WE FACE YEARS ON THE BRINK WITHOUT ENOUGH DEFENCE
BRITAIN and America want the same outcome in Iran. We both seek the removal of a hardline regime that poses a grave threat to global security, and its replacement with a more moderate government.
But Friday’s assassination by the US of Iran’s military commander-in-chief emphasises what radically different approaches we are taking, and the perils of what lies ahead.
Since Trump pulled out of the Iranian nuclear accords laid down by his predecessor Barack Obama, Britain has sought to de-escalate the mounting tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Yesterday, for example, the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, urged Iran to ‘take a diplomatic route’ to reduce tensions following the death Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Baghdad.
Trump, meanwhile, has appeared hell-bent on what is called in diplomatic circles ‘waving a big stick’ – that is, seeking to emphasise American power while ratcheting up the pressure on Iran.
The differing approaches have put a strain on the Special Relationship – at a time when, post-Brexit, Britain and the US should be working to strengthen our bonds.
The UK’s policy is to ease tensions with Iran and to revive the negotiations that have stalled under President Trump.
Our analysis is that, for as long as the Iranian people feel themselves under constant siege by the rest of the world, there is no hope for a more rational and civilised government taking over in Tehran.
By contrast, Trump’s strategy, such as it is, has been to use harsh sanctions and ruthless military force. There can be no doubt that Qassem Soleimani was a despicable human being, responsible for countless deaths. But his execution leaves the Iranians with few options.
Iran’s more measured voices, the ones we have been trying to encourage, will be drowned out by howls of rage at the ‘Great Satan’ (America) and its ally, the ‘Little Satan’ (us).
The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has promised reprisals and Trump has made it abundantly clear that any attacks on American personnel or infrastructure will be punished swiftly.
The inevitable result will be further escalation, and it is hard to see how that can end or be de-escalated. That does not mean, though, that a full-scale war is inevitable.
however clinical its air strikes and drone attacks, America cannot defeat Iran and implement fullscale regime change without staging an invasion.
That would require at least a million pairs of boots on the ground, which would mean a return to conscription – last seen during the Vietnam War – and the likely loss of hundreds or thousands of American lives.
That is surely not part of Trump’s plan to beat impeachment and secure a second term in the White house at the elections this November. Instead, tensions will mount further. The world will teeter on the brink of war, not for days but perhaps for months or even years.
Ongoing and ever more severe sanctions will throttle Iran’s economy until it is a broken country, seething with anger and resentment.
Unable to win, barred from negotiations, the Iranians will lash out in the only ways they can – through terrorism, cyber attacks and limited action against shipping in the Straits of hormuz.
The world was already a perilously unstable place as we entered the Twenties, with violence plaguing Syria, Libya, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and more places besides.
But the killing of Soleimani, however thoroughly he may have deserved it, has made this decade even more dangerous than the last.
That is why the world’s best hope of averting disastrous escalation of conflict with Iran lies with Britain. Our diplomacy and wise counsel could haul the world back towards safety.
however, in an increasingly hostile and troubled geopolitical universe, it is only prudent for any major country to be in a position to defend itself.
Since 2010, the UK’s military capability has been cut by 30 per cent. Beginning with the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, successive governments have buried their heads in the sand on the state of our Armed Forces.
Our leading politicians recite the rubric that their greatest responsibility is the defence and security of the nation and its people worldwide. Their actions belie this: they seem to imagine that future wars will be fought solely in cyberspace and that there’s no need for military equipment. That is dangerous nonsense. Those, like me, who have warned of chronic underfunding have been told time and again that we were wrong.The reality is that, when our Armed Forces are suddenly needed, they will lack the equipment and the manpower to keep us safe.
We saw this vividly last year when Iran took hostile action in the Straits of hormuz, attacking an oil tanker flying the British ensign.
BeCAUSe of the nature of international shipping, there were no British sailors among that crew – rather to the surprise of the Iranians, I think.
If any of our nationals had been unlucky enough to be captured, I am sure they would still be held as hostages today.
Rather late, two Navy ships are now being deployed to the Persian Gulf: the Type 23 frigate hMS Montrose and the Type 45 destroyer hMS Defender.
That force is insufficient. My assessment is that we need at least six ships constantly on patrol in the Straits to avert another attack.
The crisis that blew up last weekend shows what a vital role Britain has in global security.
No nation is better placed to work to keep the conflict from spiralling out of control.
But we can support and advise our American allies, and protect our own people and national interests only if we have military forces capable of carrying out their duties.
Years of reckless and irresponsible defence cuts have made that almost impossible. The consequences should concern us all.