By PETER YOUNG

With the crisis in the Middle East moving so fast following Israel’s first long-anticipated strike on Iran last week, it is hard to comment meaningfully at this early stage. Observers are still assessing the significance of this and subsequent attacks and the retaliation by Iran. However, it is such a serious issue that I should like to offer a few thoughts in today’s column.

There has been so much international media coverage of these developments over the last few days that everyone will surely be aware that Israel has launched the strikes to damage or eliminate Iran’s nuclear programme and, at the same time, to try to secure regime change. Thus, it is clear that the Israeli bombing has been primarily directed against nuclear and military infrastructure, with key scientists in the country’s nuclear programme and military commanders being targeted specifically.

This is now being termed a “pivot point of volatility” in the Middle East, with Iran calling the initial Israeli strikes an act of war. But, as prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said repeatedly, his country will be in serious jeopardy if Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

Fears are growing of a wider conflict that could spiral out of control, precipitate a new conflagration in the whole region - which clearly other Arab states do not want -- and even engulf the rest of the world. Furthermore, Iran has threatened action against US, UK and French bases in the region if those countries support Israel. For its part, the US has already warned Iran firmly of the consequences of any attacks on American targets in the area, and the UK has sent RAF military jets to the region.

The Netanyahu government has been warning for years about Iran’s hostile activities in the Middle East and, in particular, the development of its capability to produce nuclear weapons. The Israeli prime minister calls it an existential threat to destroy Israel – nothing less, in Netanyahu’s words, than the complete destruction of his country. It is therefore fighting for its very existence.

The Israelis have been talking for a long time about bombing Iran. But it seems that most recently the US has been urging against any preemptive direct Israeli attack. US secretary of state Marco Rubio has said, on the record, that Israel acted unilaterally in mounting these latest attacks and there was no US involvement. It is widely assumed, however, that the US was informed in advance, not least because it had earlier withdrawn some personnel from the region for security reasons.

The evidence suggests that Israel will not let up in its attacks on Iran which, reportedly, have inflicted unprecedented damage on the country’s elite and, it is claimed, impaired or destroyed part of its nuclear facilities. So it is being said that “this is only the start”; particularly if Israel thinks that it can achieve regime change.

Iran will surely also continue to respond with retaliatory strikes on Israel, some of which have already caused death and destruction after successfully penetrating the country’s much-vaunted “iron dome”.

After the first attacks, Netanyahu stated that his country refuses to be the victim of a nuclear holocaust as Iran is reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be failing to comply with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. According to reports, this means that it is enriching uranium at sufficient levels to enable it to produce nuclear weapons in the near future. Israel aims to undermine or destroy that capability and to force Iran to end its nuclear programme; or, if that proves impossible, at least to slow down the process substantially while negotiations continue.

Meanwhile, another dimension of this issue will be discussion of it at the G7 meeting in Canada at the weekend. It is a safe bet that the Israel-Iran conflict, alongside the Ukraine war, will dominate this summit meeting of the world’s seven most advanced economies plus the European Union.

It is being said that at this three-day summit Britain, France, Germany and Italy, in particular, will try to bring pressure on President Trump, who reportedly has publicly praised Israel’s strike on Iran, to persuade it to cease further such action and de-escalate the conflict.

No threat to sovereignty over Gibraltar deal

Amidst so much uncertainty in today’s unstable world, it is good to able to write about a recent success in international diplomacy and relations.

After a lengthy period of talks about the rules governing the border between Spain and the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar since the UK left the European Union in 2020, a deal was agreed recently about its status post-Brexit in respect of the movement of people.

This is, effectively, a political agreement that will protect British sovereignty and military autonomy and secure Gibraltar’s economic future. The agreement resolves the last major issue from Brexit. It removes the need for checks on people and goods crossing the Gibraltar-Spain border, thereby avoiding such onerous checks and delays for the estimated 15,000 people who daily cross the land border between Gibraltar and Spain for work and leisure. This provides certainty for people and businesses in Gibraltar.

In order to make this operate properly, provision has been made for travellers arriving at Gibraltar airport to face passport checks by Gibraltar and Spanish officials, since under the new arrangements those arriving would be able to carry on their travel into Spain and the EU free-travel area without further checks. This is similar to the arrangements at St Pancras station in London where passengers travelling to France go through French immigration and passport control.

According to reports, all the parties concerned – Britain, Spain, the EU and the Gibraltarians themselves - are content with the outcome. Most importantly for Gibraltar, its existing sovereignty is unchanged so that it is still classified as a British Overseas Territory. As such, it has its own parliament and is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy.

Significantly, the Spanish prime minister is quoted as saying in a telephone call with his British counterpart that the deal “unlocks opportunities” to strengthen UK-Spain relations. What is more, In welcoming the agreement, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has said that it is “what Gibraltar wants and needs – one that will protect future generations of British Gibraltarians and does not in any way affect our British sovereignty”.

Gibraltar is a tiny territory, some three miles long and slightly less than a mile wide. Its population is about 32,000. Situated at the bottom tip of the Iberian peninsula, it is connected to the southern part of Spain by a low sandy isthmus that is one mile long.

Historically, after being captured and occupied by Britain in 1704 during the Spanish War of Succession, Gibraltar was formally ceded to Britain in perpetuity under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 which ended that war. Since then, Britain has exercised sovereignty over it, though Spain has continued to dispute this over the years based on arguments about the extent of the territory ceded. It continues to assert its claim to the territory and, according to reports, still does not recognise Britain’s sovereignty.

Over the years, Spain has attempted to regain control over Gibraltar through military sieges and it closed the border temporarily in 1969. But, since the 18th century, with its famous massive Rock of Gibraltar standing guard majestically over this small piece of land at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean, the territory became a symbol of British naval strength. Its strategic importance grew with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 as it developed into an essential provisioning port, a naval dockyard and military garrison.

Thus, Gibraltar has deep historical roots as a British territory. Its people have consistently shown that they wish to retain that status. In the most recent referendum on the issue in 2002, the record shows that no less than 99 percent of voters rejected a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, even though the proposal was said to have been ‘broadly agreed’ by both governments.

Inevitably, there are some commentators who argue that the Treaty of Utrecht was such a long time ago that Britain and Spain, as close allies in the modern world, should not necessarily be bound by its terms.

Moreover, with such small numbers of people involved - and given the importance of the relationship between the two countries and their broader interests - it makes sense to hand Gibraltar back to Spain. But others believe that Britain should always stick to the principle of self-determination which is written in to the United Nations Charter. Indeed, one of the purposes of the UN is to encourage respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples.

Gibraltarians were, therefore, pleased to hear Sir Keir Starmer’s recent statement that the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar “are British and they will remain British” – though, deep down, it seems that the almost universal local view is that Gibraltar belongs to its own people and is neither Spain’s to lay claim to nor Britain’s to give away.

More British assistance for The Bahamas

Having drawn attention in this column to a number of recent initiatives by the British High Commission to assist The Bahamas in a variety of ways, it was good to learn of yet another example of support for local activities, this time in relation to sport.

Briefly, in the limited space available today, the High Commission has made a large donation of kit and equipment to the Bahamas Rugby Football Union (BRFU) to support youth rugby across the country. This comprises large quantities of shirts, shorts, boots, balls and much more, including fifty shirts from the international teams of England and Wales.

This donation was organized in partnership with a UK Charity, SOS Kit Aid, which supports “grassroots” rugby worldwide. It is hoped that the provision of new kit and equipment will help to energise and motivate young Bahamians interested in playing the sport.

The Bahamas has had an independent rugby union for some 50 years. Matches are played regularly at the Winton rugby ground and in Freeport, and Bahamian teams tour often; for example, a youth team recently returned from playing competitive matches in the Dominican Republic.

Followers of rugby will know that England is a leader in the game both domestically and internationally. Participation at the international level is fiercely contested, though many say that world rugby has been dominated for many years by New Zealand and South Africa. That said, for years England has possessed a top team internationally and won the Rugby World Cup in 2003.

In making this donation, High Commissioner Tom Hartley commented that the UK was “passionate” about supporting the young to get in to sport. For his part, the president of the BRFU, Adam Waterhouse, stated that “this kit will have a significant impact on grassroots rugby in The Bahamas”, and he expressed his organisation’s thanks and appreciation. He said that the donation would contribute to its youth programme in New Providence and Grand Bahama as well as some Family Islands.

What a pleasure it is to be able to write about what is another fine example of co-operation between our two countries.