Regime change in Iran. Which UK political leaders are on the “right side of history”?

That smug phrase, “the right side of history”, has always had a tiresome ring to it. It conflates winning with being morally superior. It also conveys a hubristic assumption of those using it that, as their cause is bound to triumph, there is no need to bother giving due consideration to objections. However, it is certainly true that historians will look at the current efforts to secure regime change in Iran and will offer verdicts on the actions taken by countries and their political leaders. Or not taken, as the case may be.

The British Government has got into a muddled position. It accepts that the Iranian regime and its unlamented “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were a source of evil, not just to the Iranian people but to the rest of the world. Yet it has refused to take the necessary action to remove that evil. Or even offer support to those – the Americans and the Israelis – who were prepared to do something about. Other allies, such as the Canadians and the Australians, have expressed support. The best our government can manage is not to actually condemn our allies. Our Prime Minister has offered vacillation and equivocation when the time came for evil to be confronted. We can put the UK down as a “don’t know”. We will sit this one out. In an epic international battle by the forces of freedom and civilisation, we are passing by on the other side.

What painful viewing it made when the Defence Secretary was interviewed by the BBC yesterday. Laura Kuenssberg asked of the US/Israeli strikes:

“Does the government back what they’ve done?”

John Healey replied:

“Britain played no part in the strikes on Iran. We share however the primary aim of all allies in the region and the US that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon.”

Kuenssberg persisted, of course:

“This is a moment of history and everyone watching this morning will want to know, and will expect to know from their government, is Britain on the side of those two countries who have killed Iran’s supreme leader?”

Healey just wittered on about the need to “prevent further escalation” and to “return to the path of diplomacy.” It has been 47 years since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, during which the “path of diplomacy” has been given a pretty fair try. It has run parallel to an ever more brutal path of terrorism and oppression.

What of our other political leaders?

Sir Ed Davey for the Lib Dems offered a characteristically disingenuous response. He said that “the Iranian people deserve to live free from a brutal regime” but he opposes the liberation they have been so desperately waiting for.

At least, the Green Party and the Corbynistas don’t pretend.  The Deputy Leader of the Green Party, Mothin Ali, took part in a pro Iran regime demonstration. In an absurd twisting of reality, Jeremy Corbyn claimed that the United States and Israel were “rogue states” for taking action. He used to be paid to broadcast on behalf of the Iranian state broadcaster.

What of his neighbouring MP, Dame Emily Thornberry? She tweets:

“I am pleased to see the UK is not involved in these strikes on Iran. They are ill-advised and illegal.”

Ah, yes. International law. Subcontracting your conscience to that bunch of gangsters at the United Nations. No problem, providing you can get UN Security Council authorisation including from those epitomies of moral rectitude, China and Russia.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Thus it is with international law. Human rights? Rely on Cuba and North Korea to arbitrate such matters.

The legality of military action for the purpose of “eliminating imminent threats” – as covered by Article 51 of the UN Charter? What took the rest of the world so long? When hasn’t Iran been not merely threatening, but carrying out hostile actions, whether directly or via proxies? The Israelis have become rather familiar with the challenge. But not just them. There was an incident involving the murder of 29 Jews in Argentina, among so many other atrocities. Lord Hannan has noted that the UK, designated by the regime as “Little Satan”, has also been a target of the regime’s terrorism. That is why the contention of Rupert Lowe MP that “Britain has enough problems” and we should leave them alone is so misguided. We can not rely on them to leave us alone.

It’s not as if the Iranian regime’s denials of malevolent intent hold much credibility. “Death to America!” is a familiar approved chant which scarcely lacks ambiguity. How ridiculous that anyone should seriously claim that the rules of law is better served by allowing that criminal regime to continue wreaking havoc.

So Conservatives should be pleased that Kemi Badenoch has been robust. She says:

“I stand with our allies in the US and Israel as they take on the threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its vile regime. The same regime that carries out attacks on the UK and on our citizens, that seeks to build nuclear weapons that would threaten our country and that brutally repressed pro-democracy protests only months ago and murdered thousands of its own people. Under my leadership, the Conservative Party will always put our national security first and work with our allies to make the world a safer place.”

Reform UK supporters should similarly be proud that Nigel Farage says:

“As the American attacks against this evil regime in Iran begin, I pray for the right outcome for the wonderful Persian people…The Prime Minister needs to change his mind on the use of our military bases and back the Americans in this vital fight against Iran!”

Of course, I understand that Tony Blair’s debacle in Iraq has given regime change a bad name. It still remains a valid question as to whether leaving Saddam Hussein would really have saved lives or meant a better outcome. I think there is a danger in trying to define a “doctrine” that Donald Trump might be adopting, in terms of “America First” isolationism or neo-Conservative interventionism. Really he looks at the deal. The cost-benefit analysis. What would advance US interest without too heavy a cost in blood or treasure? US interests do not mean hiding under the duvet and hoping the rest of the world will go away. The chants in support of Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian Crown Prince, offer hope that restoration of a constitutional monarchy offers a prospect of unity and stability, while a transition to a Parliamentary democracy and market economy is pursued.

Given the shameful and pitiful irrelevance of our own Government during these momentous events, it might seem parochial to focus on the thoughts of our own politicians. But it does clarify what they stand for. Those appeasers of the Ayatollahs who are self-styled “progressives” should be treated with derision. Those are not a cohort unique to our generation or our country. The present endeavour is to remove Jimmy Carter’s legacy, after all. Still, they deserve to suffer what those in HR call “reputational damage.” However uncertain history may be, they will be on the wrong side of it so far as the long-suffering Iranian people are concerned.