Turns out America needs friends after all. Donald Trump has appealed via social media, specifically and “hopefully”, to “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others” to send ships and help free the Strait of Hormuz. Indeed, President Trump has since extended his dubious invitation to all “the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait”. Presumably that would even mean welcoming the North Korean “People’s Navy” to help out by escorting oil tankers and other commercial maritime traffic.
Curiously, the US Navy hasn’t, as yet, placed itself in harm’s way in this mined, dangerous but vital waterway, and nor has Mr Trump tried to enlist the Russian navy, funnily enough.
At any rate, this a very different stance from that initially adopted by Mr Trump, who not so very long ago insulted the British prime minister on social media in the following childish terms: “The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East. That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer – But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”
But the Americans clearly do now need people to join a war that not only hasn’t been won, but is spreading and escalating out of control – and that the US is arguably losing. How should the British respond to this very public plea? All the political parties argue that whatever is done has to be “in the British national interest” – but where does that interest lie?
Fundamentally, the US is still an ally, albeit an abusive, exploitive and unreliable one, and the UK is critically dependent on American might to support the nuclear deterrent, share intelligence, and supply the kind of weaponry and military technology Britain lacks. There is no prospect in the short term of any European framework replacing Nato, and Nato depends on the US.
It may not be “special”, but Britain’s relationship with America is essential. It is also the case that it is not in the British interest for Iran to possess nuclear missiles. So, in principle, any British government should consider sympathetically any US call for assistance in this region, despite, in the case of Operation Epic Fury, not having been consulted about it before it was launched. This doesn’t mean – and never has meant – that every request amounts to an order. That’s not what true international partnership is.
Therefore, Sir Keir Starmer and his colleagues are right to cautiously consider sending a military presence to the Gulf to protect international shipping, because it is causing so much harm to the world economy, and it is obviously in the national interest to protect the living standards of the British people. It is also in the national interest to uphold the law of the sea, and prevent loss of civilian life and cargo. Preferably there should be a UN Security Council resolution to this effect, but given President Trump has consistently treated the United Nations with contempt, that may be harder to achieve than it should be.
Even so, providing, say, mine-busting drones would be consistent with Sir Keir’s policy of engaging only in limited “defensive” actions, rather than joining in an illegal war of aggression by Israel and the US that has always lacked any plan for success, as is now all too bloodily obvious. The definition of a “defensive” as opposed to an “attacking” military force may seem like a silly, legalistic distinction, but there is a great difference between bombing downtown Tehran and sweeping away mines in the Persian Gulf that are intended to blow up merchant shipping.
If the UK does decide to offer assistance with drones, it must still do so with extreme care and consideration. The Independent – a vocal opponent of the Iraq war two decades ago – has applauded Sir Keir’s approach to this conflict so far, and it is imperative that any steps he takes now do not unwittingly drag the UK much deeper into a war than he intends.
With every Israeli raid on Beirut, every drone flying into Riyadh, and every piece of shrapnel puncturing a skyscraper in Dubai, Sir Keir’s decision to limit British involvement in this war is increasingly vindicated. Even his critics on the right have had to admit that the war is not, in fact, in the British national interest.
The “negotiated settlement” that Sir Keir has urged from the beginning is the best and swiftest way to end the conflict before it spins further out of control. “Regime change” has never come from the skies in any conflict, and there is no sign of the mullahs relinquishing power today. A further lesson of history being painfully revisited now is that the bombing of civilians tends only to stiffen their resolve to resist the aggressors. The “spirit of the Blitz” is not confined to the British.
According to the US president, Iran has offered a peace deal. Mr Trump has rejected it because “the terms aren’t good enough yet”, but declined to say what those terms might be. Given that the war is not exactly going to plan (because there isn’t a plan anyway), and that the US has proved its point with its massive destructive power, this would be an optimal moment for Mr Trump to declare victory and move on. He should not wait until Saudi Arabia, say, joins in with a full-scale attack on Iranian oil facilities, or China steps up its covert support for Tehran.
The indirect peace talks between the US and Iran that were brokered by the Omani government were on the brink of success when Benjamin Netanyahu persuaded Mr Trump to abandon them and launch a fresh offensive on Iran – probably no coincidence, that. The Omanis’ diplomacy combined with fearsome US threats resulted two weeks ago in Iran pledging never to stockpile enriched uranium – effectively ending its nuclear weapons programme. In other words, America had already achieved its strategic objective before it started the war on Iran, which makes this conflict even more incomprehensible and futile. It must be ended as soon as possible.
In return for helping President Trump secure the Strait of Hormuz, the British and others sending their navies into a war zone should insist on a say in US decision-making, and demand that Operation Epic Fury be de-escalated before it becomes Operation Epic Disaster. Certainly, no US marines should be sent in to occupy Iranian territory, as may be intended.
This is a rare moment when medium-sized powers such as Britain, France and Japan can exercise some leverage on the White House; they must make full use of it.
