David Gauke: Donald Trump is not our friend and all parties should be wary of being too close
Trust is earned, not demanded.
David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
The Iranian regime is loathsome.
It suppresses its people with extraordinary brutality; it exports terrorism that destabilises its region; and it provides a potentially existential threat to the only true democracy in the region – Israel. If and when the mullahs and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps lose power, the long term prospects for the Iranian people and the wider world should be much improved.
There are also very good reasons for the UK to maintain close relations with the US. It is our most important security ally and, for all the ups and downs, we have benefited enormously from the protection the US has provided. Without the US, there are many ways in which we are exposed and vulnerable.
One can also make the case that the response of the UK Government to recent events in Iran has been slow and unconvincing. Seeing President Macron portray himself as the defender of Cyprus is an uncomfortable experience. Gulf allies have felt unsupported. Keir Starmer’s position – ‘we cannot act one day, we can act the next’ – is complicated and is consistent with the critique that he is unduly constrained by obstacles that other leaders might overcome. It is not implausible to suggest that party management decisions were a consideration in determining the Government’s approach.
All of these factors meant that Starmer was severely criticised in the opening days of the Iranian conflict for being insufficiently supportive of the US. For many on the right, the UK should have been more hawkish. Nigel Farage told a press conference on 2 March that “we have to take the gloves off… we have to get rid of this regime”. On the same day, Kemi Badenoch told the Commons that there is “no point wanting action to make the world a safe place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others” and at the Conservative spring conference five days’ later stated that Starmer was “too scared to make foreign interventions for fear of upsetting a tiny section of the electorate”.
Both Farage and Badenoch have rowed back. On 10 March, Farage told reporters that “we cannot get involved directly in another foreign war”, while Badenoch insisted that she “never said we should join” the war.
There is no denying that this is a very substantial shift in tone. For all the desire to remove a totalitarian enemy of the West, determination to stay close to the US, and relish in exploiting the Prime Minister’s uncomfortable position, neither Farage nor Badenoch are taking a markedly different approach than the Government. All parties are cautious about British involvement.
It is worth identifying why both Farage and Badenoch …
Trust is earned, not demanded.
David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
The Iranian regime is loathsome.
It suppresses its people with extraordinary brutality; it exports terrorism that destabilises its region; and it provides a potentially existential threat to the only true democracy in the region – Israel. If and when the mullahs and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps lose power, the long term prospects for the Iranian people and the wider world should be much improved.
There are also very good reasons for the UK to maintain close relations with the US. It is our most important security ally and, for all the ups and downs, we have benefited enormously from the protection the US has provided. Without the US, there are many ways in which we are exposed and vulnerable.
One can also make the case that the response of the UK Government to recent events in Iran has been slow and unconvincing. Seeing President Macron portray himself as the defender of Cyprus is an uncomfortable experience. Gulf allies have felt unsupported. Keir Starmer’s position – ‘we cannot act one day, we can act the next’ – is complicated and is consistent with the critique that he is unduly constrained by obstacles that other leaders might overcome. It is not implausible to suggest that party management decisions were a consideration in determining the Government’s approach.
All of these factors meant that Starmer was severely criticised in the opening days of the Iranian conflict for being insufficiently supportive of the US. For many on the right, the UK should have been more hawkish. Nigel Farage told a press conference on 2 March that “we have to take the gloves off… we have to get rid of this regime”. On the same day, Kemi Badenoch told the Commons that there is “no point wanting action to make the world a safe place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others” and at the Conservative spring conference five days’ later stated that Starmer was “too scared to make foreign interventions for fear of upsetting a tiny section of the electorate”.
Both Farage and Badenoch have rowed back. On 10 March, Farage told reporters that “we cannot get involved directly in another foreign war”, while Badenoch insisted that she “never said we should join” the war.
There is no denying that this is a very substantial shift in tone. For all the desire to remove a totalitarian enemy of the West, determination to stay close to the US, and relish in exploiting the Prime Minister’s uncomfortable position, neither Farage nor Badenoch are taking a markedly different approach than the Government. All parties are cautious about British involvement.
It is worth identifying why both Farage and Badenoch …
David Gauke: Donald Trump is not our friend and all parties should be wary of being too close
Trust is earned, not demanded.
David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
The Iranian regime is loathsome.
It suppresses its people with extraordinary brutality; it exports terrorism that destabilises its region; and it provides a potentially existential threat to the only true democracy in the region – Israel. If and when the mullahs and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps lose power, the long term prospects for the Iranian people and the wider world should be much improved.
There are also very good reasons for the UK to maintain close relations with the US. It is our most important security ally and, for all the ups and downs, we have benefited enormously from the protection the US has provided. Without the US, there are many ways in which we are exposed and vulnerable.
One can also make the case that the response of the UK Government to recent events in Iran has been slow and unconvincing. Seeing President Macron portray himself as the defender of Cyprus is an uncomfortable experience. Gulf allies have felt unsupported. Keir Starmer’s position – ‘we cannot act one day, we can act the next’ – is complicated and is consistent with the critique that he is unduly constrained by obstacles that other leaders might overcome. It is not implausible to suggest that party management decisions were a consideration in determining the Government’s approach.
All of these factors meant that Starmer was severely criticised in the opening days of the Iranian conflict for being insufficiently supportive of the US. For many on the right, the UK should have been more hawkish. Nigel Farage told a press conference on 2 March that “we have to take the gloves off… we have to get rid of this regime”. On the same day, Kemi Badenoch told the Commons that there is “no point wanting action to make the world a safe place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others” and at the Conservative spring conference five days’ later stated that Starmer was “too scared to make foreign interventions for fear of upsetting a tiny section of the electorate”.
Both Farage and Badenoch have rowed back. On 10 March, Farage told reporters that “we cannot get involved directly in another foreign war”, while Badenoch insisted that she “never said we should join” the war.
There is no denying that this is a very substantial shift in tone. For all the desire to remove a totalitarian enemy of the West, determination to stay close to the US, and relish in exploiting the Prime Minister’s uncomfortable position, neither Farage nor Badenoch are taking a markedly different approach than the Government. All parties are cautious about British involvement.
It is worth identifying why both Farage and Badenoch …
0 Comments
0 Shares
50 Views
0 Reviews
