Answering John Rentoul - on Iran, Israel and the never-ending nuclear debate

Iran Watch, part 6.

Iran Watch, part 6.

Ok. This is getting BO-RING. The Sindy's John Rentoul says "the world might have decided it has better things to do" than follow our ongoing blog-and-Twitter row over Iran/Israel/nukes - but, bizarrely, he says this at the end of yet another blogpost - "Calling Mehdi Hasan" - in which he yet again dodges the key issues.

This'll be my last post on Rentoul - I promise! - and I'll try and make it as short as possible because I know he doesn't like having to read long articles. (I can only guess that he prefers to conduct debates on geopolitics via 140-character putdowns on Twitter. Then again, his knowledge of Iran is pretty superficial: he claims, for example, that the Iranian president would be in control of nuclear weapons when of course, if such weapons were to be built by the regime, it would be Ayatullah Khamenei with his finger on the trigger and Ahmadinejad wouldn't be allowed anywhere near them!)

Three quick points:

First, Rentoul wants to misquote people and then pretend he didn't and/or pretend it doesn't matter. It was Rentoul who claimed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", refused to correct himself or the belligerent meaning he ascribed to those comments and who now says that he knew I "would go off into the old debate about the translation of the Iranian president's 2005 words about Israel". This is wonderfully evasive as it leaves the passing reader unaware of the fact that, "old" or not, the debate is over and Rentoul is wrong. Ahmadinejad, for all his flaws, sins and crimes, didn't say that. Rentoul knows he didn't say that. Yet this proud pedant continues to flagrantly misquote the Iranian president in order to beat the drum for war against Iran.

Second, Rentoul again asks "why the warmongering IAEA should allow such a government to develop nuclear weapons". I'm not sure I understand this contorted and rather loaded question - the IAEA isn't a "warmongering" organisation (though its director general does look a little compromised to me) and hasn't said Iran is developing weapons. Has he even bothered to read the IAEA's reports? I'm happy to extend the "Iain Dale challenge" to Rentoul, if he's interested in trying to win the £100 cash prize that's still on offer.

Third, double standards matter. Despite Rentoul's unfortunate smears, my own view is clear and well-documented: I want a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East in accordance with UN resolution 687. I don't want Israel or Iran to have nuclear weapons (and nor does the IAEA!); Rentoul is ok with the former having 'em but not the latter.

That's what this row has been about. The rest is noise.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images
Show Hide image

PMQs review: David Cameron's call for Jeremy Corbyn to resign will only help him

 "For heaven's sake man, go!" The PM's appeal was sincere but the Labour leader can turn it to his advantage. 

It is traditionally the leader of the opposition who calls for the prime minister to resign. At today's PMQs, in another extraordinary moment, we witnessed the reverse. "For heaven's sake man, go!" David Cameron cried at Jeremy Corbyn, echoing Oliver Cromwell's address to the rump parliament ("in the name of God, go!") and Leo Amery's appeal to Neville Chamberlain in the 1940 Norway debate.

While it was in his "party's interests" for Corbyn to "sit there", Cameron said, it wasn't "in the national interest". Some will regard this as a cunning ruse to strengthen the Labour leader's position. But to my ear, Cameron sounded entirely sincere as he spoke. With just two months left as prime minister, he has little interest in seeking political advantage. But as he continues to defy appeals from his own side to resign, the addition of a Tory PM to the cause will only aid Corbyn's standing among members. 

After rumours that Labour MPs would boycott the session, leaving a sea of empty benches behind Corbyn, they instead treated their leader with contemptuous silence. Corbyn was inevitably jeered by Tory MPs when he observed that Cameron only had "two months left" to leave a "a One Nation legacy" (demanding "the scrapping of the bedroom tax, the banning of zero-hours contracts, and the cancelling of cuts to Universal Credit"). Cameron conceded that "we need do more to tackle poverty" before deriding Corbyn's EU referendum campaigning. "I know the Hon. Gentleman says he put his back into it. All I can say is I'd hate to see it when he's not trying." 

The other notable moment came when Theresa May supporter Alan Duncan contrasted Angela Merkel with "Silvio Borisconi" (a Hansard first). Cameron replied: "Neither of the people he's talking about are candidates in this election, it's an election I will stay out of ... I was given lots of advice, one of them was not to go to a party with Silvio Berlusconi and I'm glad I took it." Given the recent fate of those who personally mocked Johnson during the referendum campaign, Duncan's jibe may not do May's cause much more help now. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.