The ink is barely dry on the deal struck between Washington and Tehran, and already the question hangs heavy in the air, not just in the corridors of power but on the factory floors and in the front rooms of industrial towns like this one. What was it all for? The trillion dollars spent, the thousands of lives lost, the decade of sanctions and suffering. For a deal that looks, on paper, remarkably like the one we could have had back in 2015, before the walkout, before the 'maximum pressure' campaign that squeezed Iranian families as much as it did the regime.
You have to understand, for those of us who remember the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the pattern is hauntingly familiar. The cost of war is never paid by the policymakers who launch it. It is paid by the young men and women who come home in body bags, or not at all. It is paid by the communities that lose their factories, their shops, their hope, as public money is diverted to endless conflict. And it is paid by families who see the price of bread and fuel rise, while the rich get richer off the spoils of war.
The deal itself, details of which are still emerging, appears to freeze Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. It is, by most accounts, a sensible diplomatic compromise. But the path to this point has been paved with blood and treasure. The 'America First' policy that tore up the original accord, that reimposed sanctions and escalated tensions, that led to the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani – what did it achieve? It delayed the inevitable. It cost lives. It enriched defence contractors. And now, we are back to square one.
For the ordinary worker in the North of England, this is not an abstract strategic debate. It is about the money that should have been spent on their wages, their hospitals, their schools. The trillion dollars spent on the war on terror, the vast sums sunk into the Middle East, could have rebuilt every crumbling road and railway in this country. It could have insulated every leaky home. It could have ended child poverty. Instead, it evaporated into the sand.
The deal raises another uncomfortable truth: the military-industrial complex needs enemies. It needs threats to justify its endless budget. And when a diplomatic off-ramp appears, it must be blocked, because peace is bad for business. The same voices that beat the drums for war in 2003 are the ones that screamed for tearing up the Iran deal in 2018. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. And the bill has come due.
As I stand here, watching the news ticker roll out the details of the agreement, I think of the families in Basra, in Fallujah, in Tehran, and in my own hometown. They all paid the price for this grand geopolitical game. The question 'what was it all for?' is not rhetorical. It demands an answer. And that answer must come from those who sent us to war, and who now claim victory in peace. The rest of us, we are left to count the cost.
