British former ‘diplomat’ promotes war against Iran

The Chatham House platform is used to promote regime change in Iran

An article has been published by UK Government/MI6 influencer Chatham House. In the article a former British Head of Mission in Burma, Jerusalem, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, ‘Sir’ John Jenkins essentially promotes regime change in Iran on behalf of Israel.

Described as a Tehran focused policy, Jenkins lays out the potential hybrid warfare plans thus:

A new paradigm is needed, which centres on Tehran and its malign influence. Ideally this would mean a change in Iran itself. An extension of the current conflict to the country could destabilize the regime – something the leadership fears in the light of its massive domestic unpopularity. But, given its proven willingness to use lethal force to crush dissent, it would be unwise to count on significant change from within any time soon.

Jenkins recommends collaboration with the Gulf States, particularly those who have already normalised relations with the genocidal, apartheid so-called state of Israel, many of whom have no issue with increasing trade ties with Israel during the ongoing hourly slaughter of Palestinians in all the occupied and besieged territories.

Jenkins promotes the deeply compromised and Zionist-stooge PA as the “only available instrument” to “properly administer Gaza after the destruction of the last year”. Jenkins advocates the elimination of the Resistance groups in the region – Hezbollah, Hamas and the “Houthis” or Ansarullah as is their correct title.

It is not possible that Jenkins is unaware that the Zionist-alleged elimination of these groups is being used to justify mass slaughter of civilians, the majority being children, in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

He writes:

Above all, the US and its partners must keep close to Israel and provide iron-clad long-term security guarantees. That has to mean helping Israel neutralize Hezbollah and Hamas – and also the Houthis, who cannot be allowed to become a Hezbollah of the South.

Jenkins outlines the proposed policy to bring Iran to heel:

To begin, in Western countries the mosques, cultural centres, and bogus human rights organizations which Iran has used to shape opinion in its favour need to be closed.

Then there is the question of sanctions. The snapback provision of the JCPOA has expired. But there is scope for the UK to reimpose sanctions unilaterally, perhaps with allies within the EU. Domestic enforcement, financial intelligence and related security service capacity should also be strengthened.

The UK could also move with EU allies to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, granting more latitude for action against its funding. And real costs must be imposed on those who use brutal force to suppress legitimate protest within Iran.

In the military sphere, groups like Shia paramilitaries in Iraq and the Houthis must be hit hard every time they attack US and other targets. Iranian arms and oil smuggling must also be better combatted.

Of course, much of this strategy had been previously laid out in the 2009 Brookings Institute paper – Which Path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran.

I asked former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to critique the Jenkins article. Here is Peter’s response in full:

There was a time when Chatham House enjoyed widespread international respect for its objective analyses, despite its always being effectively the in house think tank for the Foreign Office. That time is no more. Chatham House is now Israeli-occupied territory.

John Jenkins’ piece could have been written for him by the Israeli Embassy. The calls in it for Israel to be prepared to come to terms with the Palestinians are transparently a smokescreen for the the most rabid support of maximalist Israeli ambitions.

The giveaway is that Jenkins cannot actually bring himself to mention a Palestinian state. The quisling Palestine Authority is to be brought in on the back of Israeli tanks to administer Gaza on behalf of Israel but other than that Jenkins is revealingly coy.

For Jenkins the crucial thing, and he states this without shame, explicitly, is that Israel must be made to feel more secure. Of course it must. The most powerful military power in the region by far, demonstrating on a daily basis for over a year its crushing superiority over rag tag Arab armed groups deprived by the West of air defence that can be shot like fish in a barrel – yes, this depraved monster must be made to feel even more secure.

This is the same power that under the auspices of the so-called Middle East Peace Process, enjoying the most favourable security environment imaginable for an occupying power, not only dragged its feet for three decades over making ‘concessions’ (i.e. returning stolen land) but used the time to dot settlements all over the stolen land to make peace more and more impossible. And Jenkins says that we should all trust Israel to do the right thing once all its enemies have been neutralised, or, better, wiped from the map.

During his brief time as Ambassador to Damascus Jenkins was famous for two things: hating the Syrians, few of whom he deigned to meet, and bumping into a glass door injuring himself.

This is a man blinded by prejudice who cannot see plain facts staring him in the face.

One of those facts is that from 2006 until October 2023, Hizbollah, having thrown the Israelis back behind their own border (how Jenkins must have ground his teeth at that), kept that border remarkably quiet for 17 years, to the chagrin of Palestinian fedayeen. To pretend now that Hizbollah was set to attack Israel just beggars belief that anyone could be so intellectually dishonest.

Jenkins really is rabid. This comes out particularly when he speaks of Iran and its allies. You can hear the snarl in his voice. These are entities which have dared to resist the Israeli behemoth and frustrate Gulf princelings from consecrating to the full their longed-for trysts with Israel. Jenkins does not even shrink from calling for the closure of Iran-linked mosques, cultural centres and NGOs in Britain.

[Note: this has potential to lead to de facto ethnic persecution of Shia Muslim communities in the UK]

Jenkins comes from a long line of British diplomats who simply could not abide the idea of a strong independent Iran. Iranians will never forget the British role in the overthrow of the uppity Mossadeq and the installation of the brutal Shah. Not for nothing is Britain known as the ‘Little Satan’ to Iranians.

That a former British ambassador could write a piece like this without even pretending to be dismayed by the appalling human suffering being inflicted on Palestinians and Lebanese, and whose only glimmer of humanity comes in a reference to October 7, is numbingly shocking.

In the Westminster/Tel Aviv/ Abu Dhabi/Washington world in which Jenkins moves, however, he will get a pat on the back for helping to condition British public opinion for the coming war with Iran, because that is what his article is really about and why it was commissioned.

End of statement.

America is preparing for elections next month. Trump and “Team Unity” are being positioned by the Deep State to faciliate war with Iran. In lockstep, British regime messaging will also point towards the Path to Persia with Tony Blair back in charge, Keir Starmer acting as his useful front-man.

https://beeley.substack.com/p/british-former-diplomat-promotes