Donald Trump is doing good in the Middle East. Why won't the Foreign Office support him?
President Trump has got it right on Israel – and the Foreign Office has got it badly wrongRichard Kemp: Appeasement: The European Sickness
The US has triggered a process at the UN to reinstate sanctions on Iran. France, Germany and the UK have opposed it. The UK also lobbied against America leaving the nuclear deal, and its response to the UAE peace deal was remarkable for its leaden orthodoxy, almost damning with faint praise. Dominic Raab welcomed the normalisation of relations along with Israel’s pledge not to annex land in the West Bank, adding, “there is no substitute for direct talks between the Palestinians and Israel, which is the only way to reach a two state solution and a lasting peace.” To repeat: “There is no substitute.”
Well, there is, and this is it. The UAE’s move has shown that Arab states can be persuaded to deal with Israel if they face a greater threat, namely Iran. So why, even when the Iran nuclear deal is dead, won’t Europe accept the new dynamic and follow Trump’s lead? The other curiosity, of course, is why Brexit Britain is falling in line with the Europeans at all, and why it sticks to outdated formulas on Israel like a parrot reciting the Nicean creed.
Lack of bandwidth is one answer: in the middle of Covid, the Government just can’t process events. Another is the Foreign Office’s prejudice against Israel, fuelled by guilt for the way we carved up the Middle East. As the foreign policy thinker Ed Husain points out, this is likely to get worse because the Department for International Development is about to be rolled into the Foreign Office, stuffing an already biased department with “Left-leaning” bureaucrats whose raison d’etre is to hand out cash as penance for British imperial history.
There is a third calculation: Trump is going to lose the election, putting the Democrats – and the State Department – back in charge. But even if this is correct, why not recognise that the Trump doctrine has brought real movement to Middle East politics, that the anti-Iranian coalition could be the basis for an Arab detente with Israel and that the Palestinian question could be settled on a new, more realistic basis?
Never mind what the Foreign Office feels comfortable with, let’s start by examining what Britain wants and needs in 2020. Several Arab states like and trust us and Israel is always ready to talk, so why not make ourselves indispensable to this process as the champions of engagement? The long-term destination remains peace and it would be an act of utter madness not to walk through that door just because Donald Trump was the one who opened it.
Now, Britain and France seek to appease the three powers that most threaten the world today: Iran, China and Russia..
Both countries [Britain and France], as well as Germany and the EU itself, knew only too well that, rather than its stated purpose of denying Iran a route to nuclear weapons, the JCPOA in fact paved Iran's pathway — not just to acquiring nuclear capabilities, but doing so legitimately.
The re-imposed sanctions will then leave China, Russia and the European countries with tough choices about whether they observe them or take the damaging consequences to their own trade with the US.
And for what? Perhaps for the benefit of Russia and China, whose weapons sales to Iran will both bring financial benefit and extend their influence in the region at the expense of America and Europe.
If US snapback sanctions succeed, that can only hasten the end of the terrorist regime in Tehran. It will also boost confidence and security among the Arab countries, increasingly fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran
Terminate the UN Interim Force in Lebanon
UNIFIL is now effectively another UN aid agency. The mission highlights its work with the local population and its delivery of assistance, as recently as the COVID-19 crisis, to municipalities often run by Hezbollah.UN Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon “Slightly Concerned” that Violence Reflects Poorly on Them (satire)
For the last three years, the U.S. has endeavored to address these failures by attempting to beef up UNIFIL's mandate. Predictably, this approach has failed. In the end, it's not only that the Russians and the Chinese—each of whom contributes troops to the force—have opposed changes to the mandate. It's also that the French, who contribute one of the larger contingents, are routinely threatened by pro-Hezbollah media. Moreover, the French are invested in the status quo for other reasons that have to do with their perceived diplomatic role and financial investment in Lebanon, as well as their broader regional agenda.
The Trump administration is now pushing for UNIFIL to operate without any restrictions, and to be able to inspect all sites, including so-called "private property." But U.S. officials reportedly are also looking to reduce the size of the force, and to shorten the mandate's extension period from one year to six months.
This is all very reasonable, given UNIFIL's track record. But if the Security Council members reject these modest requests, the administration is prepared to veto the renewal of the mandate altogether, leading to the dissolution of the force.
The main obstacle to the U.S. effort is France. Not only are the French opposed to a reduction in size, but they appear not to take seriously the U.S. threat to veto, believing it to be a mere bluff and a negotiating tactic. They are poised to oppose the U.S. changes, or to agree only to a watered-down compromise.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has floated recommendations for a "more agile and mobile" force, which would replace heavy infantry functions with "high-mobility light tactical vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles with improved monitoring capacity." However, Guterres' recommendations assume the continuity of deployment and, in fact, more investment in the force.
The United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, also known as UNIFIL, is set to have its mandate renewed at the end of August. They are concerned, however, that the collapse of Lebanon over the last decade and the violence that Hezbollah has inflicted on the country, could reflect poorly on their ability to carry out their mission.
In a normal year their mandate would almost certainly be renewed given that “not being able to carry out their mission” is the unofficial slogan of UN peacekeeping forces. However, the devastating August 4 blast at Beirut’s port has brought further scrutiny to the country. Some UN officials have expressed concerned that a complete failure to keep the peace, disarm Hezbollah, or stop the group from attacking Israel might reflect poorly on their ability to carry out their mission to keep the peace, disarm Hezbollah, or stop the group from attacking Israel.
One officer with UNIFIL said that punishing peacekeepers, or any UN officials for that matter, for not fulfilling their role would be unprecedented. Further, “the UN has a long and proud tradition of failing at the most basic peacekeeping tasks like preventing violence, not spreading disease, and not raping people.”










