. 60% of the population in Iran is under 30, and this percentage is on the rise. This suggests that, with time, the more liberal-minded youth Iran can and will reach positions of power within Iran, or drag the Islamic religious clerics to become less anti-western and more open to mutual cooperation with the west, and more importantly, cooperation with Israel!

The future for Iran is bright. Although Iran really is still a “rogue” nation in that sense, Iran has real potential to come out of trade sanctions and effective Western isolation and become more integrated into the international community. And as they become more economically intrinsically linked the rest of the world, they will slowly become less radical and extreme, as they will be so reliant on Western trade and business that they will be deterred from doing anything stupid or re-ignited their inflammatory rhetoric by the risk of a cut-off. And as the rest of the society will be exposed more towards Western values, the whole country will inevitably become more western-friendly (to tell the truth, it is already one of the most liberal and progressive country in the Middle East!) It has real potential to become a western-friendly, a useful regional ally, and that is why we should do more to work with Iran, be it working with them against IS or Al-Qaeda, promoting intercontinental trade and business, or promoting diplomatic ties with Israel. Iran has potential, yet Saudi Arabia is a joke, the kind of state which denounces chess and is more of a threat to basic civil liberties than Iran. Saudi Arabia is just moving backwards into the past, and glossing over their blatant sponsoring of terrorism and their radical, immoral fundamentalist ideology with shiny new luxury malls and a fresh batch of tasty oil.

Brazil- The perfect example of the failure of the left.

Brazil- The perfect example of the failure of the left.

Dilma Roussef’s accumulation of debt has led to Brazil’s debt being downgraded to junk status. Days later, Joaquim Levy, the finance minister, resigned, and effectively gave up, amid the chaos. Brazil was once a booming upcoming Latin American economy. Now, their economy is predicted to shrink by 3% in 2016, a lot less than in 2015.

The public debt is at 70% of the GDP. Public debt is huge! Mrs Roussef spent huge amounts of money on higher pensions to grab the votes of the elderly, expanding social security and spending unwisely and inefficiently, and 90% of public spending is protected from spending cuts. The fiscal deficit has swelled from 2% since 2010 to 10% in 2015. This has led to high interest rates at 7% of the GDP. Inflation is rampant, at 10.5% every year, due to mismanagement by the central bank. The minimum benefit is the minimum wage, and the minimum wage has risen by 90% (accounting inflation) in the last few years. People in Brazil, throughout their lifetime, on average, retire 10 years before the average OECD country. Brazil pays 12% more than Japan to pensioner, despite Japan’s older population.

It takes on average 2600 hours a year to comply with the Brazilian tax code. The average in Latin America is 356 hours. Outdated labour laws mean it is difficult to fire incompetent employees, which goes some way to explaining why Brazil has the fourth lowest productivity rate in the OECD.

Now what are they forced to implement? An austerity programme of course, and a much more painful one due to their excessive commitment to Keynesian economics. Now they want to inflate their way out of the crisis, meaning the Brazilian population will be tremendously hurt. Their purchasing power will decrease, and their money will be worth less.
Everyone will be poorer.

Do I need to say anymore?

Jeremy Corbyn- Has Labour pressed the self destruct button?

I would like to use this article to dismiss some wholly false claims about Jeremy Corbyn and his election as the leader of the Labour Party:

People say that Corbyn will retake Scotland. Firstly that is factually incorrect. This view fails to take into account the nationalistic element of the SNP. Scotland voted for the SNP NOT because of policies but because the Scottish people wanted a presence in parliament, where they felt their voice wasn't being heard. As Alex Salmond said, "The Scottish Lion has roared."  

Next, I would argue it doesn’t matter if Scotland is taken back by the Labour Party. To summarise what happened in the election, Labour lost a load of seats to the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives gained a lot from the Liberal Democrats in the south west. And Labour had a lacklustre performance in the English marginals. So if Corbyn somehow manages to retake Scotland with their further left-wing and socialist policies (which won’t happen by the way) that means they will alienate voters in the English marginals, and alienate voters in the previously lib-dem controlled areas that were snatched by the Conservatives in the last election. And visa-versa would happen if a too Blairite candidate was elected. In that situation the Labour Party would then manage to regain the previously lib dem controlled areas and lose Scottish votes. You could say that Labour is stuck at an impasse, but shifting towards the centre would enable them to take back more seats in the general election.

 What Labour needed was an unpolarising candidate capable of reaching out to the both sets of voters mentioned above. Corbyn is quite literally the opposite of that. He is the most polarising candidate I have ever come across (excluding Donald Trump of course). He only appeals to a small minority of very left wing minded people in safe seats, where there is already a comfortable Labour majority. He will in no way appeal to voters in swing seats. Corbyn is also WAY too easy to attack. Conservative strategists and the right wing press will be all over him. He has been filmed calling Hamas and Hezbollah “friends.” He has some dodgy ties to a holocaust denier. He is stridently anti-American and anti-Israel—though he is a “friend” of Venezuela. To him, Britain’s nuclear weapons are unnecessary and evil. The army will never have to be deployed.  NATO is a warmongers’ plot to enrich the military-industrial complex. Corbyn is quite literally just donating the right-wing press the weapons to attack him with.

Corbyn is also a disaster for the Labour Party itself. He does not have the loyalty of Labour MPs. He barely scraped together the 35 MP nominations he needed to stand. And the funny thing is, some backed him only because they thought he would broaden the debate. In fact, I listened to one of these MP’s that nominated for Corbyn (to broaden the debate) on the radio. The irony is just too much to bare… J.  As party leader, Corbyn will control the levers of party power; the hard left and the unions will help him use these for their own ends.

In fact, this can be seen in the latest strikes. The BMA- the main source of doctor’s leadership, is heavily infiltrated by Labour ideals who regard Jeremy Corbyn as God. Unions now feel free, under Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, that they can strike at will (even though the government has offered them a 11% pay rise in response to strikes).  Jacky Davis, a BMA council member, tweeted “Now we can all vote Labour again”, when Corbyn was elected. Another council member said, “With Corbyn in charge we can beat the Tories and make this country great again”, demonstrating the highly political nature of unions and their ties with the Labour Party.

This will create a chaotic power struggle within the party. Already we see the beginnings of an ideological and political discrepancy within the party that may lead to it breaking up into different factions (this is my prediction). For example, high-profile politicians, such as Tristram Hunt and Yvette Cooper, have already decided to resign in light of the Corbyn election.

Just to name a few reasons why Corbyn was the wrong choice.

Another fair claim that people make is that Corbyn is a fresh new face in politics. People claim that Corbyn is more trustworthy, more in touch with ordinary people, and more intelligent than the other candidates. I don’t disagree. At the moment…ish….

It is important to note that Corbyn was not expected to win this leadership race. He was not even expected to come close. The fact that Corbyn was under no pressure to gave Corbyn the freedom to express all his views honestly and openly, since he had nothing on the line to lose. He did not have to “play politics” and carefully tread along the lines of the political establishment. He was open and honest and indeed refreshing. This is why people like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Nigel Farage succeed(ed) in rallying popular support. However, Corbyn will soon find that he will have to suck up to the political establishment. He will have to play politics sooner or later. This is inevitable. That means withholding certain personal views back from the Labour Party’s official agenda. One has to recognise that in the leadership race he was only appealing to Labour Party voters, whilst in the real world he will have to appeal to everyone. He will simply not get away with expressing his controversial views about Hamas and Hezbollah and Venezuela and NATO without serious retaliation from the press. He will have to put a cap on these kinds of views. His trustworthy element will soon start to fizzle out. Then he will be nothing more than another politician.

Already, his “dirty” political side is already showing with the cabinet reshuffle. During the reshuffle, he essentially fired all people that did not agree with him. Corbyn promoted Emily Thornberry, a critic of Trident, to shadow defence secretary and he fired Pat Mcfadden from shadow Europe minister, as he criticised Corbyn over his subdued and not very vocal condemnation of the Paris attacks. Hillary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, who was in favour of bombing Syria was not fired, but Corbyn’s party has now made it clear that issues of foreign policy will be taken into Corbyn’s hands, essentially leaving Hillary Benn with very little power.

The Labour Party is soul searching. But they are going in the wrong direction. And the Tories need to have a good opposition party, which is currently extremely ineffective. The Tories are occupying the central ground by creating initiatives, for example, allowing low income people not to pay tax, and redeveloping deprived housing estates in London. These policy areas were traditionally occupied by Blairite Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but now the Tories are taking that ground. If Labour does not act soon, it could be in the shadow of a Tory government for a long time.