It was unusual, and telling, that Donald Trump chose to be flanked by his vice-president, secretary of state and defence secretary when he addressed the American people about “a spectacular military success” in which “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace.”
In normal circumstances, or as normal as things get in the Trump administration, the president would have made his remarks and enjoyed the credit alone. That he felt the need to visibly involve his most senior lieutenants at such a moment suggests both some nervousness about the decision and some doubts about the future course of events even within this sycophantic circle. What, in other words, if Iran doesn’t make peace? What, more to the point, if Israel doesn’t let it?
Such doubts are entirely justified. This, after all, is the “America First” presidency, the one that promised an end to the “forever wars” and gloried in its bone-headed isolationism. This second Trump presidency, as Mr Trump and his colleagues know full well, was to be the decisive break not only with the post-Second World War security framework but also with the neo-con foreign policies of the previous Republican administration led by George W Bush. There was to be no more wars of intervention to prevent regimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction, no “war on terror”, no more “regime change”, certainly not “nation building”, and no more American lives placed at risk where the national interest was far from clear and the conflict unwinnable. The bunker bombs have blown up all of that, as well as some Iranian nuclear facilities and the ayatollahs’ self-esteem.
America, courtesy of its president, has been dragged directly into the Israel-Iran conflict, and much against its instincts. It was Benjamin Netanyahu, on behalf of Israel, who decided that the US-Iran talks had served their purpose and took the decision to attack Iran, gambling that, at worst, he’d be able to weaken the enemy and, at best, America could be encouraged to finish the job of disarming Iran. It was not what Mr Trump desired either; it has damaged his strategy of building alliances with the Gulf kingdoms. However, once the opportunity was opened up, and the Israelis were clearly winning, Mr Trump was prepared to deploy the munitions the Israelis lacked.
When he declares that he and Mr Netanyahu “worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before”, there was a grim irony embedded in that boast. It was a “team” in which Mr Netanyahu was the senior partner. He did the persuading and finally got the Americans to side unequivocally and with maximum force in Israel’s own never-ending wars. First, Israel obtained a mandate to act as it wished in Gaza – a war now so easily forgotten. That has now been extended and expanded with US involvement in Iran. Mr Netanyahu is delighted. He must feel that he now has the entire US armoury at his disposal. Never before has American foreign policy been so influenced by foreign leaders to the extent it is now by Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Iran is undoubtedly enfeebled, but, with its allies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels, it is not so utterly weak that it cannot strike against the many US targets in the region, and the wider world. And if it does, then President Trump, having issued his lurid warnings about “tragedy for Iran”, will feel forced to respond. So: tragedy for the world, if this conflict escalates and spreads.
There are few domestic restraints on American policy now that the president has broken with the extreme isolationist wing of Maga and his policy is shaped by Tel Aviv. Therefore, it is more crucial than ever that America’s closest friends and allies, including the UK, try to restrain all sides. Ironically, given the history, that requires a Labour prime minister persuading this American president not to repeat the errors that followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The parallels are obviously not exact – Iran is a vastly more serious threat than ever Saddam Hussein was – but, then as now, it is difficult to see how tough diplomacy in the Bush-Blair era could have delivered a worse result for the region than the eventual rise of Isis and the descent into chaos of multiple regimes, from Libya to Syria.
If the world is lucky, the Iranians will confine themselves to some non-lethal symbolic retaliation, the Iranians and their Houthi associates won’t have the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz, Israel will scale back its bombardments, and the US-Iran talks will resume. If not – and too much depends on Israeli restraint as well – then Sir Keir Starmer must ensure that British forces are not engaged in another generation of unwinnable wars. What if Iran doesn’t wish to “make peace”? What if the Iranian/Houthi blockade of the Strait of Hormuz strangles world trade, especially in oil, and has to be broken by a US-led naval taskforce? What if Iran descends into a civil war, which could happen if elements of the regular Iranian army and the people rise up against the theocracy and the Revolutionary Guard?
What exactly does Mr Trump mean by “there are many targets left”? Does the world need the biggest failed state of all? The president and his secretary of state, Mario Rubio, plead that they don’t want regime change in Tehran, even though Mr Trump has “joked” about disposing of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and the logic of US policy points inexorably to such an outcome. Does Mr Trump actually want a negotiated nuclear deal with Iran? If so, why did he pull out of the previous international one in 2018? It was one of the greatest blunders of his first term.
Russia, Iran’s nominal partner (seemingly indifferent so far), is not finished in Ukraine; the Chinese might take the chance of global chaos to intimidate or even invade Taiwan; and the intolerable tragedy of Gaza continues to unfold. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan may now scramble to acquire nuclear weapons, the better to deter others and protect their interests, just as Kim Jong Un does with his nuclear missiles in North Korea, and the Israelis do. Nuclear non-proliferation feels like a lost cause, despite, or rather because, of the US action. This level of global instability is too much even for America to manage (as well as a trade war with its neighbours and allies). The world economy could easily tip into recession as oil prices spiral, without any more wars breaking out.
So far, Sir Keir has shown admirable skill in dealing with his counterpart in Washington. He is right to want to preserve the transatlantic alliance as an overarching policy aim. The UK’s national interest is synonymous with that of Nato. In urging caution on the United States and cooperating in the use of UK facilities, such as Diego Garcia, RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, or shared intelligence, the prime minister cannot afford to jeopardise what remains of the “special relationship”. The same goes for the prime minister pushing for an end to the suffering in Gaza. Fundamentally, together with European partners with whom there is today a close understanding, Sir Keir must ensure that Mr Netanyahu is not the only world leader with the ear of the American president.
