A diplomatic cable from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, obtained by this correspondent, reveals a stark assessment: the current trajectory of US-Israeli policy under President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu risks locking the Middle East into a state of permanent crisis. The document, marked ‘Secret: UK Eyes Only’, outlines contingency plans for a scenario in which the two leaders’ actions destabilise the region beyond the point of conventional diplomatic remedy.
The cable, dated 15 March, warns of a ‘permacrisis’ — a term borrowed from climate science to describe a self-sustaining system of shocks that prevent return to equilibrium. In the context of the Middle East, this means a cycle of annexation, reprisal, and escalation that erodes the possibility of a two-state solution and draws in external powers.
The intelligence underpinning the assessment draws on satellite imagery, SIGINT, and human sources. It notes a surge in settlement construction in the West Bank, including in areas that would cut off Palestinian territories from each other. Simultaneously, US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and tacit support for annexation of the Jordan Valley have emboldened hardliners in Netanyahu’s coalition.
‘The probability of a cascading failure is increasing,’ the cable states. ‘If the United States continues to endorse unilateral annexation, the Palestinian Authority will likely collapse. This would trigger a security vacuum that Hamas and Hezbollah are poised to fill. The resulting conflict would draw in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, each pursuing their own interests. The UK’s ability to influence events would be severely limited.’
The contingency plans, codenamed Operation TETHYS, involve three tiers. First, a rapid diplomatic surge to revive the Quartet (UN, EU, US, Russia) framework. Second, a humanitarian contingency to manage refugee flows into Jordan and Lebanon. Third, a military option to protect British nationals and assets in the event of a regional war. The document stresses that the third tier is a last resort.
‘We are not dealing with a repeat of 1967 or 1973,’ the cable continues. ‘The technology of warfare has changed. Precision-guided munitions, cyber attacks, and drone swarms mean that a conflict today would be far more destructive and unpredictable. The cost in human life and infrastructure would be catastrophic.’
This assessment aligns with climate models of systemic risk. A permacrisis, whether in geopolitics or the climate system, is characterised by feedback loops that amplify instability. In the Middle East, annexation fuels radicalisation, which begets repression, which fuels further radicalisation. Each cycle erodes trust in institutions and norms, making the next crisis harder to manage.
The British government’s move to draft these plans is unusual for its transparency. It signals a deep concern that the US administration, focused on domestic political priorities, may not fully grasp the consequences of its policies. ‘Washington sees this as a series of tactical plays,’ a Foreign Office source told me. ‘They do not see the strategic picture. They are lighting matches in a fuel depot.’
The cable concludes with a recommendation for the UK to ‘prepare for a prolonged period of instability’ and to ‘reassess our alliances in the region’. It suggests deepening ties with Gulf states, Jordan, and Egypt while maintaining open channels with Iran.
I put these findings to the Foreign Office. A spokesperson said: ‘We do not comment on leaked documents. The UK remains committed to a two-state solution and will continue to work with all parties to de-escalate tensions.’ The US State Department declined to comment.
The question now is whether the warnings will be heeded. History suggests that policymakers often ignore the most precise forecasts until it is too late. The climate crisis taught us that. The Middle East permacrisis may be the next lesson.
