As we awoke yesterday morning, it was to the news of the assassination of the Iranian leader, the Ayotollah Khamenei. But it was President Ronald Reagan, much revered by some on the American right, who had this made into an illegal act. The assassination of a foreign leader by the United States is expressly prohibited by U.S. law and executive orders, most notably Executive Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which states that ‘no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination’ Of course, this does not trouble the current Trump administration which does not care an iota for law, either national or international and the justification is one of ‘self defence’. Video has been released which shows the headquarters of the deceased Khamenei hit by eight missiles and literally reduced to a pile of rubble and it was no wonder that noone could have survived such an attack. The Americans now have a dual dilemma in the face of this ‘victory’ which is whether to try to decapitate the rest of the Iranian leadership, and more importantly what to put in its place. However, analysts warned that jubilation does not equal transformation. ‘Taking out Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not the same as regime change. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is the regime,’ the Council on Foreign Relations noted following his passing, limiting the prospects for immediate political or economic transformation. The death of Khamenei ushers in only the second leadership transition since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a moment that the CFR described as historically significant but deeply uncertain in its outcome. While some Iranians have expressed hope that a leadership change could ease repression and economic isolation, the Council on Foreign Relations said the most likely succession outcomes do not suggest meaningful political or economic liberalisation in the immediate aftermath. ‘A transitional leadership change in Iran could take three primary trajectories—regime continuity, military takeover, or regime collapse,’ the CFR reported. However, the think tank warned that ‘none’ of these near-term scenarios envisage a positive transformation in the year or so after transition. We know from bitter experience, not least the death of Sadam Hussein, that engineering the death of a powerful leader is only likely to lead to a power vacuum in which a country may become ungovernable. If the Americans are hoping for regime change, what we are likely to see is a reconstructed regime which is like ‘Khamenei without Khamenei’ and so the Americans are left with the same dilemma as has faced them many times before. Whilst the death of the Ayatollah has been greeted by some young Iranians on the street, the most powerful recent repression in which it is said that 6,000 died is sufficient to deter and probably prevent a popular revolution. The mindset of bombing a people into submission is also laughable. Can you imagine the British after the London bombing saying to themselves that they had better surrender to Hitler or the Americans after 9/11 surrendering to Osama bin Laden? Although this is an emotional type of argument, one has got to ask oneself whether the world feels a safer place after the current Iranian conflict and the answer must be no. We has also got to ask whether Trump still thinks of himself as a ‘peacemaker’ and whether he is gong to add the current conflict to the list of conflicts around the world that he claims to have solved? Evidently, the media of every shade of opinion is going to be filled with both news and analysis but I have the feeling that, for a variety of reasons which do not necessarily coincide, that for Trump all of this might prove to be a step too far. After all, only Congress is allowed to authorise a war according to the US Constitution (for which Trump has no respect in any case) and could even some Republicans in Congress bring themselves to abstain or even vote with the Democrats on this issue?
My regime has altered each Sunday as I now attend the 8.30 service which means that a fairly early start is called for. Later in the day I finished off the captioning of one of the versions of the slide show that documents Meg’s life and am mightily relieved that this has now been done and I can post all three versions into my webspace. Now the task is completed, I am busy writing myself documentation so that if I ever to need to repeat the whole exercise, I can do it all over again. Actually I do have a large book entitled ‘What I have learned (and re-learned) today’ in which once have documented a new procedure or mastered a new IT skill, I write it all down so that I can refer to it again. This book was started ten years ago and is very valuable insofar as it stops me from re-inventing the wheel or working out if I can remember how I did a certain thing years ago. Having attended the church service, partaken to tea, biscuits and a chat, I filled the car with petrol, got my newspaper and took my weekly cash allowance out of the ATM. I had just finished a cooked breakfast for myself when my son came round and he helped to confirm my intentions of a little holiday adventure. Years ago, one of my Pilates class members spoke to me glowingly of a specialist coach company which owns its own hotels and organises 5 day holidays of Scotland at a very reasonable price. My son and I looked over the details and he urged my to book it up on the spot as there was no way that I could have purchased the hotel accommodation, half-board meals and then the actual transport for the quoted price. I worked out that it was actually much cheaper than going up to Yorkshire to see my family so made a booking there and then and am looking forward to this five day trip starting on 10th April (i.e. just after Easter) This will be my first real holiday for six years and I now have the funds to be able to afford it now that I am unencumbered by a monthly mortgage. Later on in the afternoon I noticed that Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’ is to broadcast and, as I studied this book for my GCE ‘O’-levels in 1961, always welcome the opportunity to see the filmed version.