Let us be clear: the latest intelligence from our own MI6, that a Trump-brokered deal with Iran is on the rocks because Tehran is ‘playing for time’, is neither surprising nor particularly novel. It is, in fact, a wearyingly familiar dance from the archives of imperial decline. Once again, we witness a Western power—this time the United States, with Britain as its anxious, ageing chaperone—fumbling over a negotiating table while a cunning adversary uses delay as a weapon. The Persians have been perfecting this art since the days of Cyrus; our modern mandarins merely add the comedy of acronyms and press releases.
Consider the historical parallel. In 1907, the Anglo-Russian Convention carved up Persia into spheres of influence. Russia took the north, Britain the south, and the Iranians themselves were left to play the supplicant, the clever servant, promising everything while delivering nothing. They signed treaties, then broke them. They accepted loans, then defaulted. They smiled, bowed, and waited. The British Empire, already overstretched and intellectually exhausted, mistook this prevarication for progress. Sound familiar? Today, Tehran negotiates as if it has eternity on its side because, strategically, it does. The mullahs know that democratic electorates have short attention spans; they know that the West, particularly under Trump’s erratic thrall, will eventually move on to the next crisis. Iran does not need to win the diplomatic game. It only needs to survive it.
And what of our intelligence services? The report that ‘timing is in doubt’ is a masterpiece of understatement. It betrays an inability to read the room of history. Iran is not ‘playing for time’ in the sense of a desperate gambler hoping for a lucky card. It is playing for time as a deliberate strategy of attrition, wearing down the West’s will to act, exploiting the gap between American bluster and European complacency. The nuclear clock ticks, but Tehran’s internal clock ticks slower, calibrated to the rhythm of a civilisation that remembers the Mongol invasion and the fall of the Shah. A few more months of negotiation? A year? For a regime that measures survival in decades, a delay is a victory.
Meanwhile, Britain stands on the sidelines, its influence diminished, its intelligence reports read as polite warnings that no one heeds. We have become the Cassandra of the modern world, issuing prophecies that are accurate but ignored. Our own intellectual decadence—the very theme I have harped on in this column—prevents us from grasping that the liberal order we champion is itself a historical anomaly. We believe that reason, diplomacy, and a shared desire for peace will eventually triumph. Iran believes in power, patience, and the inevitable decay of its adversaries. Which worldview has the better track record? Look at the ruins of Rome. Look at the end of the British Raj. The empires that thought they had all the time in the world were the ones that ran out of it first.
What, then, is to be done? The answer is uncomfortable for a nation that prides itself on multilateralism and law. We must stop mistaking talks for action. Iran respects strength, not deadlines. The West should set a clear, final date for a deal and be prepared to walk away with consequences—economic, military, or both. But this requires a unity of purpose that our current fragmented politics cannot muster. The US is distracted by its own domestic circus; Europe is lost in a haze of bureaucratic neutrality; and Britain, post-Brexit, is noble but negligible. We are all, to borrow a phrase, fiddling while Tehran burns the clock.
So let the intelligence warnings pile up. Let the diplomats shuttle between Vienna and Doha. In the end, the outcome will be determined not by the cleverness of our arguments but by the hardness of our resolve. The Persians have been waiting for 2,500 years. They can wait a little longer. The question is: can we?
