In February last year, shortly after the election of President Trump, when David Lammy -then our Foreign Secretary- was busy ingratiating himself with the new regime. I reminded him in the Commons of all the dreadful things he had said about Trump in the past. I asked him if, when it became apparent that his earlier assessment of Trump was the accurate one, he would follow the example of the martyred Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and plunge first into the flames, the hand with which he signed his recantation.
My assessment of the renewed assault on Iran is somewhat conflicted by my experience of having served in the Army in Iraq in 2003, and all that followed. But here are some prejudices on which I arrive at any judgement.
First, I am not impressed by the suggestion that the military action is unlawful given the blood that is on the hands of the Iranian regime through its sponsorship of international terrorism, the massacres of its own people, and its determination to acquire nuclear weapons with ballistic missile capability.
Second, I believe in the lasting wisdom of Churchill expressed in his 1946 Fulton speech: the need to stick closely to the USA; this is an enduring principle and should not be lightly set aside, even when a US administration behaves unpredictably.
The USA is our principal ally, on whose support we have come to depend for our own national security.
Our initial and continued unwillingness to give our full support will have consequences, particularly so, given the caprice of the President. I fear for the consequences our inaction may have for the future defence of Ukraine and other areas of our national interest.
Our involvement was inevitable and so it has proved: our sovereign territory has been attacked, as have our allies. Attacks that have closed the Straits of Hormuz touch our vital economic interests.
All that said, was warfare wise when negotiations were still proceeding?
The action has, as yet untold consequences in terms of the enduring effect on the world economy and the incalculable effect on the stability of Iran and its impact on the region.
The answer to the question depends on an assessment of the proximity of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Did the USA and Israel believe that Iran was so close that it required immediate action, and so all the terrible potential consequences would be the lesser of two evils.
I’m doubtful that such an assessment was made. Indeed, the president told us last June that his action then had set Iran’s capability back by years. Furthermore, the US Director of National Intelligence told the US Congress that Iran had made no efforts to try and rebuild its uranium enrichment capability since last summer’s bombing.
The plans and thought of US Central Command are not available to us. But the President’s running commentary is continuous. It is full of contradictions. It appears that events have taken him by surprise and that there never was much of a plan. He chops and changes.
The economic consequences of all this will be very painful and lasting. Whether anything will have been gained by it, it is too soon to tell.