Whether Trump is right or wrong, peace with Iran was never on the table
Donald Trump seems to have no idea whether his war with Iran is about nuclear capabilities or regime change, but what’s certain is that the brutal theocracy is a threat to Britain, says Eliot Wilson
“War, what is it good for?” asked Edwin Starr. He answered his own question: “absolutely nothing”.
There are shareholders of BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall who might privately disagree, but generally you can find a receptive audience for the argument that War Is Bad, Actually.
It is certainly a proposition that has been thoroughly aired since the United States and Israel began their military campaign against Iran on the last day of February. Operation Epic Fury (its American moniker; Israel has dubbed it Operation Roaring Lion) was not wholly unexpected; President Trump has been spoiling for a fight and assembling huge military assets in the region since the beginning of the year. But its scale and uncompromising nature has provoked a furious backlash. This was inevitable, given the decapitation strategy which has already killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a dozen of the country’s most senior national security leadership.
The consequences are serious. Oil prices are at a two-year high, and Qatar’s energy minister has warned that production in the Gulf could cease altogether within days. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas, dwindled to next-to-nothing after Iran declared it closed. This proved an easy win for Iran: carrying out a few drone strikes on ships in the area saw the cost of maritime insurance soar to a level at which the risk was no longer worth it.
Global energy prices are bound to rise, but that isn’t all: the general increase in shipping costs could force consumers to pay more across the board, since 80 or 90 per cent of worldwide trade is done by sea. The Gulf states like Dubai, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are concerned that tourism could fall by a quarter – and while Western stock markets have so far been resilient, that has not been true for their Asian counterparts.
If the confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran lasts longer than expected – and signs from the White House are characteristically contradictory and confusing – the economic situation could worsen quickly
No-one should shy away from these effects, either actual or potential. If the confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran lasts longer than expected – and signs from the White House are characteristically contradictory and confusing – the economic situation could worsen quickly.
It is especially worrying that the Trump administration does not seem to have a clear explanation for why it began military action: was it to prevent the Islamic Republic developing nuclear capability, something President Trump said had been “completely and totally obliterated” by last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer air strikes?
Or was it to encourage, even facilitate, regime change in Tehran – something which is extremely difficult to achieve without ground troops and is generally held to contravene international law?
Losing control and perspective
The White House seems unsure and, ironically, has begun to adopt metrics simply of the scale of the damage America and Israel are inflicting on Iran. This is eerily reminiscent of late-stage Vietnam as Robert McNamara and General William Westmoreland lost control and perspective. Certainly it is difficult to distill from the public pronouncements of the President and secretary of war Pete Hegseth what their concept of success might look like.
All of these concerns can be felt profoundly, but if we want to do more than just wring our hands, we have to be realistic. US and Israeli military action has not wrenched us out of some peaceful and cooperative relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump distorts, deceives and deludes, but sometimes there is fundamental truth in his salmagundi of instincts, prejudices, misconceptions and falsehoods. On 28 February, he said:
“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted Death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and the innocent people in many, many countries… Iran is the world’s number one state sponsor of terror… the Iranian regime seeks to kill.”
Iran regards the United States as its enemy, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dubbing America “the Great Satan” during the Islamic Revolution. Tehran was responsible for a 2024 plan to assassinate Donald Trump, and more broadly has funded, trained and supported a dozen terrorist proxies across the Middle East for many years. These have struck again and again at American interests and allies in the region.
In the United Kingdom, we should be keenly aware of the threat Iran poses. In 2004 and 2007, it kidnapped Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf; it allowed the storming of our embassy in Tehran in 2011; and last year’s report from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament concluded that “Iran poses a significant threat to the UK… [and] believes the UK to be a significant adversary”.
Yes, the current conflict is having serious consequences and it is being badly handled by an administration in Washington which has no concept of long-term strategic planning. It is satisfying to curse Donald Trump’s ignorant, blustering buffoonery. But a long-term, sustainable, peaceful relationship with the Iranian theocracy was never on the table.
The task for our most well-read, analytical, creative and ingenious minds now is a route forward. Trump has imitated Cortés in Mexico in 1519: he has scuttled our ships and there is no going back. So how do we achieve a settlement which sees a freer, more peaceful and more prosperous Middle East? Don’t all shout out at once.
Eliot Wilson is a writer and historian; senior fellow for national security at Coalition for Global Prosperity; contributing editor at Defence on the Brink