As a pure matter of fact, it is perfectly true and fair to concede that the world is a safer place without Iran close to possession of a nuclear weapon. The very possibility that it might acquire such a weapon of mass destruction has destabilised the whole of the Middle East for decades.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may well have been exaggerating Iran’s progress towards its ultimate aim, but he was not wrong to highlight the dangers, even if his own hypocrisy, as the leader of a nation with an undeclared nuclear arsenal, is itself deplorable.
Iran’s ambitions also alarmed its neighbour, Saudi Arabia. Even on the most indulgent reading, the Islamic Republic – ally of Russia, sponsor of terrorism and suppressor of human rights – has rarely been a force for peace in the world. Indeed, it has done more than any other power, with the possible exception of President Donald Trump’s America, to help Russia in its war of aggression on Ukraine.
Even if, as seems to be the case, the ayatollahs’ immediate goal was merely to increase their leverage by being perceived to be on the brink of a viable weapon, that is in itself an unacceptable outcome for the security of other nations in the area and, possibly, beyond.
Mr Trump claims, with characteristic hubris and disregard for punctuation and grammatical niceties, that “IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!” Yet the truth remains that it is not yet known how much damage was done to those facilities, where some 400kg of enriched uranium is located, and how much of the necessary know-how and expertise remains.
It is difficult, if not impossible, in practice to prevent Iran from resuming its programme at some point in the future, even if the president pledges to bomb Iran every so often – in which case, they will start again.
Such a danger is magnified if Iran withdraws from the jurisdiction of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel instinctively understood such realities, which is why it is now pressing home its military advantages by calling for regime change in Tehran. But that is not realistic, especially after the war in Gaza and the bombing of Iran, and given that President Trump, after a curious wobble, has now reiterated that he does not, in fact, want to oust the ayatollah.
So all of that leaves the United States in roughly the same position it was in before Mr Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term: in need of a permanent agreement with Tehran on civil nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Absent regime change, a semi-permanent bombing campaign or, inconceivably, US troops on the ground in Iran, a nuclear deal is essential. It was already in place – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Arranged by Barack Obama in 2015 and also supported by China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the European Union, it restrained and monitored Iranian activities in return for some easing of economic sanctions.
It was no doubt flawed, but it ceased to have any effect when Mr Trump withdrew the US from it in 2018. At that point, Iran accelerated its plans, and, eventually, that led to the dire and terrifying situation of recent weeks.
If President Trump has done anything with Operation Midnight Hammer, it is to correct the tragic error of judgement he made to abandon diplomacy in his first term.
In fact, the Iran-US talks in Rome were already in progress when Mr Netanyahu decided to disrupt matters. Mr Trump will now try again to negotiate his own nuclear deal with Iran. It will most likely resemble the one President Obama designed.
Such a fresh agreement should, like the JCPOA, enjoy wide sponsorship from the existing nuclear powers, and be under the auspices of the UN and the IAEA. Whether President Trump’s vanity will allow for such a sensible approach is yet to be seen, but it will be “son of JCPOA”.
The Israel-Iran conflict, which President Trump has called the “12 Day War”, has completely marginalised the UN, international law and the role of close US allies such as Britain. America didn’t even bother trying to secure a UN resolution to bomb Iran, or British endorsement, in stark contrast to the days before the Iraq invasion in 2003. Sir Keir Starmer, for better or worse, has not had the kind of diplomatic and military role that Tony Blair enjoyed when George W Bush was president; an index of how radically the international order has changed.
One good sign is that the Iran-Israel shaky ceasefire seems to be holding, which will help diplomacy resume; but the other immediate precondition for a wider peace in the region is, of course, a ceasefire and the resumption of meaningful humanitarian aid in Gaza. The world’s attention has been diverted from that continuing tragedy in recent days, but the horrific loss of life, in the most appalling of circumstances, continues.
Israel has lost so much of the support it received after Hamas launched its atrocities on 7 October 2023, that even loyal friends and allies are talking about sanctions and restrictions on arms supplies. Thus far, President Trump has given Mr Netanyahu a free hand in Gaza – but the White House seems to be increasingly impatient with its ally’s intransigence and determination to prolong conflicts for what are basically domestic political reasons.
If Mr Trump really wants to be a peacemaker, and keep America out of foreign wars, he will need to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue. Sooner or later, that will surely dawn on him – and perhaps then he can have his peace prize.
