I had originally planned to publish a piece this week on the results of the Gorton & Denton by-election and the blow it represents for the Labour Party.
However, over the weekend, a far larger elephant strolled into the room that makes domestic politics feel a little trivial and worth putting my critiques of Starmer on ice.
I am, of course, referring to the strikes in Iran. Once again, we are witnessing one of the most undesirable double acts, in Trump and Netanyahu, make headlines for their tampering in the international order.
I feel it has to be made clear before I continue that the demise of Ali Khamenei is a positive outcome, and hopefully will be the first step in removing one of the world’s most oppressive and brutal regimes.
However, in my opinion that is pointing out the obvious. What I think is much more of interest is how this event yet again shows Trump’s chaotic foreign policy which continues to undermine global stability. As a result, this seemed like a suitable follow on in line with my previous pieces.
Toppling a Leader on its own isn’t a Strategy
Let’s start with the action itself. It’s typical of the US under Trump to pursue a headline-grabbing act with little substance or strategy behind it.
I imagine his thought process has gone something like, “The Ayatollah has been killed. I’ll put on one of my many ill-fitting baseball caps, deliver a press conference about how great I am, then move onto the next big peacekeeping mission.”
As always, it isn’t that simple. Beyond the headline, a string of issues emerges. To see how things will play out, we can look at interventions in Libya as the most obvious comparison. The toppling of Gaddafi fuelled coups, insurgencies and instability across north Africa. No one denied Gaddafi’s brutality, but the “smash-and-grab” approach left a vacuum that spread chaos.
Other Middle Eastern interventions like Iraq and Afghanistan were at least intended as longer-term projects, with occupation, nation-building and post-regime reconstruction in mind. Even flawed as they were, there was a theory of what came next. In the case of Libya, and now potentially Iran, no such plan existed.
Like Libya, Iran is well embedded in its region and surrounding area, but more so. Its network of alliances, militias and political influence means any collapse will ripple far beyond its borders. Within 24 hours of the strikes, we’ve already seen a glimpse of the spillover with Pakistan framing it as an attack on the Islamic faith itself and attacking the US consulate.
So far, there has been almost no discussion on next steps. The emphasis has been on the tactical success and not the strategic follow-up.
Trump’s allies rush to congratulate him and claim it as another victory for the Board of Peace. Trumpian politics continues to act like a global cowboy builder and yet again, the US demonstrates it hasn’t learned that removing surface level problems will not automatically improve what lies beneath.
An Evil Regime but not an Urgent Threat
Iran’s regime is undeniably brutal. It represses women, murders protesters, and funds terrorist groups across the Middle East. Trump leaned on these points to justify the strikes.
But under international law, being a ‘bad regime’ is not enough. There has to be evidence of a nation to be posing an imminent threat to demand immediate military action. There is no publicly verifiable evidence that Iran was on the brink of attacking the US. As a matter of fact, just days before, talks on nuclear issues were reportedly progressing positively.
Even if a threat existed, Trump worryingly no longer feels obliged to consult Congress, NATO or the UN. Previous US leaders at least tried to justify the use of force. Trump clearly does not.
Critics have already described the strikes as unauthorised. I hope this scrutiny continues. In the UK, Defence Secretary John Healey noted this morning that “no one will weep for the Ayatollah”. Not particularly enlightening insights there, John. Why not question Trump’s motivations? Even Starmer, my usual target in domestic politics, rightly raised concerns about international law.
What I hope happens now is that the UK strengthens its alliances with Europe and stands up to the US where necessary. Closer cooperation with the EU to hold Trump to account is, in my view, a necessity.
The world order cannot be run on the metric of “this is an unpleasant regime that poses somewhat of a threat to regional stability” and then conducting a military campaign against them. By that logic, countries like Thailand, Cambodia, Pakistan and Afghanistan are now all in the crosshairs.
Trump Takes the Easy Option (Again)
A key frustration of mine is that the strikes were presented as a security measure, yet Iran is economically crippled and heavily sanctioned. Its ability to pose a genuine threat to the US or Europe is limited, and its retaliation so far has been somewhat muted.
Meanwhile, Russia remains a direct threat to Europe. Putin has illegally seized large portions of Ukraine, caused millions of casualties and inflicted hundreds of billions in damage.
If global security were Trump’s priority, this is where he would act. Instead, Iran offers a quick headline and a personal image boost. Yet another example of going for an easy win while the real challenges go unaddressed.
Anyone who believes the strikes were about protecting Iranian citizens, as the US narrative puts forward, is frankly a fool. Donald Trump has no care for the populations of the Middle East. He is in my opinion both a racist and an Islamophobe (among other things). Also, why would he care about the population of Iran when he can barely seem to bother about his own nation’s? I digress…
Trump cannot be allowed to go on conducting actions under the guise of being in international interest. Surely it’s time for the moral compass of politicians and global leaders to stop spinning and call out tyrannical behaviour wherever it occurs.
Now What?
Very few will mourn the Iranian regime’s demise. Yet, I believe that doing the right thing in the wrong way produces the wrong outcomes. We will no doubt see catalysed regional instability and continued erosion of the global order as a result of Trump’s actions.
The wider consequences for the West’s image cannot be ignored. Nations in the Global South are watching, likely growing paranoid and suspicious of the US. Many will shift towards China for security and influence. The international systems the West once reinforced that upheld law and cooperation will continue to crumble.
In the end, the events in Iran are another example of the pattern of Trump’s destructive politics. Nuance is a word of the past.
We must remember that it is possible to oppose authoritarian regimes whilst still condemning reckless approaches. If you are a believer in international law, then human rights concerns do not automatically justify arbitrary strikes and infringements in sovereignty. Not least when there is no long-term plan for dealing with the aftermath.
The question now remains to be “what next?” Will the West reclaim its spine and call out illegal actions, or continue to let headline-grabbing chaos dictate global stability?
Ben's Blog 
Leave a comment