Posted on 12 February 2020
*Stephen Bell (Stop the War Coalition)
** Sami Ramadani (researcher, author and commentator)
***Revnd Dr Stephen Sizer (priest, researcher)
The Middle East, and perhaps the world, is living in anticipation of yet another serious crisis which could spiral out of control. The targeted assassination by the United States of General Qassim Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful military icon and Abu Mahdi Al Mohandis, an Iraqi military leader has brought the world to the verge of a major military conflict with the potential of a nuclear war. The human and religious responsibilities dictate that no effort may be spared to ensure that does not happen. The role of President Trump and secretary Pompeo has been widely reported and deplored. The hope is that major world powers, including the EU, Russia, China, UK and France will bring pressure to bear on the US which has started this cycle of violence.
14th January 2020
Chairman: The topic for tonight is Leave well alone: prospects for war and peace in the Middle East. I think it is interesting to note that the narrative is presented in such a way that the other party is always evil and we sitting in London or wherever are good people. From the documentary evidence if one wanted clarity at all who is doing what it is there for everyone to see.
But what needs to be remembered and we need to give ourselves not just a slap in the face but as a kick in the gut who is lying, who is cheating and who is being dishonest. One of the very prominent members of the government in Washington has quite proudly claimed that we lie, we cheat and we steal. This is coming from the mouth of someone who is supposed to be the secretary of state of a particularly powerful nation.
This is the sort of lexicon, these are the three words we should all remind ourselves of. But not only that. He goes on to say that we have a manual to teach how to lie, cheat and steal. So if we have this in the forefront of our lexicon than the confusion that arises in the minds of the people of that particular nation arises about who is doing good and who is doing evil.
But there is also a discussion that is taking place should we be using certain words and if a word is used it has a different meaning and if you use those words than you could be reprimanded for saying what should have been told.
We have to be very clear that whenever America gets into something they have to convince the rest of the world that their opponents are evil while the reality may be quite different.
Stephen Bell: It is a great pleasure and privilege to address you tonight even though it is in difficult times. In terms of assessing the immediate situation I need to address the background situation. I don’t think the situation lies in the actions of the Iranian government. I think we need to locate the current crisis in the framework of the continued decline of the United States economy and the decline of the United States as a hegemonic force in the world.
It is evident that America can no longer out produce its major rivals whether they are the European Union or China. Its great power is being used to create a disruptive role in the world economy and in international politics rather than pulling things together. Rather than pulling things together it is pulling them apart.
If we just take the purchasing power parity – the difference in currencies and so on. The Chinese economy today is now 20percent larger than that of the USA. Currently the USA economy is growing at a rate of 2.1 percent a year. That is its current rate. That is slower than the long term average over the last 30 – 40 years.
In comparison the Chinese economy is growing by 6.5 percent. So if we assume this continued imbalance in the growth of the two economies by 2030 – ten years – China will be two and half times larger than the USA economy. In those circumstances you can say goodbye to notions of USA hegemony.
This is why Steve Bannon President Trump’s favourite ideologue says that the USA must stop China in the next five years. That is the time scale that they are operating on. That also explains the particular approach of President Trump that instead of utilising international multilateral bodies to exert the power of the USA he is consistently and more frequently breaching those bodies. He is attempting to reorder the world of trade by unilateral action. And so we have seen for the last 18 months a serious trade war with China. We have seen attempts to discipline the European Union via the introduction of tarrifs.
More important now I think there is pressure on the European Union as has been exerted through his consistent promotion of the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union and his support for the project Boris Johnson.
This has also brought him into conflict with the German government. That has been the orientation of the USA government. We also see the re ordering of the American Free Trade Agreement, relations with Mexico and relations with other Asian powers and so on.
Essentially this is a function of the instability to try and reorder everything. Initially it is possible for the United States to change the balance of forces with individual countries. Collectively with the European Union for example it is much more difficult for the United States to adjust that balance.
In terms of the Middle East and North Africa the essential interest of the USA aside from political interest remains the control of oil and gas reserves generally. The USA is now essentially self sufficient in these resources especially with the general introduction of fracking in the USA.
But of course the rival from the United States perspective China is heavily dependant on the importing of energy from the Middle East. Therefore it is no small matter from Europe’s perspective to control those resources. So in these terms one can then make sense of the continued troop presence in Syria.
It is not question of having a few token troops in Syria to change the balance of forces within Syria. But you only need a small American contingent there to do exactly as he said in one extraordinary statement – to get the oil. America remains an overwhelming military power and you cannot touch those few troops without risking the full wrought of American power.
Similarly in Iraq. It is not about training Iraqi soldiers to fight ISIS. It is about having control and access to Iraqi energy reserves and especially propping up the Kurdish regional government in Iraq to prevent a strong Iraqi state from operating.
Of course in relation to the oil and energy which the Gulf states have they are heavily dependent on the United States for their military and for their security and what distinguishes Iran from those states is the fact that Iran since 1979 has genuinely had an independent state which has allowed it to refuse the embrace of the United States and the manipulation of Iranian policy by the United States. That is the background in my view for the maximum pressure strategy on Iran a country which has the third largest oil reserves and as recently as November last year announced the discovery of a new oil field with a estimated 53 billion barrels.
Behind this instability is not just the decline in absolute terms of the United States economy. It is also the growing indebtedness of that economy. The model that Reagan and Thatcher introduced – Anglo Saxon capitalism – relies on drawing in capital from around the world. The classic notion of imperialism the export of capital and the utilisation of resources of individual colonial developing countries no longer applies. When you are that heavily indebted you have to draw in your capital. This is graphically illustrated after the 1987 stock market crash essentially when American drawing on Japanese capital took the Japanese capital into stagnation from which it has yet to recover.
From being an exporter of capital the United States is now an importer of capital. The current debt level. The United States government debt in December 2019 stands at $23.2m trillion. The anticipated annual deficit for October 2019 to September 2020 is $1.1trillion and they are expected to increase their indebtedness for the next ten years.
The United Kingdom has currently a debt £1.8 trillion and its annual deficit is increasing. From April 2019 – November 2019 the British government incurred a further deficit of £50.9 billion. So you are long past the glory days. You are now in days of great instability and a disruptive role in the world market.
The Iranian state represents an alternative to this. Forty years of independence. When you compare the position from the constitutional revolution in Iran in 1905 it is clear that failure was engineered by the major powers at the time – Britain and tsarist Russia, the continued control of Iranian resources through the whole period of the reign of Reza Shah. An expression of Iran’s subordination to foreign powers.
The revolution of 1979 ended that. Iran is an independent nation. It represents the summation of a 200 year struggle for national independence free from manipulation politically and financially which it suffered up until that point.
American imperialism has not been able to accept this and has attempted since 1979 to undermine Iran. It became clear to Obama that the sanctions that he was promoting were not actually bringing about the destruction of the Iranian regime as he hoped they would. Sanctions are an act of war particularly against the civilian population of a country and at a certain point you have to say either you go to war if those sanctions are not working or you negotiate. That is essentially what Obama came to. He understood he could not simply effect regime change and we have the accord negotiated internationally.
Trump’s rejection of multilateralism means that he has rejected that accord in the belief that he can effect regime change in one way or another. So we have the maximum pressure strategy today in an attempt to impose a new settlement. But his is clearly failing. Regardless of the pressures the Iranian people are suffering they are not buckling and meanwhile the electoral clock has been ticking for Trump.
US opinion polls from December to the start of January registered Trump on 40 – 42 percent and the Democrats 47 – 50 percent. There is a clear advantage for the Democrats. The impeachment proceedings have not helped this. So you get a deeply provocative action like the assassination of Suleimani and the attempt to say to his electorate I have not overthrown the regime but here are some heads on stakes. I am making some progress in Iran.
This is not convincing. The response of the American public to this is unconvinced. The most recent ABC poll showed that 56 percent disapproved of Trump’s handling of the Iran crisis and 52 percent said the strike made them feel the USA was less safe.
Suleimani was invited by the Iraqi PM to Baghdad in an attempt to lessen tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. So he was carefully chosen by Trump. Some people believe it is not going to come to a war. I think this is a very short sighted process. The maximum pressure will continued. It has increased in sanctions and it is not just the actions of governments themselves. You have non state actors like Mutada Al Sadr and the militias have made a decision to campaign against the continued American presence inside Iraq and there is every liability for matters to get out of hand further.
In terms of the role of the British government in this. The impact of Brexit on the British government is to make them entirely subordinate to the United States on this question. The fact that Boris Johnson supported the assassination and gave it a bit colour when he talked of Suleimani having the blood of British soldiers on his hands. There is no evidence of that. This indicates that for him the aim above everything else is to get that trade deal with the USA. This is why Trump wants to cut Britain out of the EU.
So today when the E3 group – Germany France and Britain – triggered the mechanism in the nuclear agreement to reimpose sanctions on Iran that was primarily initiated by Johnson. And the fact that Johnson has talked in terms of withdrawing from the agreement which Trump is pressing for today he said let us replace this internationally negotiated agreement involving the UN the EU, Russia and China with the Trump deal. President Trump is a great deal maker. He secured a terrific deal on North Korea. By his own account he is a terrific deal maker. Let us work together to replace the JCPA and get the Trump deal instead. I defy any of you to know what the Trump deal is except the abject surrender of Iran but other than that what is this deal?
We are facing great difficulty. Not only has the British government deployed resources in the Gulf. There is no suggestion from his actions so far that he will in any way restrain Trump’s adventurarism.
It is for that reason the CND and Stop the War Coalition remains on full alert. We are organising meeting all around the country to explain the need for maximum alert on the continued danger of war. So I very much appreciate this opportunity tonight to bring you our message.
CLIP: Nelson Mandela. Interviewer: Those of us who share in your struggle for human rights and against apartheid and are somewhat disappointed. You have met since your release from jail three times with Yasser Arafat , you have told Qadhafi that you share his view and applaud his record on human and you have praised Fidel Castro as a leader of human rights and said that Cuba is head and shoulders on human rights above other countries. Mandela replied: One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to feel that their enemies should be our enemies.
Chairman: This encapsulates what I said in my opening comments. Evil as defined by the regime in Washington does not really mean evil. We have to be very cautious and conscientious about the vocabulary we use. Those of us who speak the truth and have the courage to identify with those who may be deemed horrid people is really where the discussion takes place. I am sure a time will come when a lot of us will have to keep quiet or do something else. I hope we are not at that juncture yet and still have an opportunity to express our views openly. I think it is each individual’s duty to really at the end of the day identify which country, which individual is doing utter wrong. The founder of the Islamic revolution in 1979 said a really interesting thing. When you look at what is happening globally whether it is in Venezuela or Bolivia if an individual or an organisation is supported that particular individual or organisation is not working in the favour of that country. We can see that clearly by what is happening in Africa and the economic crisis that is facing us here and in Washington is that neo liberalism policies started in Chile with the assassination of Allende the death bed of neo colonialism and neo liberalism is in Chile with what is happening at the moment. So we are living in very uncertain and turbulent times.
Sami Ramadani: I will focus on Iraq and start by saying that the assassination of Suleimani and Al Mohandis the deputy commander of the Popular Mobilisation Units (Al Hash Shabi). He was an outstanding leader although his official post was deputy. He played a leading role in rapidly organising and mobilising the units to go to the frontlines as the ISIS forces approached Baghdad after taking Mosul and quite large tracts of Iraq. He was instrumental with the help of Suleimani the Iranian Al Quds forces commander. He was an extremely modest man and his name was not unknown abroad. Even in Iraq he had a very low profile. There is a lot of footage showing him on the frontlines fighting against the terrorists.
It was during a period when Iraq was literally alone with the exception of Iran supporting Iraq and some forces or rather trainers from Hezbollah in Lebanon Iraq was literally left along to fight ISIS for about six months. These were the decisive six months when ISIS was really at its full force.
So the role of Al Mohandis and the mobilization forces was really decisive in pushing back the terrorist groups. The USA was watching what was happening. If you ask most Iraqis they will tell you it was mostly the USA who sent ISIS into Iraq because at the time they were in conflict with the Malaki government like they are in conflict today with Abdel Mahdi’s government.
At the time there was an intense contradiction with the Malaki government again over buying arms from Russia and so on. I don’t want to go into too much detail but they entry of ISIS forces into Iraq was coinciding with the USA being upset with the Iraqi government at the time. It also coincided with a defacto deal between the Barzani forces in Iraqi Kurdistan and these invading forces.
If at every point there were ceasefires between the two sides and Barzani managed to take over Kirkuk and much of the disputed areas between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government of Iraq. ISIS became so powerful they started marching on areas controlled by Barzani. So they marched on Sinjar where the Yazidis live. Barzani’s peshmerga forces withdrew from the city a day before these forces arrived and if you ask most Yazidis they will tell you that it was the peshmerga who betrayed them to the ISIS forces.
I am mentioning all this because it is relevant to what is happening today. The death of Al Mohandis has reminded Iraqis that people have forgotten the role of the PMU’s is saving Iraq from the terrorists. The assassination of Al Muhandis was a stark reminder of their role. While he was being assassinated units under his command were actually fighting against the return of ISIS forces into Iraq. They are becoming active again now and they are carrying out hit and run operations in Iraq and in parts of northern Iraq as well – not in the Kurdistan region but a bit below from the Hamreen hills upwards. So they are extremely active.
Also relevant to what I am talking about are the demonstrations in Iraq that started on 1st October last year. These demonstrations reflected people’s anger against corruption in the state and the government, anger against unemployment, poverty, the way the political system has come to a halt in terms of the operations of the state apparatus and numerous issues that made people go onto the streets.
But parallel to that is the interference of the United States in these demonstrations. This is very little reported in Britain and in the Western media in general. The United States over the last 17 years since occupying Iraq established over 400 so called civil society organisations in Iraq. When they were first established each of these organisations was given by Paul Bremmer $100,000 to be set up and every year they would fund these organisations.
Initially people were surprised why the United States was doing this. These organisations included support for disabled people, sports organisations, human rights – you name it, there was a civil society organisation that was established with the help of the United States. And a lot of these organisations were also internet based, social media based.
And in the last three to four years the United States also started organising groups of young Iraqis who are very talented and had just finished secondary school or university: they sent them to training courses in the USA ostensibly to work in the social field, in social research or to help civil society organisations.
These have become several thousand. In the last few years these people have been sent on the training courses. Once the demonstrations started all these organisations sprang into action upholding certain slogans. Some of them were slogans that the people themselves raised against corruption but some were clearly designed with a political agenda in mind like Iran should get out of Iraq. Suddenly this slogan appeared on the horizon completely out of the blue.
And they started burning the Iranian consulate and started escalating demands enormously and also going against the wishes of most of the demonstrators to keep it peaceful. So they invaded the Green Zone, they tried to take over the central bank in Baghdad and other institutions. And they started closing down children’s schools against public opinion at the time.
Their activities and their demands and most of these armed and violent actions were carried out by masked men. Have you heard of an uprising with masked people all over it? Revolutions and uprisings usually have people upfront: you know them you know their programmes. Nothing. Until now there is no representation of so-called of protest movement. But in the spontaneous ones, the real ones you can see there are trade unions, women’s organisations and religious organisations and they have real representatives and they come and speak and so on.
So the role of the US is destabilisation and this is something that we need to be careful about. That the United States does not only invade countries and occupy them. It does not only impose economic sanctions on them because economic sanctions can be a form of warfare. They actually kill people. Half a million children were killed between 1991 – 2003. These are United Nations figures. This was long before the invasion. In the invasion over a million people died during six or seven years of the occupation.
There were also proxy wars: Syria, Libya terrorist organisations which have been stationed and trained in NATO member Turkey and sent to Syria. They destroyed much of Syria through Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Libya. Terrorist organisations were introduced and they jumped on the bandwagon of popular demands again until NATO intervened because the country became destabilised.
In Iraq they are following a similar pattern and the reason they are doing that is because this state, this government if you trace it back was originally founded by the USA itself in 2003. In 2003 they brought in a new constitution, new rules of the game, they disbanded the armed forces and the ministries in Iraq and re-established every thing more or less form zero. So how come they are opposed to this current government.
The answer is that the balance of forces gradually shifted in Iraq from total domination by the United States to actually receding direct control. There are two important events to be mentioned here. In 2011 the American forces were forced to leave Iraq through a new security agreement so 99 percent of their forces left Iraq even thought they kept some military bases which we will come to later.
The occupation forces by and large left the country. So they were no direct threat to Iraqi politicians. The second important point is the rise of the popular mobilization forces. These are hundreds of thousands of young men who are fully armed. Some units even have heavy arms and they are overwhelmingly against the US presence in Iraq. Not only did they become a powerful force in defeating ISIS but they been recognised by the Iraqi government as officially part of the Iraqi armed forces and they are under the command of the supreme commander of the Iraqi armed forces which happens to the prime minister constitutionally. It is the prime minister who is the supreme commander of the Iraqi armed forces. You have political forces which are historically anti American and hostile to the US presence in Iraq and some are close allies of Iran.
So this is if you like at the root of the disturbance in the balance of forces by the United States which lost its complete control over Iraq. It shares this control. It still has a powerful presence in the country through its military bases, through Barzani’s militia forces in Iraqi Kurdistan and some political forces in Baghdad itself, political organisations that are closely allied to the United States.
So you have enormous friction and conflict in the country and the United States has come out in the open against Abdul Mahdi’s government. His government was formed about a year ago but it did not come really come into full force until about eight months ago because of the conflict between the different political forces the cabinet was not fully formed until about seven months ago. They have not really been in power for long.
What happened when he came to power Abdul Mahid became prime minster he was opposed by the United States as a nominee. Their nominee was Haider Al Abadi the former prime minister. In the last months of his premiership he became openly allied to the United States by negating Siemens to do the electricity generation projects. He went with General Electric. He appointed about 100 senior officer posts in the country which were mostly from America. He took a number of measures which isolated him from the others including the Sadarists who were supportive of him. They withdrew their support because he became so openly pro the US.
And the other forces nominated Abdul Mahdi against US advise. He became prime minister and he immediately began taking measure which upset the USA. Symbolically, it is not a great measure but symbolically he opened the Green Zone to the public. This upset the United States because it means Iraqis could pass by this incredibly large US embassy and they can drive pass it. This is a US base which is basically a military base. It is five stories underground and a few stories up. It could house up to five thousand personnel. Helicopters come up and down.
And the Green Zone in general was blockaded to the public. He also removed the concrete blocks from the streets of Baghdad. There were also other measures which upset the USA. Opening the border with Syria. The USA said these borders must stay blocked. Abdul Mahdi issued a decree to open the borders and Al Qan area and there is an Iraqi military base and El Hashid forces are also based there. They crossed into Syria for that big battle near the Syrian borders against ISIS forces in which they were defeated. So there is close co-ordination between Iraq and Syria against the terrorist groups near the Iraqi border. The USA objected to that.
The second thing he did was he rejected the deal of the century. Nobody knows what this deal is all about except some old economic paper which was read at a conference in Dubai. It was written a year ago by some American economist to establish economic aid for the Palestinian Occupied Territories.
That has upset the United States because Iraq was supposed to come on board to support the United States when they announced this new deal of the century. So that threw a big spanner in the works of that plan.
The other measures. He signed a massive deal with China. This deal is estimated to be worth five hundred billion dollars. Estimates vary because it depends on how you assess oil prices. No cash is exchanged no loans are made. We give China 100,000 barrels of oil a day in return for China building practically the entire destroyed infrastructure of Iraq particularly strategically the Fao port in Basra. That port has been fought against tooth and nail by Kuwait and the UAE because it provides Iraq with a true deep sea port and it has been delayed and delayed for about 17 years now. Before that Iraq was economically bankrupt they could not build it. But his project is essential and is part of this China in Iraq deal. It includes railway lines, schools, two million homes to be built within two years. Trump himself personally called Abdul Malik to ask him to scrap this ideal. It is the biggest point of friction between the USA and Iraq at the moment.
Number four. Refusal to apply sanctions against Iran. Iraq flatly refused. We want to be neutral in your conflict with Iran and we cannot apply sanctions on Iran and this enormously upset the USA as well.
Refusal to disband some units of the popular mobilization units. The USA officially declared some of the organisations terrorist groups including some leading commanders of the Hashid. Iraq said ‘no’. They are part of the armed forces of Iraq. We are not going to disband them.
They also rejected a big deal with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia offered enormous sums of money in return for applying sanctions on Iran so that deal collapsed as well. I will stop here. I hope I did not take too much of your time.
Dr Stephen Sizer: In today’s Guardian newspaper, an editorial reports on a speech given by US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo on the new US strategy of “Real Deterrence”
“Pompeo says killing of Suleimani is part of ‘bigger strategy’ to deter US foes… His speech, The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example, focused on what he called a Trump administration strategy to establish “real deterrence” against Iran…”
Our subject tonight is “Leave well alone: Prospects of war and peace in the Middle East”. The reality is that there are already multiple regional conflicts being fought in the Middle East today.
The two words that sum up prospects for 2020 are not ‘war and peace’ but rather ‘proliferation and escalation’. The only question is where next? It could be Libya, or Syria, or Yemen, or Iraq – all burdened by the unwelcome presence of foreign military forces. Then there are those Middle East countries facing civil unrest, whether from popular dissent or from external sanctions or attempts to destabilise their governments. These include Bahrain, Iran, Lebanon and Qatar. Any one of these regional hot spots could be the spark that ignites the Middle East in 2020.
And I haven’t yet mentioned the most likely epicentre – namely Palestine. Here there are so many volatile factors that could so easily provide the spark. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing indictment on charges of bribery, corruption and breach of trust. Brig. Gen. (ret.) Shlomo Brom is a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and was previously a deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council. Writing in Haaretz in December, Brom warned,
“The Prime Minister needs a win in the next elections, and initiating a major conflict with Iran may be his only hope to convince Israelis that there is no alternative to his leadership… Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to place Israel’s conflict with Iran at the center of his recent election campaigns has been causing much concern that his rhetoric might further inflame tensions with Tehran. Netanyahu presents himself as the only one who can protect Israel from what he describes as an existential threat posed by Iran …The concern is that he could initiate a major armed conflict with Iran in the hope of convincing the Israeli electorate that there is no substitute to his leadership in spite of the costs to Israel of such a war.”
Netanyahu and other Israeli political and military figures have even more reason to distract attention by starting another war. That is because they are very likely be indicted by the International Criminal Court on War Crimes charges this year. Bel Trew, reporting for the Independent in December wrote,
“A full investigation into alleged war crimes in the Palestinian Territories is to be launched by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, prompting a fierce backlash from Israel. Fatou Bensouda said the probe could result in charges against both Israelis and Palestinians. “I am satisfied that … war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip,” … Bensouda added that because the Palestinian Territories had requested the intervention of the court she did not need to request approval from judges to start an investigation. However, she has asked the ICC’s pre-trial chamber to rule on what geographical location it can investigate. The probe will be launched pending a decision on geographical jurisdiction.”
And if another reason were needed, just last month the US administration gave Netanyahu the green light to annexe the Jordan Valley and illegal settlement blocks.
“Two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered one such free gift by stating that the US no longer considers Israeli colonies in the West Bank as illegal or in violation of international law. Netanyahu called Trump to thank him for this decision which has infuriated the Palestinians and was rejected by the Arab League, the EU and most world capitals including Moscow and Beijing. Following last Sunday’s call it now appears that Netanyahu may have received the green light to go ahead with his annexation plan once the political dust settles in Israel.”
But why has the US administration’s foreign policy been such a controversial and divisive force in the Middle East for so long?
I believe it has to do with the close relationship between the US and Israel. Donald Trump has probably accomplished more for Israel in his short time in office than any other US President since Harry Truman unilaterally recognised the State of Israel in May 1948. President Truman did so, going against the advice of his State Department, US Mission to the United Nations and ambassadors in the Middle East. President Trump seems to have continued this tradition with gusto. In December 2017, for example, reversing decades of US foreign policy, President Trump announced the United States recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
On 14 May 2018 – the 70th anniversary of Israel’s founding – the US officially moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Also, in May 2018, President Trump announced that he was unilaterally withdrawing the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or Iran nuclear deal. In August 2018, the Trump administration announced it was going to cut all funding to UNRWA, the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees, alleging its business model and fiscal practices were of an “irredeemably flawed operation”.
Then in February 2019, the US Senate passed a bill allowing state governments to refuse to do business with companies that boycott Israel. A month later, in March 2019, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side, President Trump declared that the US unilaterally recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights. In July 2019, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution rejecting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. And finally, in November 2019, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo declared that the US government no longer considered Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories illegal under international law, preparing the ground for their inevitable annexation by Israel.
How did Donald Trump come to lead the most pro-Israel administration in the history of the United States? The answer is very simple. In the USA today, white evangelicals are twice as likely as Jewish Americans to believe God gave the land of Israel for the Jewish people (72% of US evangelicals compared with 40% of US Jews). And while American Jews typically vote Democrat, 81% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. During a recent visit to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu heavily implied Trump is the spiritual heir of King Cyrus. Thanking Trump for moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, Netanyahu said,
“We remember the proclamation of the great King Cyrus the Great — Persian King. Twenty-five hundred years ago, he proclaimed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon can come back and rebuild our temple in Jerusalem…And we remember how a few weeks ago, President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr. President, this will be remembered by our people throughout the ages.”
Pastor Paula White, Trump’s longtime spiritual adviser and now White House official, said recently “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God,” This is why, perhaps, in spite of President Trump’s strong pro-Israel policies, he can accuse 70% of American Jews of being disloyal to Israel for voting Democrat, and get away with it. Quite simply he does not need their vote.
“With an evangelical base behind him, Trump has no need to offer plausible arguments before he acts. He can move the US embassy to Jerusalem, or approve the annexation of the West Bank, or attack Iran.”
Morgan Strong, in an article “How Christian Zionists got their man into the White House” observes,
“The Christian Zionists managed, through the positioning of Mike Pence and fellow believers in the White House, an incredible measure of influence over the most powerful nation on earth… Pence is not alone in his efforts to convince Trump to fulfill what the Christian Zionists regard as a biblical prophecy. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, his daughter Sara Huckabee Sanders, now the White House press secretary, and Sara Palin wield great influence in the Trump administration and are ardent Christian Zionists.”
Christian Zionism, in its various forms, evangelistic, political and apocalyptic, is without doubt a theology held by the majority of white evangelicals in the USA.
In December I gave a presentation in Bethlehem on the rise of the Evangelical Right in the USA and its advocacy for Israel. What worries me most about the movement is their eschatology – their theology of the future. Christian Zionists hold to the belief in ‘manifest destiny’ – that God is on their side and that USA is fulfilling a divine mandate. Invariably they have a deeply pessimistic view of the future. Many are convinced that there will be an apocalyptic war of Armageddon in the imminent future. They are therefore deeply sceptical about the possibility of a lasting peace in the Middle East. This is also why they oppose the recognition of Palestine and are highly critical of both the UN and ICC.
“The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation… the United States locked into a holy war against the forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran”.
A fear and deep-seated hatred of Islam also pervades their apocalyptic theology. In May 2018, as Trump was pulling the US out of the Iran deal, Heather Timmons, writing for Quartz, observed that “Trump’s foreign policy looks a lot like Rapture Christians’ plan to welcome the apocalypse”. Pastor John Hagee is one of the most influential Christian leaders in the USA today. He heads Christians United for Israel, which has an active membership of more than 5 million, they organise over 40 pro-Israel events a month. In an interview with Bill Moyers John Hagee insisted,
“We want you to recognize that Iran is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and Israel. And… that it’s time for our country to consider a military preemptive strike against Iran if they will not yield to diplomacy.”
These are some of the reasons I am deeply pessimistic regarding the prospects for peace breaking out in the Middle East in 2020.
How should people of faith respond? In 2006, I helped draft what became known as the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism which was signed by four of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem and which we hope will be reissued this coming year. In it they insisted:
“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.
We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of world.
We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!
The patriarchs concluded, “God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.”
The prophet Micah asks, “What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).
* Stephen Bell is a life-long unionist, human rights and political campaigner. He is currently Treasurer of Stop the War Coalition and Campaign Officer for Palestine Solidarity Campaign. He was Head of Policy for the Communication Workers Union 2002-2015. He is a also a member of Coventry North West Labour Party.
**Sami Ramadani is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University. Sami was born in Iraq and became an exile from Saddam Hussein’s regime in 1969, as a result of his political activities in support of democracy and socialism. He opposed the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people (1991-2003) and the invasion of Iraq (2003). He is active in the movement to end the US-led occupation. He is a member of the steering committee of Stop the War Coalition.
*** Dr Stephen Sizer is the founder and director of Peacemaker Trust, a registered charity dedicated to peacemaking, especially in the Middle East. He is a retired Anglican priest, with an MA in Theology from Oxford University in 1994, a campaigner for Palestinian rights and trustee of Living Stones of the Holy Land.
