Time to query the "special relationship"
- Jonathan Coulter
- Mar 24
- 4 min read
CAMPAIN at the Al Quds protest, March 15th
In my recent talk at this event, I managed to encapsulate my thoughts on the Iran War. See My critique of the Starmer Government below. CAMPAIN supports this annual event that is organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). The term Al Quds simply means Jerusalem in Arabic, so we join the annual event to protest the oppression of Palestinians and British complicity in the same. Indeed, this has become a friendly relationship whereby IHRC turned out to support us in a vigil outside Lambeth Palace.
The Al Quds events have been going on peacefully for 47 years though Israel lobbyists frequently try to get the authorities to stop them going ahead. This year they managed to get the event confined to a static protest on the Albert Embankment south of Lambeth Palace. There was a massive police presence.
CAMPAIN has also joined the Convivencia Alliance that was founded by Jewish Network for Palestine, IHRC and Peacemakers Trust, and is chaired by Rev Stephen Sizer. Convivencia simply means coexistence and celebrates the tolerance that existed between Muslims, Christians and Jews in the Umayyad state of Cordoba in Medieval Spain. Far from illustrating the intolerance of Muslim Spain, it shows it in a better light than the Christian Spain that succeeded Muslim rule.
Al Quds day 2026
The Shia Islamic component was much in evidence this year and one could sense their anguish after the recent American and Israeli attacks on Iran. There was open support for the deceased Ayatollah Khamenei, and talk of Karbala, the spiritual home of Shiism.
However, there were several non-Islamic speakers, including Dr Swee Ang, The Anglican Fra Frank Gelli, a Hasidic Jew from the Neturei Karta movement, and myself. Media reporting was predicably poor, focusing on people arrested for paltry reasons and on Bob Vylan who made an impassioned speech ending with his chant of Death, death to the IDF. Articles, notably one in the Daily Mail, cited vague allegations about hate speech and how the chanting upsets Jewish communities.
My own speech was well received but not reported by the newspapers. However, it allowed me to set out the case against the Starmer Government’s actions in the simplest terms.
My critique of the Starmer Government
I criticised him for aligning himself with what I called gangster regimes, in Washington and Tel Aviv, that sought to rub out the Islamic Republic. When the war started, Ministers persuaded Starmer not to give the US access to British bases, but his resolve soon evaporated in the face of Trump’s threats. Hence, I gave Starmer no credit for his claim to be simply standing up for British interests.
As for Iran, I spoke of it as a country with which the West had been able to negotiate successfully. This was exemplified by the JPCOA agreement of 2015, that Trump subsequently tore up, and the agreement reached to allow zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just before Israel and America attacked on February 28th.
I went on to say the UK was hostage to the doctrine of the Special Relationship with the USA, a relic of the time we stood together in the face of the Nazi threat, one that had now become a toxic anachronism - for which I coined the term the Transatlantic cringe.
It was time that British people, whether of left, right and centre, faced this reality. It is easy to understand how the special relationship came to dominate Britain’s foreign policy thinking. However, since the 1950s, we have witnessed a pattern of increasing American aggression and forever wars around the World, driven by powerful lobbies and with Britain sometimes serving as junior partner. This aggression has culminated in the invasions of Iraq and Iran, and unconditional support for Israel duing the Gaza genocide. Hence, I stated that:
we could no longer afford to provide unconditional support for the gangster regime in the USA, because by doing so we put both ourselves and the World in grave danger. Above all, we help create a World where emerging states see nuclear weapons as indispensable to their defence.
By the same token we should align ourselves more closely with Europe, particularly those states like Spain, Ireland and Sweden which have showed some courage in the face of American bullying. Would the situation be different under a Democratic administration in the USA? Probably not. The roots of America's agression lie in the major concentration of capital in hands of those profiting from the war economy, coupled with the enormously powerful Israel lobby. Biden and Blinken's support for the Gaza genocide speaks volumes. However, with support for Israel in the Democratic party down close to single digits the party structures are under considerable strain.
A devastating critique from Richard Sanders
Sanders highlights the gangster-like nature of Israel, as a rogue nation whose leader has been trying to drag the United States into a war on Iran for 40 years. He makes very clear that Benjamin Netanyahu's aim is to sow instability and chaos in the Middle East, and turn Iran into a failed state.
To show what is happening, Sanders describes a cascading system whereby the tail wags the dog:
Firstly, within Israel, a minority of about half a million very racist settlers enjoys disproportionate influence and has caused the regime to follow its extreme agenda
Secondly, Israel – a small country in the Middle East - enjoys enormous influence on American foreign policy, and under Trump, has joined Netanyahu's war on Iran.
Thirdly, the rest of the World feels it needs to fall into line behind American policy. Trump in effect tells Starmer you can’t even pretend to have an independent foreign policy, while our right-wing media and political figures such as Nigel Farage chime their support for this same message.
Hence half a million extreme racist settlers dictate British foreign policy which, among other things, involves allowing the Americans to use British bases to bomb Iran. They have driven forward a War that makes no sense in terms of American nor British interests. It particularly infringes the interests of the UK, a middle-ranking power which is reliant on international law to protect it against the arbitrary behaviour of the USA and other major powers.
I am repeating this message which I posted as a sub-comment on TonyG's comment, and seems to have been hidden. "Hello Tony, I don't think that Richard Sanders is denying the importance of Western imperial interests as a driver in Middle Eastern conflicts. However in this specific case, there is no doubt that Netanyahu managed to manipulate Trump into the War on Iran, something that he could not do with previous US presidents".
I take issue with Richard Sander's analytical theme viz. that we are seeing a series of tails wagging the dog as well as the idea that there is a single American or British national interest.
E.g. Richard says that 'within Israel, a minority of about half a million very racist settlers enjoys disproportionate influence and has caused the regime to follow its extreme agenda.'
I don't know where to start with this. An Israeli woman is interviewed and makes it clear that her views are no different from the neo-Nazi settlers (let us call them what they are) she says a good Arab is a dead one, she wants to wipe them out (with a nuclear bomb if necessary) yet…
Yes indeed, how is it that a country as small as Israel had superlative views of what it was entitled to own. Rogue is really Netanyahu because when his grandfather landed in Palestine, he had a Polish name and Polish identity and no ancestors to speak of in Palestine. So how on earth could this dishonest person of Netanyahu grandson make out that the Jews owned Palestine. He obviously had his own agenda and resolved to seek power in order to achieve it.
Well said. There is,however, the Israel question,and why this literally rogue (criminal) nation has such a hold over the UK aswell as the US. Where is independent thinking? Where is pride in any 'values' oftruth, acknowledging the equality of all humans and of their same needs and right? Where is Christ's teaching in our so-called 'Christian country' and the commandments of the OldTestament? And as you point out, why is it 'we' ignore what is exemplary in others whom we are brain-washed into thinking of as 'different', even 'inferior', ornowadays 'enemies'?
Yes, only I do not see how the UK is or has been "reliant on international law" - except when it serves or has served its own agenda. The UK seems indeed to have been one of the foremost proponents of what should have been called the "ruse-based international order", a useful deceit when international law gets in the way of your "interests".