Biden could be bad news for Boris Johnson’s Britain - GulfToday

Biden could be bad news for Boris Johnson’s Britain

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson. File

Sean O’Grady, The Independent

Be careful what you wish for. The defeat of Donald Trump and his replacement by Joe Biden might well be a triumph for human decency, good for America and for the world. But would it be so great, in purely selfish terms, for the British interest?  

It’s not obvious that Joe Biden is going to do Britain – or, more accurately, Boris Johnson’s Britain – any great favours. For a start, as a loyal member of the Obama White House, and one who enjoyed a close and affectionate relationship with the former president, Biden may recall a particularly offensive remark that Johnson made about Obama in 2016.

Just as the Brexit bandwagon was rolling, Barack Obama was in London to see David Cameron (then the Conservatives’ Remain prime minister, don’t forget) and dispense a little advice to an old ally about Brexit. The president offered the view that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” for any trade deal with the US. It wound the Brexiteers up a bit, though it seems to have had a grain of truth in the light of recent experience.

Johnson was Mayor of London at the time and, in spiteful mood, used his great authority to write a column in The Sun. He seized on a half true story about Obama sending a bust of Winston Churchill that was in the Bush Oval Office back to the British Embassy. Laced with innuendo, it could scarcely have been more cringingly offensive. “No one was sure the President had himself been involved in the decision,” wrote Johnson. “Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British Empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.”  

Well, “some say” Johnson was a fool to write that at the time. With hindsight, it will do him no favours with President Biden, whose ancestry contains plenty of Irish, by the way. (Some also say the truth is that the bust was moved to outside the Treaty Room, another prominent location where it was seen by the president every day, and that Obama felt that a bust of Martin Luther King was more appropriate.)  

Johnson and his cabinet had better hope that, if he wins, Biden has a senior moment and forgets about Johnson’s cowardly little column when they have their first meeting. Unfortunately for Britain, there will be a lot of ex-Obama staffers running the administration who will happily remind President Biden about the British premier. Ben Rhodes, for example, ex Deputy National Security Adviser, who recently quote-tweeted a UK newspaper headline, “Panicking No10 dumps Trump and woos Biden”, adding: “I’m old enough to remember when Boris Johnson said Obama opposed Brexit because he was Kenyan.” As for Obama himself, according to Rhodes, he thinks Johnson is just “Trump with better hair”.  

Biden probably doesn’t like Johnson. He certainly doesn’t like Brexit, doesn’t think it has been good for Britain, Europe or America, and said in 2018 he’d have voted Remain as an MP or voter. He shares the Obama view on Johnson, as with so much else. Moreover, Biden shares the general Democrat revulsion at what Brexit is doing to the Good Friday Agreement and the Irish peace process. Nancy Pelosi and many others have warned Britain that they can do anything, but they’d better not tread on their green suede shoes if they want any kind of trade deal.  

Trump was an aggressive “America First” protectionist who would have only given the UK a sweetheart deal in some maverick moment of madness, which was possible but wouldn’t have made it through Congress. Biden is more the globalist, but won’t reverse Trump’s new Nafta replacement. Overall though, the prospects of America coming to Britain’s rescue after Covid and Brexit, always slim, are about to get a little worse.  

Related articles

Majority of US voters support the deal with Iran

US presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to return to the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. Instead, President Biden sticks to the dangerous and destructive policy dictated by Donald Trump who withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped 1,500 punitive sanctions on Iran.

Biden hesitates although 54 per cent of registered US voters support a deal while only 20 per cent oppose; among Biden’s Democrats the number is 70 per cent backers and six per cent opponents; among independents 50 per cent support and 30 per cent do not; and 41 per cent of Republicans are in favour against 35 who are not.

Since Biden’s own positive rating is currently a low 41 per cent against 56 per cent negative rating, it would seem it would behove him to re-enter the deal. The main obstacle is Tehran’s insistence that the US must lift Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a “foreign terrorist organisation,” making the IRG the world’s sole national army to join a host of armed non-state actors.

The text, a somewhat amended version of the original document, has been ready for months and awaits finalisation. Why then is Biden procrastinating and prevaricating? He faces stiff opposition from domestic anti-Iran lobbyists and legislators and Israel where the government rejects the deal. In both countries military and intelligence experts are, however, in favour. They hold, correctly, that Tehran has made great strides in developing both nuclear expertise and output since Trump pulled out, prompting Iran to gradually reduce its adherence in retaliation.

Instead of being limited to 3.67 uranium enrichment Iran has 43 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium: this is a few steps away from the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Instead of having a 300 kilogram stockpile of 3.67 enriched uranium, Iran has a stock 18 times larger of uranium enriched above the 3.67 per cent level permitted. Instead of carrying out enrichment with old, approved centrifuges, Iran has employed advanced centrifuges.

Instead of abiding by the stringent monitoring regime put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been slipping surveillance. Until Iran began to breach the regulatory regime, it was the toughest on earth.

Nevertheless, Iran has pledged to revert to the deal once the US re-enters and to halt enrichment above 3.67 per cent, export all but 300 kilogrammes of the permitted 3.67 per cent of material in its stockpile, revert to old centrifuges which have been warehoused, and re-engage fully with the IAEA monitoring effort.

Opponents of the deal argue its “sunset clauses” will expire by 2031, thereby ending restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. This may be addressed in the new deal.

However, they also contend it fails to curb in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and sup- port for Lebanon’s Hizbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Iraqi Shia militias and the Syrian government.

Since these issues are outside the purview of the 2015 deal, Iran rightly rejects including them in its successor. Tehran has also made it clear that they can be discussed directly with the US once Biden re-joins the deal and sanctions are lifted.

After months of trying to get the external issues incorporated into the nuclear deal, the Biden administration conceded that this is impossible.

On April 29th this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign had failed and “produced a more dangerous nuclear programme” while Iran stepped up involvement in regional affairs. These post-Ukraine war remarks suggested that the Biden administration was ready to return to the deal.

However, the administration continues to blow hot at one moment and cold another. Last week Washington may have blown up the deal. At the 35-member IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna the US — along with acolytes Britain, France, and Germany — secured the adoption of a resolution critical of Iran over its inability or refusal to account for traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites found by IAEA monitors in 2019 and 2020.

The resolution, which received 30 votes in favour — with Iran and Russia voting against and India, China and Libya abstaining — urges Iran to co-operate “without delay” with inspectors after IAEA director Rafael Grossi reported he had not received a “technically credible” explanation for the presence of particles.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi pointed out that uranium “contamination” was possible “in a country as vast as Iran.” He also suggested “human sabotage” by Israel which is blamed for repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinations of Iranian scientists.

Iranian officials are suspicious due to the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Bin- yamin Netanyahu instigated visits by IAEA inspectors to one of the three contaminate sites at the village of Turquzabad near Tehran. IAEA monitors took soil samples and concluded that there were “traces of radioactive material” at the location which may have been used for storage as there were no signs of processing. How did Netanyahu know there were samples at this site?

Although the IAEA still has more than 40 cameras which will continue to operate at Iran’s enrichment facilities, Grossi stated Tehran’s action mounted to a “serious challenge.” He warned that in three or four weeks the agency would be unable to provide “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s activities. “This could be a fatal blow” to negotiations over the nuclear deal, he stated.

He also warned that Iran is “just a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran halted work on weaponisation in 2003 and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that Iran will not manufacture nuclear weapons as they are prohibited by Islam.

Kelsey Davenport of the “independent” Washington-based Arms Control Association told the BBC that in ten days or less Iran could transform its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into the 90 per cent required for weapons. She said, however, that manufacturing bombs would require one or two years.

If Biden continues dithering the deal could die, further destabilising an already unstable region.

Michael Jansen, Political Correspondent

12 Jun 2022