Our new Prime Minister is a hypocrite on Iran
LAST WEEK, for the first time in his new role as prime minister, Boris Johnson faced off across the dispatch box against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition. Mr Johnson, a former president of the Oxford Union, was in his element, lambasting Mr Corbyn, whose debating skills are negligible, with criticism of both his foreign and domestic policies. And the Tory leader was given a particularly easy opening when Mr Corbyn asked him about the government’s intentions to de-escalate tensions with Iran.
“He asks about Iran… the honourable gentleman has been paid by Press TV”, Mr Johnson thundered.
“He repeatedly sides with the Mullahs of Tehran rather than our friends in the United States over what is happening in the Persian Gulf. How incredible that we should even think about entrusting that gentleman with the stewardship of this country’s security.”
It is, of course, incredible— and more than a little depressing— that the Labour party is led by somebody of this nature.
But Boris Johnson’s protestations on the subject come across as more than a little hypocritical. After all, the same day that the Prime Minister launched this blistering attack in the Commons, his own father, Stanley Johnson, appeared on Press TV, cheerfully reassuring the Iranian government-controlled channel that
Iran “means so much” to his son.
Now, it is generally unfair to
hold a politician responsible for the actions of their relatives —particularly, one might say, in the case of Stanley Johnson, whose reputation as a loose cannon makes his son look reliable in comparison.
So let us consider another point. The new prime minister has appointed a number of advisers to assist him in key roles — among them is Andrew Gilligan, a senior journalist for the Sunday Times. Mr Gilligan presented a fortnightly show on Press TV between 2007 and 2009. Mr Corbyn appeared on Press TV at various points between 2009 and 2012. Perhaps they even passed each other in the corridors at the office of the Iranian state-controlled channel.
It seems remarkably hypocritical to condemn someone for having been “paid by Press TV”, only to subsequently, just a few days later, hire somebody who was presumably paid even more by the same outlet.
Again, there are defences against this charge. For example, Mr Gilligan’s reporting record suggests that, far from avoiding or defending the subject of Islamist extremism, he has been a prominent voice condemning it — something which cannot be said of Mr Corbyn. Mr Gilligan has also been hired as an adviser on transport issues rather than foreign policy.
But the third charge is the most serious. Mr Johnson described Mr Corbyn’s record on Iran as ruling him out of playing any future role in defending this country.
So let us consider Ben Wallace, the man who has been appointed by Mr Johnson to serve as this country’s new defence secretary. As revealed by the JC, Mr Wallace once described how, as an MP, he had “visited Iran more than any other parliamentarian”. On at least one of these occasions, in 2014, he visited the country together with Mr Corbyn, whom he described as “an honest leftpossibly winger”. Just last year, as a Home Office minister, Mr Wallace also rejected cross-party calls to fully proscribe Hezbollah, the terror group backed by the Iranian regime. He has also dismissed Iranian calls for the annihilation of Israel as being nothing more than “rhetoric”.
Personally, I believe Mr Johnson has serious questions to answer on any number of issues — including comments he has made in the past about inhabitants of Africa, Muslim women wearing the niqab and members of the LGBT community.
Yet I know that many people in the Jewish community look at Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn and see the former as the lesser of two evils — if they even see Mr Johnson as an evil at all. After all, Jeremy Corbyn has a hideous, decades-long record of support for horrendously antisemitic organisations and individuals, whereas Boris Johnson is seen as an ally of the Jewish community.
However, I would urge members of our community not to act as unquestioning cheerleaders for Mr Johnson — or assume that anyone criticising the Prime Minister in any way must therefore be a Corbyn supporter. If you feel that Mr Johnson’s premiership is so weak that some of us questioning his decisions will lead to a Corbyn government, I would gently suggest that you have greatly exaggerated the influence of such questioners.
Use this column, if you wish, as a starting point. Ask why the Prime Minister has appointed somebody with a long pro-Iranian record as this country’s defence secretary — at exactly the same time as he is criticising his chief opponent for similar behaviour. Ask yourselves whether that suggests the Prime Minister is truly as outraged by Mr Corbyn’s behaviour as many of us are.
And, having come to the only logical conclusion, make your voice heard.