US President Donald Trump. Photo / Mandel Ngan, AFP
When the missiles started to fly, the British Prime Minister cautiously came down on the side of doing nothing – and I, for once, agree with him.
Alas, he has since turned into Biggles and threatened Iran with whatever planes the United Kingdom still owns.
Fear not: I will not be joining any peace marches. Their motives are dubious and from the looks of half the protestors, were war declared on America or Israel, they’d be the first to volunteer.
Meanwhile, you’ll find a thousand Persians on the other side of the street celebrating the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, a vicious dictator who has dragged their native country to ruin and will absolutely not be missed.
If I’m fearful about this conflict, it does not betray sympathy towards the vile theocracy.
But we have to be real.
It is easy to chuck eggs on the floor, as United States President Donald Trump has done with his airstrikes, yet very hard to scoop them up and bake them into a “prosperous and glorious” cake of regime change.
Almost my whole life, at least since the first Gulf War, the West has been trying to bomb Middle Eastern states into friendship, and each failed experiment has necessitated deeper and deeper investment in lives and money.
Trump was elected to end that cycle.
In 2012, he said President Barack Obama might start a war with Iran just to get re-elected. Why has he broken this pact with the voters?
Because he’s a faithful ally of Israel. Because the Persian diaspora, righteous and articulate, is influential among the transatlantic right-wing (Nigel Farage calls Reza Pahlavi a “friend”).
Because Iran does pose a threat to US bases or even, if it gained a nuclear weapon, to the wider world.
Trump has indicated that the bombing has brought Iran back to the negotiating table and he’s willing to talk, presumably with disarmament at the top of the agenda.
But weren’t we told that Tehran’s nuclear programme was already handicapped by 2025’s Operation Midnight Hammer (starring Sylvester Stallone)?
No one seriously believes Iran is minutes away from having WMDs, and its drubbing in Gaza, along with recent riots, has left the regime weaker than ever.
The obvious time to support an uprising was when it was actually having one, over the New Year, yet the US stood by as Tehran liquidated an estimated 30,000 protesters.
In short, Trump’s attack is not directly linked to an imminent threat, rendering the label “pre-emptive” an intellectual nonsense.
It is also unconstitutional to start a war without congressional approval, though this is something opposition parties routinely forget when they gain power.
Back in 2013, when Obama sought to attack Syria over its use of chemical weapons, Marco Rubio opposed the move on the reasonable grounds that Obama had “no clear objective”.
So, what is Trump’s plan today? Are we supposed to believe that while regime change failed in Iraq – where the US put boots on the ground – it will succeed via air operations in a nation with twice the population and a government that probably enjoys a wider base of support.
Not everyone is against the mullahs; some Iranians likely favour a form of religious government.
Were I a nationalist leader aspiring to replace Khamenei, I’d make enriching uranium one of my side-of-a-bus pledges, because the example of North Korea proves the only way to prevent future US military action is to acquire a nuclear bomb.
As the regime scrambles for leadership in the midst of war and panic, it’s conceivable that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could take over, an outcome that might prove more militant than the clerics. Reformers within the population are splintered and headless. Civil war is possible.
The Trump gamble likely only has around a 5% chance of resulting in a happier, freer Iran – if that is even the goal.
Asked by the Atlantic if he would continue the bombing in support of a popular uprising, he replied, “You can’t give an answer to that question”.
Assuming the Venezuela raid is the US President’s model, he seems to be pursuing the modern equivalent of gunboat diplomacy, firing his canons at the shore, killing the local potentates, then inviting their equally corrupt successors to swallow his demands in order to save their heads, before sailing away to repeat the exercise somewhere else.
It is a strategic plus that this involves no long-term commitment to building democracy, but also a moral minus.
The enterprise risks looking cynical.
Also lobbying for this war, we read, was Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, a partner in liberty accused of torturing and killing his own citizens, including women’s rights activists who allegedly face physical and sexual abuse.
What kind of war for freedom involves partners such as this?
Trump does not even bother to consult with his liberal allies, some of whom couldn’t be contacted at the weekend.
The European Union’s Ursula von der Leyen tweeted that she would convening something called the Security College “on Monday”, suggesting that even war cannot contradict the European Working Time Directive.
Trump’s demand for Greenland and his ambiguity on Ukraine makes the US look like an unreliable power, although the EU of net zero and a billion genders is unlikely to offer an alternative locus of authority soon.
To all of the above objections, many readers will say: “So what? Trump’s motives aren’t pure, his mission is ill-defined, but at least he’s doing something – clearing out the rot of a dangerous regime”.
The Tories in the UK have called Starmer’s nuanced approach “weak”; Reform says, “gutless”.
Reform’s foreign policy seems relatively nuanced, but the Conservatives now appear ideologically convinced that war is always a good thing; that if America were to drive off a cliff, they would jump into the passenger seat and happily go down with it – Thelma to their Louise.
The Iran War could prove just as perilous, given that Trump has neither a destination nor a road-map to work with.
In which case, his unilateralism leaves the UK with a rare and unexpected advantage: Britain, having no activated alliance to honour, can wait and see what happens.
National interest depends not upon the reflexive projection of power, a neurotic sense that we must be involved in whatever’s abroad, but upon doing what is to our own, carefully considered benefit.
Past adventures in the Middle East were a disaster. This time, let’s look before we leap.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.