The spectacle of Donald Trump inserting himself into the delicate US-Iran nuclear negotiations is not merely a diplomatic faux pas; it is a clarion call of historical regression. One is reminded of the clumsy interventions of the late Roman Republic, where proconsuls like Pompey meddled in foreign affairs to burnish their own legend, often to the ruin of the state. Trump’s bluster on Iran is Pompey’s vanity writ large, and Britain, the diplomatic heir to Pericles, must now navigate a world where the American ally resembles a rogue elephant more than a partner.
Consider the context. The Iranian nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was a masterpiece of multilateral statecraft, crafted in 2015 by the Obama administration and the E3 (Britain, France, Germany). It was a treaty that curbed Iran’s nuclear ambitions through rigorous inspection, a triumph of diplomacy over bombast. Yet in 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew, calling it “the worst deal ever,” and reimposed sanctions, thereby handing Iran a propaganda victory and a motive to accelerate its nuclear programme. Now, as the Biden administration seeks to revive the deal, Trump’s shadow looms large. His recent statements have been a masterclass in obstruction: calling for even harsher sanctions, hinting at military action, and all but sabotaging the talks before they begin.
For British diplomats, this is a nightmare. They have invested enormous capital in the E3 process, maintaining a fragile line of communication with Tehran. But when Trump speaks, the Iranian regime listens. They see his bluster as a signal that any agreement with the West is a trap, a prelude to American betrayal. This is the ancient game of credibility: a state’s word must be its bond. When the United States, the dominant partner of NATO, cannot hold to its promises, why should Iran trust Britain? The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy: distrust breeds failure, which then justifies the warmongers on both sides.
Let us not mince words. Trump’s behaviour is a species of intellectual decadence, a refusal to engage with the complex realities of international relations. He treats foreign policy as a reality show, where ratings and applause lines matter more than strategic geometry. Yet the consequences are not scripted. If the nuclear talks collapse, Iran may well develop a bomb within months, triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would make the Cold War look like a garden party. Britain would then face a stark choice: follow America into a new confrontation or decouple from its most important ally. Neither option is palatable.
What, then, is to be done? Some might counsel patience. Let Trump unleash his tweets, let the circus continue, and trust that the Biden administration can prevail. But patience is a luxury when the clock is ticking and Iran’s centrifuges are spinning. Britain must reassert a distinct voice in these negotiations, as it did in the Falklands or over the Iran hostage crisis. It must remind Washington that diplomacy is not a zero-sum game, that the nuclear deal is not a favour to Iran but a firewall against chaos. This is the moment for British diplomacy to show its mettle, to act as the wise elder statesman who cuts through the bluster.
But there is an even deeper lesson. The French political philosopher Tocqueville once warned that democracies are prone to impulsive foreign policy, driven by popular passion rather than long-term reason. Trump is the apotheosis of that danger. Britain, with its parliamentary traditions and its careful diplomacy, must lead by example. It must not be afraid to gently rebuke its ally, to speak the truth in the forum of nations. If it does not, the ghost of the Fall of Rome and the British Empire’s own decline will haunt us: the lesson that great powers fracture when they lose their strategic compass.
In conclusion, the current crisis is a test of character. Will Britain be a mere accessory to American folly, or will it stand as a pillar of reason in a world of storms? The choice is ours. And the stakes, as always, are civilisational."
