Comment

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury … Some Wry Contemplations on Simon Heffer's comments in the Daily Telegraph and other Philosophical Issues

David Berry

In the United Kingdom, we can always rely upon a member of the press to amuse us with another hypocritical rant against a country that is deemed to be a threat to the interests of the West. This time it's the turn of Simon Heffer from the Conservative Daily Telegraph aimed at evil Iran, who, according to Heffer, is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.

In fact, Iran is developing a potential for basic versions of nuclear weaponry, which the West already has in multifarious abundance. Rid the world of all nuclear weapons I say, but at the same time one can understand the frustration and disbelief of the Iranian leadership at being told not to produce them by leaders of countries that have not only produced nuclear weapons, but in some cases used them!

Reg Lee in Comment, October 2005 (Iran: The Next Target for US Aggression?) has already discussed the possibility of a US backed military attack on Iran. Of course, there are other political possibilities that the West could consider in order to bring Iran to heel. The most obvious one being economic sanctions, but this requires the support of both Russia and China to exert pressure on Iran. But what are the chances of Russia supporting US objectives now that Georgia is buying gas from Iran with American money?

The Russian daily paper, Vremya Novostei (Time of News) claimed on Thursday, February 2nd 2006 that the extra funds needed to buy the more expensive gas from Iran rather than from the Russian giant Gazprom was supplied by the US, which may surprise some considering Iran is included in the 'axis of evil' group! Such is diplomacy and hypocrisy in order to gain hegemony in the region. On top of this, former head of the Balakovo power plant, Pavel Ipatov, is reported to have said 'Iran is in no state to create a nuclear bomb secretly' (www.mosnews.com) further highlighting Russia's reluctance to side with their newly found friends in the West.

Considering the debacle in Iraq, surely it would seem to rationally minded people that the last thing the US and UK governments would be considering at this present moment is a military attack on Iran, but that is exactly what is being contemplated or to put it another way, not being ruled out. In an exclusive interview with Jeremy Paxman (BBC Newsnight, January 17th 2006) the discredited former US Foreign Secretary, Colin Powell, stated that military force couldn't be ruled out if other means failed. Perhaps this is a carrot and stick policy, perhaps not. But it's not only the US and UK governments who are cranking-up the debate and taking a hawkish line against Iran, the British mainstream press as always is doing its utmost to get public opinion on side. Here's what Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph had to say recently ('Doing Nothing in Iran is not an Option', January 18th 2006):

'As we survey, with appropriate unease and foreboding, the events now unfolding in Iran, we might like to reflect on one of Enoch Powell's less well-known, but most universal, obiter dicta. "The supreme function of statesmanship," he once wrote, "is to provide against preventable evils."'

For the uninitiated this is the very same Enoch Powell who in the 1960s, wrongly predicted that 'River's of Blood' would flow as a consequence of inter-cultural integration in the UK. Heffer continues:

'We seem to have fallen somewhat short of this ideal both for ourselves and in terms of something called "the international community". True, we could hardly have prevented the Iranians electing what, by most objective standards, is a raving madman to run their country.'

Let's not ponder too much on 'madmen' running countries shall we?

In relation to a discussion on evil, the Ancient Greek Philosopher Epicurus (341-271 BC) wrote:

'If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not benevolent; if he is both able and willing, whence come evil?'

Leibniz in Theodicy, Essays on the Goodness of God, the Liberty of Man and the Origin of Evil set out to resolve the question posed by Epicurus. Leibniz proposed three types of evil, metaphysical, physical and moral. Metaphysical evil is 'imperfection' and it exists because in a perfect world only God would exist. Physical evil is naturally occurring in the environment, disease, earthquakes etc. Humans are responsible for moral evil - God wills this in order for humans to bring about the best resolution or the maximum happiness and liberty. Human freedom is there to both act on behalf of humanity (maximise freedom) and to consequently make the world a better place.

According to Heffer, human freedom and right are on the side of the West; only it has the basis of human freedom and only it can force evil out of the world. Therefore, this is a just and righteous cause and something not that dissimilar to the ideas that motivated the thuggish behaviour of the medieval Knights Templar who rampaged across Islamic lands in the name of Christian Crusade. All this of course depends on definitions of evil and the opposite term 'good'. For Heffer, good is inherent in US and UK foreign policy. God is the driving force behind Bush and in the absence of God's personal intervention a few missiles may suffice!