Could Cameron be embarrassed again on Syria?

Jeremy Corbyn, the Leftist candidate on track to become Labour Party leader next month, has real potential to redden the prime minister’s cheeks as the government bids to extend the Iraq bombing campaign into Syria.

There is no doubt where the Conservative Party stands on this issue. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has labelled the fight melodramatically as a generational “Battle of Britain”; Home Secretary Theresa May refused to rule out military action earlier this month; and David Cameron is busy stoking fears of domestic terrorism. The Conservatives won a surprise majority in this year’s General Election and with their leader apparently buoyed by this success, the British Embassy in Baghdad is said to be swarming with ministry of defence officials as well as shady officers thought to be from MI6.

Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham, who are also running for the Labour leadership, have expressed their reservations about the bombing plans. Corbyn’s own take on the issue is clear: “I oppose bombing Syria…  [because] it will be the innocent Syrians who will suffer — exacerbating the refugee crisis.”

The situation now is very different from 2013. Instead of regime change, Cameron is proposing bombing Daesh militants, among Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s most capable opponents. Any wins against Daesh will inevitably translate into a strengthening of the Damascus regime. The United States is now engaged in Syria, alongside Arab states playing a minor support role. Daesh’s shrewd use of propaganda executions and social media evangelising have softened the British public for war, while in 2013 they seemed oddly indifferent to Assad’s crimes. When Stop the War marched through London last year in opposition to the new Iraq incursion, they managed to rally just a couple of thousand protesters.

Corbyn happens to be Chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, so can he stop the war if he becomes leader of the opposition? He can certainly embarrass Cameron. Painful retorts to whichever specious arguments Cameron offers would make great fodder for Britain’s TV channels. Who doesn’t like seeing a prime minister get a verbal drubbing? Corbyn would also speak at the Dispatch Box with unusual authority on the Middle East, whereas Cameron is a self-confessed foreign policy ignoramus.

The left-winger’s weak point will be his much misrepresented foreign policy positions, offering Cameron a stick to beat him with his typical bullying wit. A second weakness will be Corbyn’s potential inability to whip his own party, having rebelled so frequently himself over the years as a backbench MP.

The prime minister may face a similar problem, however, with the Chair of the Defence Committee, Julian Lewis MP, already coming out against the bombing plan. In the 2013 vote in the House of Commons, thirty Tory MPs rebelled against the coalition government led by Cameron; twenty abstained.

In passing and with little serious discussion or understanding, numerous left- and right-wing columnists have criticised Corbyn for calling Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends”. His actual position is rarely mentioned. “Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree.”

The veteran MP receives the same schtick over his historical relations with the erstwhile Irish Republican Army. Sitting in the same room as the IRA was seen as unforgivable at the time, yet when Tony Blair sat down to negotiate years later, he was hailed as a hero. Corbyn’s visits to Iran have also been used to critique him, even as a nuclear deal was struck which required Western leaders to visit Tehran on many occasions.

The British public’s understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran’s nuclear programme and the real reasons for the current intervention in Iraq and Syria, which are geo-political, is muddled. A combination of Israeli propaganda on the first two points, plus American and British hype on the third, has contributed to this confusion. In many ways, you can’t blame voters for misunderstanding Corbyn’s position, and opposing it instinctively.

Still, hopefully many will realise that the likelihood of a long-term peacenik supporting suicide bombings, being a Holocaust denier or hating Jews is minimal. If Cameron raises these allegations against Corbyn during the Syria debate, MPs and the public will hopefully see such slurs for what they are – a diversionary tactic from a desperate prime minister.

We should hear and listen to Jeremy Corbyn’s opinion on whether we bomb Syria or not. He opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and has been utterly vindicated by the subsequent rise of Daesh. The prime minister himself has admitted that the 2003 invasion was a mistake.

The irony is that even if Cameron can convince parliament to bomb Syria, there won’t be much bombing going on. His government’s own defence cuts have reduced our strike capabilities dramatically; even the current effort is merely a token gesture. A puny aerial campaign extended into Syria won’t stop Daesh, but it will expose Britain to more terrorist attacks. Parliament has to decide wisely.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.