What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…
Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation.
All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes.
If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high.
British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon".
He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base.
And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved?
For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own.
While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.'
But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme.
Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah.
It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however.
Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris.
All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him.
Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'.
The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light.
The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off.
Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s.
In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
34 minutes ago
- Reuters
US B-2 bombers involved in Iran strikes, U.S. official says
WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - U.S. B-2 bombers were involved in strikes on Iran's nuclear sites announced by President Donald Trump on Saturday, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. Reuters had reported earlier on Saturday the movement of B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry massive bombs that experts say would be ideal to strike the sites.
Spectator
40 minutes ago
- Spectator
America hits Iran's nuclear sites
Just before 1 a.m GMT on Sunday morning, Donald Trump announced that the United States had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan sites. It followed a tense 72 hours in which senior White House advisers became increasingly convinced that diplomatic channels had been exhausted, with military action the only available recourse to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme. Following the attack, Trump declared: We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter. It comes after Trump announced on Thursday that he would decide on whether to strike within two weeks, citing a 'substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' His Truth Social post emphasises both American military prowess and the need for peace – a nod to the two horses that he has been trying to ride. Trump's 'MAGA' base is heavily split on Iranian intervention. An Economist/YouGov poll conducted last weekend found that 53 per cent of voters who backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election do not want the country to join in Israel's strikes. Influential conservatives like commentator Tucker Carlson and ex-aide Steve Bannon have both urged restraint too. The attack comes on the ninth night of the Israel-Iran war. Reports by Reuters and Axios suggest that the U.S used B2 bombers to launch the aerial assault and that senior Israeli officials were given prior notice too. More details will emerge in the coming days: Tehran previously pledged retaliation and warned that American engagement would prove 'very, very dangerous for everyone.'
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Queensland's Donald Trump - how a ruthless Aussie pollie wrote the playbook for the US President
As US President, Donald Trump uses federal agents, police and threatens National Guard intervention against opponents - but it's a blueprint first drawn up in Australia. Queenslanders who lived through Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's 21-year reign over the state will recognise the right-wing premier's fingerprints all over that playbook. Bjelke-Petersen began life as a farmworker on his father's rural property near Kingaroy, 220km north-west of Brisbane - but went on to dominate state politics for a generation. New Stan docudrama 'Joh: The Last King of Queensland ' drops on Sunday - featuring Rake star Richard Roxburgh as the notorious politician- and has drawn astonishing parallels between the Trump and the controversial premier. 'You look at Joh and you think [he was a] once-in-a-generation character,' Queensland author and journalist Matthew Condon told the filmmakers. 'And then you look at Trump - and some bells start to ring in terms of what we've gone through a generation or two before. 'The template was already here with a peanut farmer at the bottom of the world.' The comparisons to Trump are frequent throughout Bjelke-Petersen's time in power from 1968 to 1987, when he was known as the 'law and order' premier - a catchcry often now repeated by Trump. In 1970s, at the height of South African apartheid and battles over Indigenous land rights, Bjelke-Petersen welcomed an all-white Springboks rugby squad to Queensland, sparking protests across Brisbane. Police were deployed to disperse protesters gathered outside the team's Tower Mill Hotel, where excessive force was used. Actor Roxburgh, playing the National Party leader in speech recreations for the film, relives the politician's famous insistence: 'I declared a state of emergency.' It was reported that he brought in country cops housed in military camps, and gave the force 'the green light to do what they needed to do without repercussion'. 'He gave police carte blanche to do whatever they wanted,' said one commentator. Lindy Morrison OAM, member of indie rock band The Go-Betweens, accused police of 'bashing people in the head'. 'We were trapped. It was massively brutal,' she said. Lawyer Terry O'Gorman, who was also there at the time, said police 'in effect took it into their own hands'. 'They chased protesters in the dark,' he added. Bjelke-Petersen also railed against union strikes and the city's punk music scene, prompting graffiti in Brisbane reading 'Pig City'. Bjelke-Petersen proudly embraced his ties to the police and described it publicly as a 'jolly good relationship'. Others claimed he ran it as his private militia. And like Trump, he had a penchant for describing anyone who opposed him - notably ousted former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam - as socialists and communists. He was described as 'not liking protests, hippies, unions, the unemployed, and gays - and used his police force against them'. But Bjelke-Petersen was of the attitude that it was 'law and order - if you don't like it, you know what you can do.' He was described in Stan's docudrama as everything from 'innovative' and 'mundane and boring' to a 'power-hungry, hillbilly dictator' who 'wrote the playbook for Trump'. Bjelke-Petersen was finally ousted from power in 1987 after an unsuccessful tilt to be prime minister, which John Howard described as 'showing appalling judgement'. He died aged 94 in 2005, and in the Stan docu-drama, Queensland MP Bob Katter recalled his final meeting with the onetime political powerhouse. 'I carried him to bed the last time I saw him,' he said.
