I read Mr. Rachman’s essay last night before I turned out the light. A certain distance in time might have tempered my reply? What struck me, last night, was Mr. Rachman’s final paragraph. In the morning these considerations occurred: it would be almost amusing, if it weren’t so steeped in the misbegotten fiction, that Britain is an autonomous political actor, rather than an obedient vassal to American power. The conditionals ramify.

A British decision to align its Iran policy with that of Washington, would probably finally kill off the EU’s efforts to keep the Iran nuclear accord alive. It would also represent the abandonment of a long-standing British foreign-policy position and might increase the chances of a military confrontation further down the road. It is a momentous choice for a new prime minister to face, in his first few days in office.

The Iranian Revolution didn’t hesitate to hold American hostages for 444 days, and according to this newspaper, are notorious, not to speak of ruthless bad actors in the region. Add to this the fact that Iraq is one of its closest allies, and that Iraq is still subject to an American Occupation. The advantage of having Britain take hostage of the Iranian tanker Grace 1 is to engage in a bit of political theater, that is utterly transparent in its intent. The Iranians are engaging in the same game, in their tit for tat response, in the seizure of the Stena Impero. 

The team of Trump/Pompeo, with the possible ‘help’ of dull-witted Posh Boy Boris Johnson inspires what: Fear,despair, anguish?  WWIII awaits.

Political Observer

https://www.ft.com/content/ef87089c-aaee-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2