Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 2 April 2024. © Richard Kemp

Tehran claims that the air strikes which killed Iranian military commanders in Damascus on Monday were ‘Israel’s latest war crime against a foreign mission with diplomatic immunity’. They were nothing of the sort.

The target was, in fact, widely reported to have been an Iranian command centre coordinating military action against Israel, adjacent to the Iranian consulate. This would not, then, make the strikes a breach of the Vienna Convention, as those ever eager to condemn Jerusalem have suggested. Israel is perfectly entitled to hit military facilities in another country that is engaged in active hostilities.

Nor was this a major escalation by Israel, however, as many others have argued. It was merely the latest move in a war that Tehran itself has launched against Israel and the West.

Indeed, it may well turn out to be the most significant strategic setback for Iran since the US took out Qasem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force commander, in 2020. The main target of Monday’s attack, IRGC brigadier general Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was believed to be the principal interlocutor between Syria, Tehran and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. With decades of experience in this clandestine world, he will not be easily replaced.

The flow of arms to Hezbollah could well now be further impeded. Since October 7, that terror group has launched regular missile strikes against Israelis near the Lebanese border, as a consequence of which nearly 100,000 civilians have been evacuated. Do Jerusalem’s critics really expect it to sit back and let those attacks continue?

But the real question is why it only seems to be the Israelis who are taking the Iranian threat seriously. It’s not as if Iran has only been targeting Israel. Iranian proxies have attacked international shipping in the Red Sea and Iranian-backed militias have launched more than Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 29 March 2024. © Richard Kemp

I’m a dinosaur, of course, because I vehemently disagree with the British Army’s new policy of allowing beards. After years of harrumphing from a deep leather armchair in my club, I’ve just been getting used to the armed forces’ wokeist advances such as bandying about preferred pronouns and even the RAF doing away with gendered ranks like ‘airman’ and ‘airwoman’, now replaced by ‘aviator’, something the Chief of the General Staff seems keen to replicate in the Army.

So with all these exciting steps forward, why is the Army now leaping backwards to the 19th century when military beards were commonplace, a habit inspired by the French of all people. Surely this retrograde move will only serve to heighten the distinction between male and female servicepersons which the Army has been so eager to suppress. Or will women be allowed to grow beards too?

Perhaps the next move will be to make moustaches compulsory again, as they were for about 60 years until 1916, with some soldiers who couldn’t grow one drawing a fake on their upper lips. That regulation was cancelled because facial hair interfered with the seal of newly-issued gas masks. Indeed, when I was serving a few years later we were told that beards were not allowed for the same reason.

Back then we wore respirators frequently, albeit reluctantly, training for a war in which we expected the Soviets to fire chemical weapons at us. Although that threat has been largely absent for several decades now, Putin’s recent aggression in Europe has brought it worryingly back to life, which has presumably revived the need to train extensively for the chemical battlefield. Perhaps it doesn’t matter if a respirator doesn’t seal in training, although if the priority is still to train under realistic battlefield conditions there will be a lot of shaving and re-growing. Those with beards might also find the mandatory respirator tests in a CS gas chamber even more painful than before.

In the 1980s, my battalion was based in northern Germany, not far from a Dutch Army brigade. I subsequently served on operations with the Dutch and do not question their fighting prowess. But back then they were a laughing-stock among us Britons, with their hippy-style hair and beards.

They appeared ill-disciplined and many of our soldiers felt they would not want to be fighting alongside them. As that suggests, appearance does matter. Otherwise why bother pressing uniforms and polishing boots? Why not facial tattoos and nose-rings? Allies as well as enemies need to take our forces seriously. That’s also true on operations, especially when there is interaction with the civilian population who often have to obey instructions from soldiers who need therefore to be seen as authority figures, and not just because they’re carrying a gun.

Speaking about the Army’s manning crisis, the Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, described the beard ban as ‘ludicrous’. But are there really large numbers of young men out there who would sign up if only they could have a beard? Or indeed large numbers of serving soldiers who would not sign off if they could sport a smattering of facial hair?

Does the same apply to long hair, which is increasingly making a comeback among the youth of this country? With the Army apparently succumbing to the dictates of fashion, why shouldn’t that be next?

Call me an old fogey, but I suspect there are much bigger problems in both recruitment and retention than the issue of facial hair. It will be interesting to see how the new policy does actually impact on manning levels, but those who persuaded the Defence Secretary that this is a major issue can take comfort from the fact that he is unlikely to still be in post when the figures emerge.

Irrespective of any of this, the military life is not for everyone, and service demands discipline, conformity and subordinating oneself to the needs of the team. Willingness to get a haircut and a shave may well indicate readiness to make even greater sacrifices when they are called for. Despite the ever-prevailing lures of fashion, surely Britain’s soldiers can wait to grow a beard in older age, when it’s white and stern.

Image: Flickr

Article published by Ynetnews.com,  24 March 2024. © Richard Kemp

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron’s recent threats will not directly harm or constrain Israel but they will undoubtedly strengthen Hamas. He has been striking a distinctly belligerent stance towards Israel since he came into office in November, in contrast to his predecessor James Cleverly and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Now he seems to be on the verge of making a grand gesture by cutting off weapons supplies in the midst of war as well as supporting an arms embargo across Europe. He justifies his threatened betrayal of one of Britain’s most important allies by the demand that Israel should allow the ICRC access to captured Hamas terrorists which he claims is required under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). That may well be his opinion, but it is far from clear cut; international legal opinions vary and Israel claims exemption to such visits on security grounds.

Cameron now seems to be bolstering his case by the claim in a recent letter to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that Israel is deliberately and unnecessarily holding up humanitarian aid deliveries into Gaza. This is patent nonsense. I recently visited the Kerem Shalom Crossing and witnessed a highly efficient operation in which staff were working round the clock to get aid into the Strip.

That of course is only one part of the picture. But multiple reports, first-hand accounts and video evidence show that the blockage is not on the Israeli side but lies with an inadequate UN distribution system as well as extensive hijacking by Hamas strong-men who divert much of the aid for their own use and sell the rest of it off at inflated prices.

Cameron’s insinuations that Israel is breaching IHL are also contradicted by his own government. On Wednesday the prime minister’s spokesman confirmed that No 10 continues to assess that Israel’s actions conform with international law. It’s difficult to fathom exactly what’s happening with these conflicting messages. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 24 March 2024. © Richard Kemp

The terrorist attack in Moscow is a devastating reminder that the threat from global Islamic jihadism never went away. US intelligence believes the Crocus City Hall massacre was the work of Islamic State Khorasan Province, or ISKP. Only a few days before they had warned of terrorist attacks in Moscow, intelligence perhaps from the same source as the warning to Iran before the ISKP suicide bomb attack at Kerman in January that killed nearly 100.

Don’t think IS have forgotten about Europe either. Only last summer it emerged that Iraqi security services had passed intelligence to MI6 that IS was planning a major assault in the UK, also against a large public gathering. And just a few days ago, German police arrested two ISKP terrorists plotting a gun attack on the Swedish parliament.

The West is unwilling to confront this growing threat head-on, just as it has wavered so badly in dealing with aggression from Russia in Ukraine and from Iran both in the Middle East and here in Europe where Tehran also continues to plot violent terrorist attacks and is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Thankfully, recent IS attack plans in Britain and Sweden, as with hundreds of other jihadist plots against us, have so far been frustrated by intelligence penetration. But Moscow shows that intelligence alone cannot stop attacks, a hard lesson we have learned many times before.

ISKP has been based in Afghanistan since 2014. It was badly degraded by Coalition forces until their withdrawal in 2021, since when the number of attacks and attack plans worldwide has predictably increased as a result of greatly reduced US capabilities to collect intelligence and take direct military action. That withdrawal endangered our citizens and emboldened jihadists as well as our other enemies such as Putin who no doubt saw Western weakness as a green light to devour Ukraine.

We have seen the results of our failure to stand up properly to that invasion, frightened by Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling into denying Ukraine adequate means to win. Now we are doing the same in the Middle East where Israel is battling jihadists in Gaza. Hamas is not Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 6 March 2024. © Richard Kemp

In his remarkable speech in Prague, Emmanuel Macron displayed the kind of leadership every Western country has failed to deliver since Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago. From the start Nato governments fell over themselves to reassure Putin that they posed no threat to Russia while he repeatedly threatened to escalate even to the point of nuclear sabre rattling.

Terrified of provoking the bear, US and European leaders half-heartedly sanctioned Moscow and supplied only enough weaponry to allow Ukraine to stay fighting but insufficient to give it a real chance of driving Russia back. Every long range weapon that was provided was accompanied by strict caveats against their use on sovereign Russian territory while Moscow freely launched assaults wherever it wanted against Ukraine.

That policy was bare-facedly verified in the phone conversation by German Luftwaffe generals revealed this week when they made clear that Taurus long range missiles would not be provided in sufficient numbers to change the trajectory of the hostilities.

Above all, until Macron’s course correction, every leader made it clear that there would be no Nato boots on the ground in Ukraine despite Russian boots trampling wherever they could. In other words they left Putin in no doubt that he had a free run and need not factor in unexpected military intervention from the West.

Even the most junior officer cadet at Sandhurst could tell you that is no way to fight a war and certainly no way to impose deterrence. And deterrence is one of Nato’s most critical functions. Well, it failed in that from the outset, especially after handing victory in Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2021, which flashed a green light to Putin to do as he pleased.

It then ensured the green light stayed shining bright by repeatedly telling Putin what it would not do rather than hinting at what it might do or at least leaving him guessing. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 4 March 2024. © Richard Kemp

It comes to something when the German Chancellor appears to betray a Nato ally to help get out of a hole he dug himself.

That is exactly what Olaf Scholz did last week when he claimed that British troops are deployed in Ukraine to assist targeting of Storm Shadow missiles against the Russians. Britain’s exact role in the war beyond supply of weaponry has been kept deliberately shrouded for obvious reasons. That Scholz publicly revealed military secrets at a time when he needs to justify Germany’s refusal so far to send in the desperately needed and even more capable Taurus long range missile system may be purely coincidental. But it was followed up with an assertion that Germany could not follow the UK’s practice as it would make it a ‘participant in the war’, perhaps an attempt to shield his country from Putin’s wrath while happily throwing Britain under the bus.

Then, this week Moscow made public a call between Lieutenant General Ingo Gerhartz, chief of the Luftwaffe, and other senior officers that they had intercepted. Their conversation also alleged the presence of British military personnel on the ground and suggested that if Germany deployed Taurus they could ask British troops to take over the same ground role with their missiles as they supposedly fulfil with Storm Shadow to avoid implicating Germany in the conflict. On top of that Gerhartz said that Berlin would not send all of the Taurus missiles in one batch, but penny packet them to ensure they ‘won’t change the course of the hostilities’.

How terrified Berlin must be of Vladimir Putin that they will go to such lengths to avoid any suggestion that they are doing more than the bare minimum in this conflict. Even worse: to actually supply the missiles, if they ever decide to do so, in a way deliberately calculated to minimise their battlefield effect. This faint-heartedness is no doubt accompanied by an eye to financial advantage given that Germany has the greatest commercial interests in Russia of all European countries.

None of that is any great surprise. Germany has been hesitant about supplying weapons to Ukraine from the start. And it was only after Continue reading →