Iranian interventions are a tricky balance of the price, the prize, and the problem with the Prince of Persia
What's the administration thinking here?
They were talking in Geneva the way Iran and the US always talk. Slightly passed each other.
Now we know there was little store set by the White House on any substantive outcome.
Discussions were about stopping the one thing all Western countries have wanted to avoid; a viable and deployable Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Crudely, ‘the Ayatollahs must not have the bomb’ has been British policy towards the Islamic Republic for almost as long as the idea has existed.
It is in no way to sympathise with the Iranian regime to point out these were discussions at US gun point. You don’t have nearly a third of America’s deployable fleet in the Gulf for holiday sailing jaunt.
This morning Iranians start their first full day in 37 years without Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as their ‘Supreme leader’. The truth is he’d been ill for some time and unlike some of the world’s dictatorships the Iranian regime is a hydra.
It’s clear that Trump now wants more than stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. He tried that in June last year, striking Fordow and other sites in a 12-day campaign. The US President has been explicit in suggesting ‘regime change’ is on the table, and has urged the beleaguered Iranian people to seize this moment to achieve it.
Neutralising Iran and its current rulers permanently, as exporters, fosterers, and funders of global terrorism is what this joint assault by the US and Israel is now explicitly about – and for Israel here read Netanyahu whose aim that has always been.
The British Government pointedly has not taken part in the strikes, and Starmer has called along with the leaders of Germany and France for ‘no further escalation’. That looks unlikely to be heeded, just yet.
Just as Democrats in Washington are gearing up to constrain Trump’s ‘war powers’ in Congress, Starmer has his own political considerations to be aware of, since most of those most pro-Gaza, pro-Palestinian have clubbed him at the ballot box are also open supporters of the Islamic Republic. It’s a problem when someone hates Trump so much it leads them to hold a candle for the thugs in Tehran.
But the UK’s attitude towards Iran, has always been one of its more complex and misunderstood foreign policy areas.
I myself with colleagues have spent many a meeting trying to unravel the reasons and motivations for what is a rather solid default position in the Foreign Office that whilst it produces some very cogent arguments, has often felt inflexible to the moment as if it is some timeless one-size-fits-all policy for every eventuality.
It goes something like this:
The Iranian people, the Persians, are decent, cultured, and dynamic. Their history, art, literature, architecture and academic contribution to the world is enormous and dazzling, which makes the nihilist …
What's the administration thinking here?
They were talking in Geneva the way Iran and the US always talk. Slightly passed each other.
Now we know there was little store set by the White House on any substantive outcome.
Discussions were about stopping the one thing all Western countries have wanted to avoid; a viable and deployable Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Crudely, ‘the Ayatollahs must not have the bomb’ has been British policy towards the Islamic Republic for almost as long as the idea has existed.
It is in no way to sympathise with the Iranian regime to point out these were discussions at US gun point. You don’t have nearly a third of America’s deployable fleet in the Gulf for holiday sailing jaunt.
This morning Iranians start their first full day in 37 years without Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as their ‘Supreme leader’. The truth is he’d been ill for some time and unlike some of the world’s dictatorships the Iranian regime is a hydra.
It’s clear that Trump now wants more than stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. He tried that in June last year, striking Fordow and other sites in a 12-day campaign. The US President has been explicit in suggesting ‘regime change’ is on the table, and has urged the beleaguered Iranian people to seize this moment to achieve it.
Neutralising Iran and its current rulers permanently, as exporters, fosterers, and funders of global terrorism is what this joint assault by the US and Israel is now explicitly about – and for Israel here read Netanyahu whose aim that has always been.
The British Government pointedly has not taken part in the strikes, and Starmer has called along with the leaders of Germany and France for ‘no further escalation’. That looks unlikely to be heeded, just yet.
Just as Democrats in Washington are gearing up to constrain Trump’s ‘war powers’ in Congress, Starmer has his own political considerations to be aware of, since most of those most pro-Gaza, pro-Palestinian have clubbed him at the ballot box are also open supporters of the Islamic Republic. It’s a problem when someone hates Trump so much it leads them to hold a candle for the thugs in Tehran.
But the UK’s attitude towards Iran, has always been one of its more complex and misunderstood foreign policy areas.
I myself with colleagues have spent many a meeting trying to unravel the reasons and motivations for what is a rather solid default position in the Foreign Office that whilst it produces some very cogent arguments, has often felt inflexible to the moment as if it is some timeless one-size-fits-all policy for every eventuality.
It goes something like this:
The Iranian people, the Persians, are decent, cultured, and dynamic. Their history, art, literature, architecture and academic contribution to the world is enormous and dazzling, which makes the nihilist …
Iranian interventions are a tricky balance of the price, the prize, and the problem with the Prince of Persia
What's the administration thinking here?
They were talking in Geneva the way Iran and the US always talk. Slightly passed each other.
Now we know there was little store set by the White House on any substantive outcome.
Discussions were about stopping the one thing all Western countries have wanted to avoid; a viable and deployable Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Crudely, ‘the Ayatollahs must not have the bomb’ has been British policy towards the Islamic Republic for almost as long as the idea has existed.
It is in no way to sympathise with the Iranian regime to point out these were discussions at US gun point. You don’t have nearly a third of America’s deployable fleet in the Gulf for holiday sailing jaunt.
This morning Iranians start their first full day in 37 years without Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as their ‘Supreme leader’. The truth is he’d been ill for some time and unlike some of the world’s dictatorships the Iranian regime is a hydra.
It’s clear that Trump now wants more than stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. He tried that in June last year, striking Fordow and other sites in a 12-day campaign. The US President has been explicit in suggesting ‘regime change’ is on the table, and has urged the beleaguered Iranian people to seize this moment to achieve it.
Neutralising Iran and its current rulers permanently, as exporters, fosterers, and funders of global terrorism is what this joint assault by the US and Israel is now explicitly about – and for Israel here read Netanyahu whose aim that has always been.
The British Government pointedly has not taken part in the strikes, and Starmer has called along with the leaders of Germany and France for ‘no further escalation’. That looks unlikely to be heeded, just yet.
Just as Democrats in Washington are gearing up to constrain Trump’s ‘war powers’ in Congress, Starmer has his own political considerations to be aware of, since most of those most pro-Gaza, pro-Palestinian have clubbed him at the ballot box are also open supporters of the Islamic Republic. It’s a problem when someone hates Trump so much it leads them to hold a candle for the thugs in Tehran.
But the UK’s attitude towards Iran, has always been one of its more complex and misunderstood foreign policy areas.
I myself with colleagues have spent many a meeting trying to unravel the reasons and motivations for what is a rather solid default position in the Foreign Office that whilst it produces some very cogent arguments, has often felt inflexible to the moment as if it is some timeless one-size-fits-all policy for every eventuality.
It goes something like this:
The Iranian people, the Persians, are decent, cultured, and dynamic. Their history, art, literature, architecture and academic contribution to the world is enormous and dazzling, which makes the nihilist …
0 Comments
0 Shares
47 Views
0 Reviews
