Informed and credible summary of the situation in Iran from William Hague in The Times today. The truth is, of course, that this is Israel’s war and they are using the US as mercenaries. Trump has no ideological quarrel with Iran (or anyone else, he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to do ideology). As with Venezuela he just sees the hydrocarbons and salivates.

Iran is a huge country and will not roll over. Most of America’s misadventures in modern times have come from underestimating their enemies. If North Vietnam and the Vietcong can regroup and win (the Taliban the same) the Iranians certainly can. 

Netanyahu doesn’t care about the West’s distaste for crusades – he has an Old Testament view of who the land of “Greater Israel” belongs to. Iran supported those in Hamas and Hezbollah who disagree – so Iran has to be neutralised. That’s the bottom line. 

It’s hard to see a US/Israeli victory without boots on the ground. Netanyahu is like Bomber Harris in WW2 who thought Germany could be defeated with bombs alone. He was wrong. So is Bibi! And if American and Israeli ground troops invade Iran unimaginable horrors could follow. Israel is nuclear armed remember. 

Many of us struggle to find an objective explanation for the troubles of the Middle East which have once again led to war. Maybe it’s not possible not to be confused if the truth is not confronted. That truth requires us to identify cause and effect and for many that is uncomfortable because it reflects badly on my own country’s history in my own lifetime and can lead to borderline prejudice accusations from those who deny the truth.

Britain’s overseeing of Palestine from the Balfour Declaration onwards was at best naïve at worst fatally incompetent. Post War as the horrors of The Holocaust began fully to emerge Zionism became the liberal’s norm. So essentially unrestricted emigration of (mainly) European Jews to Palestine was facilitated.

The problem was that the land identified for Israel was already occupied – a recipe for conflict leading to war. From 1948 Palestinians and other Arabs pursued military goals none of which succeeded. We liberals mostly cheered not realising that our support for Israel led inexorably to settlements and de facto expansion. Except for Sinai , which it didn’t want, every bit of land occupied in wars was retained by Israel. This was only possible with Western (primarily American) support.

The process of Israel’s expansion was inevitably a cause of conflict, terrorism (remember Munich ?) and every attempt at resolution, however well meaning, failed. That Iran gave succour to those opposed to Israel’s overt pursuit of Lebensraum is understandable though not, of course, the murderous way they did it. It is not “liberal naivety” to oppose Netanyahu whose war it is. Nor to sympathise with Palestinians. 

The actions of Hamas and Hezbollah have rightly been condemned as has Iran which funded them. But the fact remains that in the land area controlled by Israel there is an approximately equal balance of Jews and Palestinians (7.4m each). Some in positions of power in Israel want to remove Palestinians entirely though the scale of this makes it impractical. The alternative “Two state solution” has inevitably receded as a practical outcome.

You could conclude that the clearly Israeli driven war with Iran has no postwar plan assuming US-backed Israel triumphs militarily. What next ?

Kemi Badenoch, Leader of Britain’s Conservative Party, posted this today: “We are a multiracial country, not a multicultural country”. It reveals an astonishing ignorance about race and culture from someone who aspires to lead Britain.

We need to start with some definitions. Race is mostly about imposed social categories tied to appearance/ancestry. Culture is mostly about acquired, shared ways of life. They are related in practice far more often than they are identical in theory.

Within most if not all nations there is diversity of race. So Mrs Badenoch herself would be categorised as being of African racial heritage, which she is. Her appearance is African as is her ancestry. She spent her childhood and teenage years in Nigeria though acquired British nationality because she had been born in Wimbledon.

Whether Mrs Badenoch’s African childhood conferred African cultural characteristics on her at the time we do not know. It seems unlikely that it wouldn’t. But when she settled in Britain permanently in her late teens she clearly acquired distinctively British cultural characteristics from her education and surroundings. The way she speaks, her apparent societal norms and her manner are distinctly traditional English.

Mrs Badenoch says she culturally identifies with Christian traditions, she does not actively practice or profess Christian religious belief.  She is an agnostic.

Whilst Race and Culture are not the same thing, they certainly overlap. Religion is often an important aspect of culture and Kemi does not want to be seen to reject “Christian traditions” because, I suspect, that helps her assert her adopted cultural Britishness. As does being married to her Catholic husband Hamish who was born in Wimbledon to an an Irish mother and a father of Scottish descent. One profile says his “…diverse heritage gave him a rich cultural background, combining Irish roots with Scottish-Gaelic ancestry.” So arguably her own family is “multicultural” !

So the overlap between race and culture is present chez Badenoch as it is across Britain, and always has been. Religion is one of the main drivers of this. In North London, for example, there are distinctive and long-established Jewish communities known for their distinctive Hasidic dress and customs, and for their many synagogues and Jewish schools.

Judaism varies in the visibility of its adherents in society but few would argue that followers of the religion to any degree of orthodoxy are not culturally distinctive. And so of course are Britain’s Muslims. including eighteen Muslim MPs

Whilst religion is perhaps the most overt sign of multiculturalism it is far from the only one. Across the nation cultures differ. My three years living full time in Scotland taught me as much about cultural differences as did my three years in The Netherlands!

Across Britain we have cultural distinctiveness as much as we have racial differences. Sometimes, as at the Notting Hill Carnival, they are linked. The Carnival celebrates the Caribbean cultural heritage of the Windrush generation.

We are indisputably a Multicultural country for a variety of reasons (Immigration is not the only one important though it is). The only obligation we all have is to obey the laws of the land , within that we are free to follow our cultural traditions and choices whatever the reasons. But maybe in view of the Leader of the Opposition’s obvious distaste for British multiculturalism those of us who profoundly disagree with her need to say so and why more strongly. And ask her to show more respect for those who are different.

I’ve been thinking about the long forgotten Stephen Ward a bit recently. Those of a certain age may recall that Ward was a friend of some men in the public eye for whom he arranged a bit of naughty nookie. The men included John Profumo whose Ward-arranged liaison with Christine Keeler got him into trouble and ended his promising political career.

The parallels with Epstein are obvious though the latter’s activities were far more extensive and evil. But both Profumo and Andrew Windsor and the rest needed procurers which is what Ward and Epstein (and Ghislaine Maxwell) were. To actually find your own girls was either difficult or a bit sordid and risky for a public figure so they got someone to do it for them.

Ward’s girls were on the cusp of prostitution. They were doing it for the money, they weren’t underage and cannot be seen to have been exploited. I suspect that many of Epstein’s girls were much the same. Perhaps that’s why surprisingly few have come forward to tell their stories? Epstein hunted in the dodgy part of Palm Beach. The girls he found were not kidnapped but came voluntarily. Many didn’t know what was going to happen to them precisely and became victims of crime. 

Is it the same the whole world over with poor girls getting used by rich men for their pleasure? I suspect that it is. Stephen Ward and Jeffrey Epstein both liked the status and celebrity access that their procurement roles gave them. That it was morally questionable and (in Epstein’s case) often illegal didn’t matter. A blind eye was turned.

Some are in danger of hypocrisy over Epstein. The guest list on the “Lolita Express” and at Little St James (his island) includes some who have criticised or maybe gone into denial about what they saw there. Prosecutors at Maxwell’s trial used Little St. James as one of the key locations in the broader account of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation, portraying it not just as a luxury getaway but as a place where victims were isolated and abused as part of the criminal enterprise that Maxwell helped facilitate. 

So if they went to the island surely visitors, even if they themselves didn’t commit abuse, knew what was going on. There are credible reports that Peter Mandelson visited Epstein’s island supported by witness statements and leaked emails. Mandelson disputes any negative implications of these allegations . Back to Stephen Ward at whose trial Mandy Rice-Davies said of Lord Astor’’s denial of allegations made about him by her “Well he would, wouldn’t he?”

The 2017 instant New York Times bestseller, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, was extremely accurate in its predictions of danger. In an updated and expanded version, 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts assessed a President and further warned that, unless contained, the dangers would spread exponentially.

Fifty more psychiatrists and mental health experts in a further expanded volume, The Much More Dangerous Case of Donald Trump warn anew. World-renowned authors lead the volume in asserting their obligation to speak under the Declaration of Geneva, which decries doctors’ silence in the face of destructive regimes. They describe a man who showed increasing cognitive deficits, scored extremely high on a dangerousness risk assessment, and could not pass a basic fitness test because of his pattern of psychological deficits and dysfunctions. His worsening impairments, while holding the most powerful position on the planet, pose many existential dangers for humankind.

(Amazon)

“The Greenland issue is becoming a grave danger to the cohesion and unity of the West. We have every right to look to Americans with a conscience to speak out. But we should also be looking at ourselves, at our own diminishing ability to influence events, and decide that we cannot sleepwalk into a more dangerous world.” William Hague.

That “diminishing ability” has one overwhelmingly important cause. We are a European nation that has turned its back on Europe. European unity has created a political entity that is more than capable of standing up to bullying threats from that trio of threatening bullies – Russia, China and the United States. But we have chosen to be on the sidelines.

The creation of a “European Defence Force” looks a certainty, not least because of America’s disillusion with NATO. All countries and alliances need to be able to defend themselves. The EDF will seek to do this for Europe as NATO fades away. Once again Britain will be sidelined. Can you imagine the furore if we “surrendered our defence sovereignty to Europe” (to anticipate the Faragist language !)

Britain has a lot to offer a united Europe, and vice versa. But we need to get real. We may have historical and honourable memories of when we were forced to “stand alone” against an existential threat. Today’s threats are no less real, but they can only be met by standing wholeheartedly together with the nations of Europe in the European Union once again. 

A few years ago political commentator Peter Oborne published a book which, meticulously researched, thoroughly revealed the lies of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Boris may be seen as the master of political duplicity and mendacity but, sadly, the “profession” is littered with people who are also, as the late Alan Clark put it, “…economical with the actualité”.

Whilst Johnson almost seemed to revel in his lies Donald Trump outranks him in virtually never telling the truth. As Wikipedia summarised it “During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims. Fact-checkers at The Washington Post documented 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidential term, an average of 21 per day” His second term is infinitely worse!

Churchill said “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Now the great man could be a tad “economical” at times himself. But few would question the contention that lies spread like wildfire. And his deadly German foe Joseph Goebbels knew how powerful it was “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”And that I think is what is going on these days.

It’s not just Trump who has lost the capacity to distinguish fact from fiction (assuming he ever had it). British politicians are caught out daily spreading obvious untruths. Sir Keir Starmer once said of Boris Johnson: “There’s a guy who is detached from the truth… his instinct will be to lie.” – but Starmer himself needs to take care. If he wants to occupy the moral high ground he better make his footing firm, and take care.

The biggest mendacious low for Britain was the EU Referendum in 2016. The “Leave” campaign was utterly dishonest, as if Goebbels was pulling their strings and writing their advertising copy. And they had a couple of outrageous snake oil salesmen in Johnson and Farage leading their campaign.

The Aegean Stables cleaning job was easy compared to what we need to do now to cleanse our politics of the liars.

During my years in Shell the Corporation was doing business in or with some very dodgy regimes. And in some cases I was in the loop. To be frank ‘Human Rights” abuses did not often come into our discussions as to whether we should seek a deal. I visited Saudi Arabia frequently, I found it a chilling experience. Some South American countries were decidedly dodgy. In Zimbabwe I avoided difficult questions. Elsewhere in Africa I also needed sometimes to look the other way, Then there was China – I was in Tiananmen Square on Shell business a couple of weeks before the troops moved in to kill protesters. Not to mention Iran…

I suppose it boils down to whether or not one believes that there is such a thing as “Human Rights” and, of course, how you define what they are. That definition is not straightforward and there are strong differences over whether at the moment the US and Israel’s recent actions put them in contravention of the United Nations definition. But surely there can be no doubt at all that Iran is a totalitarian state indulging daily in Human Rights abuses? And yet I visited it often and enjoyed the challenge.

It can be hard to do normal business in an abnormal country. But in the oil industry we did rather a lot of it. God, or Allah or whoever it was had put hydrocarbon reserves in some very dodgy places. But I think I was paid to do my job and ride the waves of culture. Back in the early 1980s I had an interview about overseas opportunities and said in principle I’d work anywhere, except South Africa. The HR guy interviewing me seemed a bit surprised! But didn’t debate it. A year or two later I was “posted” to Hong Kong so it didn’t do me any harm!

It’s some years since I visited Tehran but I used to do so frequently for a time. On the surface talking business with Iranian oil company executives and other locals was entirely normal. They were able and it was easy to relate positively to them. Then I’d return to my hotel and there in my room there would be antisemitic and Holocaust denial propaganda in abundance on a table.

Under the Shah Iran was tricky – it was a corrupt plutocracy but they weren’t hanging people from cranes in the street. The subsequent “Revolution” theoretically gave power to the people. Revolutions always say they do that don’t they ? But they never do. They replace one group of plutocrats with another. A Lenin replaces a Czar. An Ayatollah replaces a Shah. Plus ça change…

Should multinational companies not do business in places where Human Rights are weak, or non existent? Put Principles before Profits if you like? The problem is that it is rarely as black and white (no pun intended) as Apartheid South Africa was (to me anyway). I travelled extensively in the Middle East but didn’t judge, though I listened. And if those cultural waves threatened to turn into a Tsunami, as they certainly did in China in 1989? That’s when your conscience is really tested !

Shell has been criticised for its business activities in various countries. For example Body Shop founder the late Anita Roddick was a vocal critic of Shell’s operations in Nigeria, especially regarding the environmental harm and the company’s perceived complicity in the treatment of local communities during the Ogoni crisis. It was a difficult time for the company and although I wasn’t in the loop I was uncomfortable. This and other headline grabbing stories like the disposal of the Brent Spar platform definitely damaged Shell’s reputation and were signs of confused management.

Today there is less criticism of specific activities and more general protest about Shell’s leading role in the international oil industry – along with other multinationals.

Shell is less than proactive in challenging the logic of these protests than I as (still!) a stakeholder would like. Whereas Ms Roddick had a legitimate specific case to make, and made it well, these protests are unspecific and profoundly ignorant.

The management challenge is often seen as being managing reputation. And so it is. But actually at a higher level of abstraction it boils down to doing the right thing and, where necessary, explaining how and why you do it. As a Shell pensioner I’d like to see the corporation do this better.

“As I meet people of different faiths, I find it enormously encouraging to hear how much we have in common; a shared longing for peace and a deep respect for all life.” HM the King

I’m not sure that Charles would see this but his statement comprehensively undermines Christianity (and other religions as well). The opposite, no doubt, of what he intended.

The point , of course, is that most religions – and certainly the Christian Faith – trade on their unique rightness and truth. As one Christian blog puts it:

“Christianity the faith founded on Jesus Christ, is the world’s largest religion, with over two billion followers. While many religions claim to be the path to spiritual enlightenment, Christianity stands apart as the one true faith. This claim is not based on mere sentiment but on the divine revelation of Scripture, the person of Jesus Christ, fulfilled prophecy, historical evidence, and the transformative power of the Gospel.”

This is unequivocal stuff and history teaches us that the singularity of Christianity is non negotiable. You’re either a Christian or a heathen (the latter include non believers, believers in other religions and heretics).

Charles has form in this area. In 2020 he said “I personally would much rather see it as defender of faith, not the faith, because it means just one particular interpretation of the faith.” In effect his view seems to be that to believe in some religious faith is better than to believe in none. So there is a conflict between the “One true faith” position which is the base case for Christians (or most of them) and “the faith” which includes them all. For Charles Christianity is “just one particular interpretation…” – a curious position for the head of the Church of England to take!

The problem is, of course, that faiths are not unitary – they do not have the same core values. The three “Abrahamic religions” Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheist and share prophets. But they are emphatically not the same. Indeed, for example, the Old Testament and the New Testament have very different teachings illustrated by the former’s adherence to “An eye for an eye” and the latter’s “turn the other cheek”. Judaism is not the same as Christianity, though they do overlap.

Over the centuries wars have been fought over religious differences – the Crusades (Christians v Muslims) and Muslim v Hindu for example. And within religions the differences can be just as great – Protestant v Catholic of Sunni v Shiite for example.

Charles sees commonality in the “different faiths” – this is less profound or surprising than it may seem. To preach in favour of a religion you implicitly deny other religions. That’s what missionaries did and there is similar zeal from pulpits every Sunday. But there will also points of common thought – for example Islam and Christianity strongly share the idea that giving to charity has deep moral and spiritual merit, though they express and structure it in somewhat different ways.

Charles seems to want it both ways. To preach the virtues of Christian Faith whilst also accepting the merits of other religions – he is close to saying that all religions are equal , that there is some deep (and good) commonality that they share. I suspect that for many in the Church of which he is head this goes way too far.

“Yet others see Trump’s pivot as a sign of weakness. Second-term presidents become labelled lame ducks — victim to events as their authority ebbs.” The Times today.

Trump is not even close to being a conventional “second-term President”. Thr four year break destroyed any continuity there might have been from his first term. Independent commentators placed that term as the worst presidency in America’s long history. His second term is infinitely worse.

What authority Trump has comes from his use of the Executive Order to create what is close to a dictatorship. Compare post Weimar Germany and their suspension of democracy. But Trump’s defeat on the Epstein files shows that there is a glimmer of hope that Congress might be prepared to call a halt to his madness.

Authoritarian leaders do succeed to power in previously democratic administrations – there are plenty examples of this in twentieth and twenty-first century history. But America is different. Nixon pushed the limits of the possible and paid the price. Trump is infinitely worse than tricky Dicky. America must act.