Ascertaining motives in the Persian Gulf

The recent downing by Iran of a US drone in the Persian Gulf, together with bomb attacks on tankers nearby, has once again put the world on the brink of war.

The Drone is unlike any other. Described by David Axe, writing in the Daily Beast on June 2o, as a $200 milli0n plus prototype spy plane the size of a Boeing 737, it can fly at 65,000 feet for up to 30 hours. Axe says the Navy had only four, now has three, but plans to buy another 70.

The US claims it was flying over international waters, but has no convincing evidence. Iran claims it was over Iranian waters and offers what it claims are time-event co-ordinates as well as photos of debris said to be from the drone's outer casing.

There is also video of an Iran patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a burning tanker (as if investigating a surprise attack) and claims by Youtaka Kutada, president of the tanker shipping firm, that evidence from the captain and crew confirm it was hit by aerial bombs. The video shows the mine attached to the hull above the waterline, clearly visible but perhaps not so likely to sink the ship unless heeled over, or in heavy seas.

Be that as it may, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres responded quickly, calling for an independent inquiry and appealing to all sides to ease tensions. But Trump was also quick off the mark - he ordered a strike on three Iran sites which, according to the Washington Post and NY Times, was called off when the bombers were on their way.

Trump says he ordered the attack before he knew it would likely kill many innocent people. It was, he explained, only after he asked for and was given an estimate of 150 casualties that he called it off. It would, he added, be a 'disproportionate' response, since there were no US casualties. He later said he would use a "great and overwhelming force" if Iran attacked "anything American", and that some areas would face "obliteration".

Because the question of who first violated international law is crucial but unclear, many journalists have kept the issue alive by writing about motives, most finding fault with Iran for its aggression, including acts of violence by proxy groups seeking to destabilise the region. They also highlight Iran's long history of defiance of US sanctions and embargoes.

Much of the criticism highlights a recent warning by Iran that it will no longer abide by a treaty it signed with China, Russia, the US and European nations to halt further enrichment of uranium. It is supervised by on-site International Atomic Energy (IAEA) experts under a program which continues to this day.

It reveals an irony George Orwell, always fascinated by the hidden power of language, would appreciate, that many critics are outraged by Iran's 'violation' of the nuclear treaty while at the same time accepting Donald Trump's wholesale abandonment of it as a mere 'withdrawal.'

Iran is struggling to avoid an economic meltdown whose consequences in shortage of food, medicine and a viable trading and banking system may see a breakdown of law and order, with rioting in the streets and all the violence and chaos of another forced regime change.

In such circumstances the search for motives one must also include nations whose leaders may gain from a short, decisive war with Iran. The most obvious are the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and Israel.

If, for example, Trump fails to win a second term the Senate cannot protect him from conviction as a co-conspirator for obstructing justice, or from criminal charges against his family and business empire. As the noose draws tighter he may in desperation try to avoid or defer years in prison by appealing to patriotism with a strike against either Iran or North Korea.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the ruler of Saudi Arabia, has a problem dealing with the fallout from Jamal Kashoggi's murder. He may try to restore (or distract attention from) his own and the nation's conduct with a patriotic war against the Kingdom's traditional enemy Iran.

The same is true of the Emirates. While the federation is part of an influential geopolitical axis with Saudi Arabia and the US, its record on human rights, noted by US State Department reports, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Wikipedia, is appalling. (Iran's record may be no better and is perhaps a good deal worse, but it has been common knowledge for years.)

President Netanyahu of Israel is also in trouble, and about to be indicted for corruption by his own attorney-general. Many observers believe he is ready and willing to strike Iran as soon as the White House flashes a green light.

Whether war with Iran would indeed benefit these nations is a matter of opinion but a more important factor is the degree to which the fate of their rulers rests on a close relationship with the US, which in practice means a willingness to support the policies of President Trump.

Finally, while judges, the media and others must try to clarify the reasons for acts of violence, there is a huge difference between inferences drawn after a careful study of the facts and simply attributing motives according to one's political aims and personal prejudices. This is, after all, why we support the UN and other judicial tribunals.