There has been something strange taking place on Sky News over the last day or so. A succession of retired former generals and security chiefs, including a British former deputy chief of NATO and the former head of MI6, have been appearing in interviews that can be found on their X channel, all of them saying the same thing, which can, however, be broken down into three parts.
Firstly, this war in which we are now engaged makes no sense. There was no legal justification for starting it. There is no justification for pursuing it. And there is no known goal, and so, as a strategic mission, this is a profound mistake.
Secondly, there is no precedent for such a mission succeeding, and no reason to think this one will. Regime change from the air has not worked and will not work on this occasion, and there is no way in which a combined operational force that can take on Iran on the ground can be assembled without massive cost, financially and militarily, neither of which anyone is willing to incur.
Thirdly, there is a very real risk that Israel and the USA will lose this war, as will the UK, as a result of its collateral involvement. Iran has been preparing for war for a very long period of time. It has a very large stockpile of admittedly low-grade missiles available to it, plus an enormous capacity to manufacture drones. Israeli and Western defence forces have not reacted in the way that the precedent in Ukraine should have suggested to be necessary, which is to create cheap anti-drone defence mechanisms. The consequence is that Israel and the USA are much more likely to run out of weapons than Iran is, leaving Iran with the potential capability of controlling this region militarily, which is just about the last thing that anyone would wish, given the nature of the regime in that country and its apparent indifference to imposing suffering through loss of human life.
The conclusions appear to be consistent.
- No one should have started this war.
- No one knows how to end this war.
- Iran was at the negotiating table before Trump ended all options of continuing that process, so suggesting that negotiation is now the way forward is a virtually meaningless gesture.
- And, most particularly, we might lose, risking a fundamental change in the balance of power in the world.
You could dismiss all of this except for the quality of the people involved. These are serious talking heads with a massive amount of experience between them, all of whom appear to be scared witless by what is going on, the consequences of which they are obviously finding hard to imagine or embrace.
My suggestion is that we should share their fear. The West has let fascism govern its agenda because that is what Trump and Netanyahu are pursuing. Too many countries, including the UK, have obsequiously fallen in line behind these staggeringly incompetent leaders. We might pay an enormous price for this.
The need for a new political order in the West has never been greater. What those leading that new order might need to consider is just where countries like the UK stand within the new hierarchy of power that might well emerge very soon if, as now seems possible, US military hegemony ceases to be effective in international political economy. I am not sure that thinking has been done.
Rarely have we ever marched into the unknown so ill-equipped to manage the consequences.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I noted yesterday a body called the Hague Group committed to international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine. In the National newspaper I think. I couldn’t find a list but there was a photo of the flags, bunched together bur I recognised Brazil, Columbia, Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Malaysia, Angola, Cuba, Switzerland, Turkey? and I think San Marino.
Forty in all. So far.
While Ms Badenoch thinks we should support ‘our ally” !! , Britain has to have relationships with the rest of the world. If we follow her advice, we will lose any credibility we still have with much of the world. It is not even as though we are defending a moral principle. What we are being asked to support by the Telegraph, Mail and Express along with the Conservatives and Reform is another version of the ill-conceived “War on Terror’.
https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-hague-2026-en/
We are seeing an inevitable collapse of tyranny. Not a new thing, but because of our technology and planetary fragility, much more dangerous now than ever before.
How painful it will be, depends on how stubborn/stupid the tyrants are and whether they jump or have to be pushed.
The tyrants are in several layers (with reference to the current conflict)
America: Trump, his Cabinet, the majority of the Republican party, the majority of the Democratic party, an unknown proportion of the Pentagon.
Israel: Netanyahu, his cabinet, the majority of the IDF, the majority of the Othodox religious leadership, and their supporters who lobby for Israel in other countries.
Iran: the Revolutionary Guard, the clerical leadership, an unknown number of the political leadership and military.
Gulf states: autocrats without legitimacy in their own countries, dependant on oil wealth.
Russia: Putin, and an unknown proportion of the military, and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Europe: those on the right, and spineless centre who prefer wealth to wisdom.
UK: Starmer, and the Labour machine and financial interests that keep him in power, for fear justice might flow over them.
However messy the collapse is, the primary need will be for a politics and a practice of care, not the economics of destruction. Fascism and hate must not be allowed to inherit the earth, for it has been already promised to the meek, and we are not as soft as we might seem.
Thanks
I am hearing that the ‘succesful’ decapitation strike was not as successful as the Trump regime is telling us. They thought Iran would not be able to respond or that Iranian army would give up. I don’t see any evidence that Iranian state is leaderless or that there is a power vacuum. Who ever was tasked with contingency plans is very much alive.
Why do so many commentators not realize regime change means continued instability, chaos and factional infighting for the victim country(ies)? This stops the country(ies) from ever posing a threat to Israel and US. It also allows siphoning of natural resources by corporates over the medium term.
This is what is meant by regime change. This is why the US continues these actions because for the epstein class they “succeeded” in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan and countless other places.
Don’t forget that the British taught this type of imperialism the US during the empire handover after the second european civil war (aka world war). A quick perusal of Prof Jeffrey Sach’s work might help.
This is a wholly opportunistic war. The Israelis saw the chance to decapitate the Iranian regime – whose leadership foolishly decided to meet together in one place – and shared the intelligence with the Americans. The Americans realised that there would be massive Iranian blowback on their assets in the region when the Israelis attacked, so decided they’d better join in. Everything else is about dealing with that blowback. There is no strategy beyond that, just news management.
Profound.
I often find these old war horses who have real world experience of death and conflict, and who poopascoop politicians’ messes, speak with more clarity and sense than the oily political puppets in power.
Unfortunately, they only seem to raise these concerns once they’re retired. They are bound from speaking out while they are actually in a position to do something meaningful about it.
Senior ranks do lots of courses and hear and hear a range of expert and relevant views where they discuss freely. But they have to follow the direction of the politicians.
But yes, they can’t go public while in service. There are reasons soldiers are supposed to be non-political.
It goes back as far as one of a former resident and neighbour of where Richard lives. Old Oliver Cromwell and his rule by the Major-Generals.
Carney’s speech at Davos is starting to look hollow as he seems to be falling into line behind Trump.
That is not what I heard this week
Check out the report by Al jazeera yesterday.
No one should have started this war.
No one knows how to end this war.
And, most particularly, we might lose, risking a fundamental change in the balance of power in the world.
Which could have been said wrt the 30 years war which started in 1618 and by 1640 most countries just wanted it to end – but did not know how.
Quoting C.V. Wedgewood @ the end of her book on the same subject: “They did not learn then and they have not learnt since: war only breeds war.
Imbeciles, liars, war mongers, crooks. That is who is “running” the show, then and now allowed to do so by a supine population.
I read Wedgewood as a sixth former
The last two pages are amongst the most powerful I have ever read.
They should be required reading for all politicos. Actually, the whole book should be.
The US was in negotiations with Iran when they attacked Iran. The only serious lesson this has given any country is do not bother negotiating with the USA, it is not trustworthy.
This war is having massive implications across the world. Trump has just agreed to let India buy Russian oil.
I am trapped in India like many others around the world. The High Commission here have said they will not help us.
We are ruled by a bunch of cowards, too scared to stand up to the orange baboon
I am in full agreement with the analysis you outline. I’d rather it’s not so much “we” on one side of this war, though in reality I suppose it is.
The outcome of this conflict is likely to be determined by the missile math, and at the moment I suspect Iran has the edge on being able to outlast Israel and the US.
But even if they could force the regime out, the power vacuum and civil conflict which takes its place would dwarf the chaos of Syria and Libya and create a massive refugee crisis. Not to mention the potential of nuclear falling into the hands of terrorist groups and local militias forming to possibly extort shipping in Gulf.
So even “successful” here is a worse outcome than negotiating. The only conceivable way it might have worked would be to keep the government structure in place but replace the individuals with those willing to take orders from the US, just like they did in Venezuela. Anyone with one iota of knowledge about Iran knows this was the least likely of all outcomes by some sunstantial margin.
Given the recklessness and foreseeable outcomes, we should be pressing the US to pay compensation to everyone affected (of course I jest, but rhetorically I wouldn’t mind someone saying it).
I wouldn’t want to live in Iran or any other country in that part of the world, I don’t want to sound hypocritical. I have Iranian friends, who I met through the humanist movement, who fled their country, leaving their families behind, because they don’t believe in any god and as such staying in their country of birth became untenable, not to mention unsafe.
However, I believe the Iranian rulers care more about human suffering and loss of life than those ruling the US and Israel, not to mention the UK, who all care nothing for loss of life, in fact we only have to digest the horror of those crazies in the US military and elsewhere who are in raptures over it. The more blood spilt the better in their demented brains.
Also Richard I’m sure you are aware that sanctions imposed on ordinary Iranians has caused immense suffering, and who imposed those sanctions?
Also that mossad and cia agents have been on the streets of Tehran helping whip up anger against the Iranian leadership.
I’m not whitewashing Iran but they’re not the worst in the world in my view.
I’ll just add that there are very obviously men (and some women!) In the US who’d like to turn their country into Gilead.
I am making a clear point: I condemn Iran
I also condemn Israel and the USA
They are all variants on fascist states.
I get it, you’re condemning Iran, I also condemn Iran for what’s euphemistically called human rights abuses, but you appear to also then condemn the US and Israel merely as an afterthought, which implies that you think Iran are the worst of the worst. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that. I don’t wish to argue in a childish way about who’s the biggest bad guy in the world, in these frightening times we’re all living through. I’m fearful for my children’s safety and future as much as you will be for yours. But, it is beyond question, to me, that the USA is the most destructive, violent, bloodthirsty, murderous, criminal entity that has existed in human history. Nazis were hanged after world war II for less than the carnage the US has spread around the world. Does Iran have around 800 military bases across the globe? No. Have they slaughtered countless millions? No. How many were slaughtered by the British in the days of empire?
I am treating them all as fascist. They all have differing faults. I condemn all three.
If the dominant ideology in the West is neoliberalism, then that means that we are subject to certain points that need to be taken into consideration.
Firstly, regular readers and supporters of this blog are well aware that neoliberalism is exactly what is says on the tin, that it is an ideology based purely on assumptions, false arguments and equally false premises. On those bases alone, the list is endless.
Secondly, because of the first point, it follows that the general populations of the West are subject every day to narratives which are intended to guide our general thinking about the matters and issues which crop up in the news. A typical example is our old friend the “Household Analogy of Government Finances”. We know it’s nonsense, but most people blithely accept it when politicians get on their soap boxes or high horses and tell us why they cannot do the things that people elected them to do. I should add that active military leaders and security service chiefs say in their public pronouncements as the politicians expect, because their salaries depend upon it.
The essential strangeness that the current situation suggests derives from this clash of expert opinion from the retired generals and security chiefs and the dominant narratives our leaders want and expect us to believe.
Their careers have been built on situation analysis and response guidance, and so they can only refer to reality if they have any integrity.
Unfortunately, our politicians tend to go with the narratives, which just makes them look stupid to us.
The Tories and Reform are currently proving this in spades, so more fool the government for allowing themselves to be browbeaten by such an incompetent band.
And that’s it!
Thanks
As much as I applaud your comment, we must understand that in any conflict someone somewhere is winning big on the supply side, no matter which side loses?
Other than that, what is striking about this – and your comments support it – is that the U.S. has no intention it seems to me of ‘nation making’ afterwards. It’s disinterest is alarming and can only mean that what follows could be much worse except that it will U.S. approved cruelty and corruption in charge next time – the U.S. hates proxies, but loves its own.
Trump proves the point by sayimng he must pick the next leader of Iran
Your ‘thirdly’ shows that you have no understanding at all of the issues.
Defence against drones is stacked – electronic jamming – cyber disruption -anti-air guns and autocannon – short range interceptors and (only finally) high-end expensive missile interceptors.
The idea that Israeli defence forces have not reacted is laughable. They have been involved in effective anti-drone warfare for years. Try googling iron dome, David’s sling or arrow missile defence system which have all been operating for decades.
Meanwhile – launch sites can be destroyed, manufacturing facilities destroyed, supply chains disrupted and command networks disrupted. I’m sure this is already happening.
Iran spends barely $30bn a year on defence, the US $900bn.
In Ukraine, neither side has air superiority, in Iran, the US will establish that as soon as they want. The two conflicts are not comparable.
If I were you, I’d stick to economics where you can at least bluster some knowledge, you clearly haven’t a clue about military capabilities. You’re just projecting your fantasy outcome onto a world scenario which you don’t understand.
“Israel and the USA are much more likely to run out of weapons than Iran is” Hilarious. Neither the US nor Israel are going to be firing multi million dollar missiles at $10k drones.
I’d offer to come back and revisit this in a couple of weeks but I know you always ban people as soon as they show they have a different opinion than you and know more about a subject than you do.
I would note the former head of MI6 and NATO deputy commander saying Iran could win this. I thnk they have a lot more authority than you. My reasoning is based on comments by them and others. and yes, they say $4m Patriot missiles are being fired at Iranan drones. Now go back to your comuter wargames.
Geopolitics is a nasty business.
Consider, countries with appalling human rights records- and how many of them are/have been our allies, till geopolitics meant they were our enemies, so we suddenly noticed their human rights record. It’s a long list.
There’s another long list of those who are STILL our allies – nearly all the Sunni regimes in the Gulf & MENA plus of course, rogue states USA & Israel.
Saudi Arabia – the source of Wahabism, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Osama (twin Towers) bin Laden, and the murderers of Kashoggi. An “ally”. While at home we demonise Londonistan and Sharia law abroad we embrace Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a geopolitical ally.
Syria – anyone who understands Syria’s place in geopolitics for the last 80 years, please explain it to me.
Israel – 59 years of increasingly brutal occupation, plus Gaza & W Bank genocide, now an illegal aggressive war. Fascist government. Allies.
USA – destroyer of nations enemy of democracy murderers of millions, expert in aggressive illegal warfare international pirates. Murderer of its own citizens, fascist government. Allies.
Iran. Repressive theocracy, which is losing its grip on its population. Has never attacked a European state or America or Israel unless attacked first. Spiritual home of Shia Islam. A traditionally safe place for diaspora Jews. Appallingly treated by Western powers for several centuries. Approximately 1/3 of mosques closed in recent years, owing to disillusionment with Islamic theocracy. Approximately 1,000,000 Christians in what may be the fastest growing (underground) church in the world. Atheism also on the rise. Persia is an ancient rich advanced culture, in both art & science. Every American and Israeli attack on Iran delays the day when democracy will return to Tehran.
If geopolitics was just about trade and development, then I could accept the need for compromise and clothes pegs – “let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
But its about mass murder, endless war, prolonged human suffering and enormous injustice. I hate it, and its time we made a clean break with international thuggery and lawlessness. It isn’t just killing “them” its destroying us too, from the inside out.
I havce made a video on these themes.
I read what I thought was a wise comment recently that the key ingredient of liberal democracy is a strong economy, which, the writer explained, creates a burgeoning middle class which is better educated, more worldly wise and more secular. This process was well under way in Iran, witness the huge increases in women’s education and applications for STEM subjects at university (it’s also happening in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries). The writer concluded by saying that the process of democratisation has been greatly impeded by draconian sanctions and now war. While it’s easy to be critical of what seem like medieval cultures to Western eyes, it’s important to remember that we in the West were medieval once and went through all the same painful teething troubles, which took centuries to resolve and are ongoing, en-route to becoming liberal democracies. What Iran and other countries need is time and understanding rather than criticism and sanctions to cajole them into the 21st. century.
This risks becoming a war without end. Every child caught up in these conflicts, whether from Iran, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq, will grow up with resentment toward the West, rational or otherwise.
Yet Britain and the United States (and, to a lesser extent, others) have helped sow the seeds of much of this despair. A few notable dates illustrate the long shadow of past decisions: Iraq in 1928, Israel in 1948, Iran in 1953, and Iraq again in 2003.
The United States and Israel possess overwhelming air and naval power and could no doubt bring Iran to its knees militarily. But would they be able to prevent the closure or restriction of the Strait of Hormuz for an indefinite period?
Most commentators understandably focus on the immediate consequences for oil and gas supplies to the West. However, a potentially far larger and less discussed problem is the disruption to the global supply of nitrogen fertilisers.
Modern agriculture is critically dependent on synthetic nitrogen. Roughly half of the world’s food production relies on it. The Persian Gulf region is one of the largest centres of fertiliser production because it has access to very cheap natural gas, the essential feedstock for ammonia and urea. Countries such as Qatar, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE export millions of tonnes each year.
A significant proportion of this trade must pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Estimates suggest that around a quarter of globally traded nitrogen fertiliser and roughly a third of urea shipments move through this single maritime chokepoint. If that route were closed or severely disrupted, the impact would not just be higher prices but a genuine supply shock.
Unlike oil, there are no large strategic reserves of fertiliser, and building new ammonia or urea plants takes years, not months.
Farmers make fertiliser purchasing decisions months ahead of planting seasons. If supplies are disrupted at the wrong moment, farmers simply apply less, and crop yields fall accordingly.
The consequences would not appear overnight, but within a single growing season the effects could be severe. Reduced fertiliser use would mean lower harvests of wheat, maize and other staples, pushing up global food prices and potentially triggering political instability in affected countries such as the U.K.
This war threaten not just energy markets but the global food system itself.
Agreed,.
There is a video coming..
It is no wonder that the experienced talking heads are scared witless. They are trying to make sense of a war in which logic, planning and the basic rules of engagement simply don’t apply. The commentator Ian Dunt and others have pointed out that it is impossible to understand the reality of this situation by attempting to discuss it solely in terms of political and tactical meaning, faced with what Dunt describes as “ the bloodlust of a screaming child”. Recall Bannon’s “flood the zone with shit?” Trump, Hesgeth et al are doing exactly as expected. Of course there is no plan. Chaos is the byword. Loss of life is irrelevant. We are faced with an inner circle of deeply unstable and violent men who are revelling in the brutality they have unleashed and who seem to be uncontrollable and unstoppable. In this, they are exactly the same as the regimes in Iran and Israel. But who in the media will address it? Imagine Starmer or any European leader stating that their behavior is pathological. I won’t hold my breath. But ignoring that reality may literally turn out to be fatal. Politicians are not bound by the Goldwater rule. But both politicians and psychiatrists have an ethical duty to warn. So far, it’s tumbleweed and crickets. In this deadly situation, Trump is protected by their convenient silence.
Thanks
My country is at war . A totally illegal war. Our government ha no mandate for declaring war. It is my belief the public are opposed to the war. Shame and anger is what I feel. My country fought to defeat Fascism in WW2. My dad and uncles risked their lives to rid the world of evil in the form of the Nazis. Now the UK is allied to genocidal states. The atrocities the have perpetrated have reached depths of barbarity rarely plumbed in the annals of history. Since the revolution that got shot of the Shah in 1979 Iran has been subject to violent attempts at regime change constantly. The country is said to be governed by tyrannical cruel despots. Iran is surrounded by countries whose human rights record is infinitely worse. Journalist murdered and chopped into little pieces. Princesses beheaded. There is much more, All the Gulf States are the same. Yet the UK allies with them. Oil money talks. Americas history is unsurpassed in its interference in foreign states. Its seizes power. It destroys democracy, it installs vile dictators. It orders governments to change economic policies on pain of punishment. At the moment the USA is engaged in starving Cuban people to death. It funds genocide ,apartheid, ethnic cleansing etc in Palestine. It has kidnapped an internationally recognised President in Venezuela. A man who has committed no crime except follow the humane policies of his predecessor who helped the poorer folk in Venezuela.
Yes, agreed. Unlike the Ukraine War where the slightest deviance from the Narrative was (and still is) totally verbotten, the War on Ukraine can be discussed from all sides on some mainstream media.
I am not sure I follow that.
From my side of the pond, I believe the only way to curtail Trump is for the US to endure a big economic shock. Htting MAGA in the pocketbook is the only way a significant fraction of his supporters will withdraw support. The right-wing media cannot hide what people experience at the grocery store or the gas pump. Unfortunately, that would drag most of the world down with us.
To hear that Trump attacked Iran based on a “feeling” is the ultimate example of how precarious he is making the world. It undercuts the legitimacy of anything Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, etc., say about our justifications. There is no endgame.
I live in Minneapolis, so I have seen up close the worst of what the administration can do (and is still doing, just with less publicity). Our federal attorney’s office has been gutted, so investigations into serious crimes are being dropped. Our city has suffered $200,000,000 US (and counting) in economic damage. Every statement made by the federal government about what is happening here is a lie. That is not an exaggeration. Kristi Noem didn’t lose her job because she sanctioned unlawful and unconstitutional behavior by her agents – she lost it because she lied about Trump approving a sketchy deal to make PR videos.
It would be arrogant (and embarrassing) of me to ask for the UK and other western nations to stand up and tell Trump to pound sand. I can only hope enough Republicans here will finally stand up for their country and do what is needed, regardless of what their “base” thinks.