Some political thoughts

1. I've heard a lot of talk recently about how sanctions aimed at Zimbabweans have to be targetted at the ruling elite because we can't possibly let the ordinary people suffer. Hello? They're hardly living in a utopian paradise now, are they?

South Africa has in its hand the single most potent weapon against Mugabe, the ability to turn off the electricity supply to the country. Zimbabweans, even those who supposedly support Mugabe, aren't going to put up with a lack of electricity for very long. Certainly, it will cause people to suffer, but the brutal truth is that that is unavoidable.

South Africa should cut the power and deliver an ultimatum. Get rid of Mugabe and swiftly form an interim unity goverment between Zanu-PF and the MDC as a precursor to restoration of the constitution and free, fair and UN-observed elections. Do that, and you get your electricity back.

2. Apparently, MPs are to be banned from using expenses to buy things like TVs, furniture household goods etc for their second homes. I really don't see what the problem is. For most MPs, a second home, in London, is a necessity because of the hours involved in the job and the distance to most constituency homes. Surely then, they should be entitled to reasonable expenses in furnishing that home? Most people earn one salary and keep one home. Why should someone be expected to keep two homes on one salary when one of those homes is an unavoidable requirement of the job?

3. There's an interesting article by Jonathan Freedland in today's Guardian about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and the consequences of such an attack. This comes after Israel's recent military exercise in which, over the Mediterranean, they demonstrated their ability to project substantial air power over a distance that could take it to Iran.

One point I picked up on was where Freedland says that one reason Israel fears even a single Iranian nuclear bomb is because they don't believe the concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't apply, that although Israel is a nuclear power, it only takes one Iranian bomb to eliminate Israel. However, this doesn't take into account that the US is an on-the-record guarantor of Israeli security. If anything is likely to put a break on the Iranians launching a nuclear attack on Israel, surely it's the near certainty that doing so would see Tehran turned to dust in US nuclear retaliation?

For this reason, I remain somewhat sceptical that the Iranians would ever attempt at attack, but for reasons Freedland goes into in his article, the Israelis will try hard to prevent them from ever being in a position to do so. The horrible truth here may be that this is a no-lose situation for the Iranians. If they get the bomb, it will give them hugely-enhanced status in the Islamic world, if Israel destroy it, it will act as a pretext for radical Islamic terrorism for generations to come and it's that which may prove to be the greater threat to Israeli security.