So the war is off – at least for now. Donald Trump, in his bottomless wisdom, informed a grateful world today that he was graciously declining to destroy Iran after its modest airstrikes on US bases in Iraq. This being Trump, it could change, of course, in a matter of hours. Today peace, tomorrow who knows? For nothing fundamental in this needless, irrationally, hateful confrontation has changed. There is still no plan, no obvious diplomatic route, no peace process. Only a list of harsh American demands with menaces.
For Britain, Trump’s White House speech had particular chastening import. It marked the moment when the remnants of an independent British policy towards Iran were finally and brutally flattened. Despite the marginally less aggressive tone, a speeding American freight train, driven by a crazed engineer, is heading down the tracks towards Tehran. And Boris Johnson appears mesmerised at the spectacle.
Trump’s demand that Britain and other signatories to the prized 2015 nuclear deal join him in comprehensively tearing it up is directly at odds with longstanding British policy. Unwelcome too is Trump’s announcement of additional sanctions against Iran, signalling a doubling down on his failed “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. Yet it’s plain that the British prime minister will have little choice but to go along if he hopes to maintain his close relationship with the US leader.
Relief in Whitehall that Trump has decided not to order any immediate military response will also be tempered by concerns about the president’s bellicose emphasis on the vast might of the US military, his provocative justification of last week’s assassination of General Qassem Suleimani, and, most of all, his striking failure to lay out a coherent, long-term strategy that others can support.
Trump’s vague offer to talk peace “with all who seek it”, his emphasis on the obvious benefits that peace and stability would bring to the Iranian people, and his cautious offer of cooperation in the fight against Islamic State jihadists were no substitute for a clear, unambiguous plan to end the stand-off. It all remains extremely fragile. A single unsanctioned attack by a wayward proxy militia allied to Iran could bring the whole crisis crashing back with a vengeance.
The crunch has been avoided for now – but given Trump’s stubborn recalcitrance, coupled with his refusal to accept his pressure policy has backfired, it has probably only been postponed.
One thing is certain. Trump will demand and insist on absolute fealty from Britain, his foremost European ally, and in particular from Johnson – one of the few foreign leaders, apart from Russia’s Vladimir Putin, whom he appears to regard as a friend. The implication is clear. It means that if Trump does ultimately get himself into an all-out shooting war with Iran, Johnson’s government will be expected to dutifully fall in behind him.
Once again Britain could be drawn into a disastrous American war of choice in the Middle East.
There was nothing in Johnson’s statement to the Commons earlier today to suggest that White House demands would be resisted, either in terms of the nuclear deal or the ongoing strangulation of Iran’s economy. Johnson claimed the government was doing all it could to protect British interests. If that were really true, he would be urging Trump to stop risking British lives by driving drunk at the wheel of the world’s biggest military machine. He would publicly condemn the Suleimani assassination as a dangerous provocation.
If Johnson was being straight with British voters who so recently placed their trust in him, and a candid friend to the US, he would plainly state Britain’s settled view that such extrajudicial executions, from whatever source, are illegal, irresponsible and indecent. Instead he tamely argued that it was not Britain’s “place” to take a view on the killing.
Worse still, Johnson did not even bother to find his own words, parroting instead the bellicose formulations and soundbites of arch-hawks such as US secretary of state Mike Pompeo. Suleimani, Johnson repeated faithfully, had “blood on his hands” and thus, by implication, deserved to die by whatever means. Johnson, like a made man in the Cosa Nostra, stayed loyal to his murderously menacing boss across the water.
All this flunkey-ism does not bode well for Britain’s future relationship with the US. This was Johnson’s first big chance, emboldened by a big election victory, to show what he is really made of. The initial glimpse was unedifying. Nor, for that matter, does it bode well for the coming recalibration of Britain’s relationships with other powerful countries. What will they see? Weakness and shallowness in equal measure, wrapped up in lame jokes.
British policy on Iran, according to Johnson, now boils down to urging restraint and de-escalation on all sides. It should be far more than this. Unlike the Americans, banished from Iran since the 1979-80 embassy hostage siege and, for the most part, woefully ignorant of the country as a result, British diplomats with experience in Tehran can provide insight and (limited) influence. This should now be deployed to the full to bring the warring sides back to the table.
Alongside Britain’s German and French partners, Johnson must champion – not renege on – the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran whose trashing by Trump in 2018 set the present-day collision in motion. Instead of feeding Trump’s hatred and ego, Johnson should offer Britain’s services as a mediator.
Iran is too regionally important, too militarily formidable, and too valuable a potential cultural and trading partner to be left to Trump and his know-nothing White House. Anyone who thinks this crisis is over is frankly delusional. Standing up to Trump, not kowtowing, is truly vital now. Britain cannot afford to repeat the mistakes it made in 2003.
• Simon Tisdall is a foreign affairs commentator
