Has the UK really learned the lessons of Iraq? Don't count on it

For once the UK did not participate in a US war in the Middle East. This is a rarity in the 21st Century. Britain was a key partner in the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq; the NATO operation in Afghanistan, as well as attacks on Libya, Syria and Iraq once again. In 2024, UK forces had helped intercept Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israel as well as participate in attacks on the Houthis in Yemen.

Has the UK learnt its lessons about interventions in the Middle East? In his 23 June statement following US attacks on Iran, the Foreign Secretary David Lammy said of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war in 2003, that “our Government - and, I hope, all future UK Governments - have learned from its findings”.

There is relief, perhaps surprise, that the UK did not join Israel and the US in attacking Iran and that UK military bases at Akrotiri in Cyprus and Diego Garcia were not used. It is still debated whether the 2003 Iraq war was legal, yet in the same statement, Lammy continuously dodged questions about the legality of such attacks.

UK involvement in this war would have been reckless, but at the heart of British foreign policy remains inconsistencies and double standards which only cement the idea of UK irrelevance on a global stage.

On 13 June Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that it was “clear that Israel has a right to self-defence” to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yet it was Israel that launched an aggression on Iran. Its attacks cancelled the 6th round of US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman. It was still unclear whether there would be UK involvement.

Israel never provided the evidence to justify its aggression. The intelligence over the Iraqi WMD programme has been dangerously politicised. Yet on Iran, many commentators misrepresented the IAEA report and politicised intelligence suggesting that it had concluded that Iran was on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon which it wasn’t.

That the UK even contemplated joining Israel in its attacks on Iran, is staggering, particularly given that Israel had no exit strategy. If it were not for the exit forced on them by President Trump, the likelihood of Israel still attacking Iran is high. The UK was wise not to get into a conflict which might have lasted months or years, and still yet might.

Partnering up, and serving platitudes to an Israeli government that is committing genocide and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, bombing and occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria, is embarrassing at best, complicit at worst.

Netanyahu is also wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC. The UK had just sanctioned two key Israeli Ministers. How could a responsible power that claims to stand up for international law partner with such a government?

All too predictably, the horrific situation for Palestinians in Gaza was deprioritised. Israel’s war on Iran meant that the horrors endured by Palestinians in Gaza were relegated to the sidelines. The war on Iran was convenient cover for the Israeli armed forces to continue their bombardment and starvation of a besieged civilian population. This is reminiscent of the failed promises of Bush and Blair to implement the 2001 roadmap for peace.

Both the Iranian and Israeli regimes have demonstrated consistent contempt for international law and perpetrate extensive human rights abuses. Both are destabilising the region, but Israel is still considered an ally whilst continuing to act as a pariah. The tough talk on Iran is more emblematic of the continued British pandering to the Israeli government, rather than an attempt to stop Iran, and demand freedom for Iranians.

Failures of the UK and other European states to stop what Israel has been doing in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, the lack of condemnation and action, the diplomatic wrist slapping, has given Israel an even freer hand to do what it wants in Iran - with limited success in stalling nuclear enrichment (one of its stated goals), and the possibility of making the region far less safe.

Such failures have allowed Israel to act with impunity, not least in Gaza and the West Bank. What is perhaps most dangerous and indicative of political failure, is the stated remarks from European leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who spoke of “the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us”, in attacking Iran. Indicative of the blind support for Israeli actions and an assumption that military strikes would thwart an Iranian nuclear programme.

Much of the criticism of the UK government centres on its refusal to stand by international law. “In opposition, there was no equivocation. But in government, there has been much more equivocation around the UK’s commitment to international law”, wrote British-Iranian dual national Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was detained in Iran’s Evin prison for five years. She warns of the “dangerous reluctance from Starmer’s ministers to criticise the illegality of allies joining in Israel’s war on Iran”.

The hard real-politick of dealing with President Trump requires bravery perhaps, and the UK isn’t alone in backing down from a confrontation with him. But Trump serves as an excuse not to be defiantly in favour of international law, as a get out clause for inaction and inconsistent policy. US actions have allowed the exclusion of Britain, France and Germany, and have given them exclusive hold over these talks, excluding Europeans.

Through this over simplification and distortion that Israeli actions make us safer in the West, it has become routine for some western politicians to dismiss and deny the agency of Iranians. With each and every bomb, Israel offers us the opportunity for it to be done in ‘our name’ too.

Calls for regime change are all too often performative solidarity, or not solidarity at all. This includes those who cheer led the war on Iraq, and refuse to criticise Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Those making fake claims to support Iranian freedom, disregard those inside Iran who abhor Israel’s war on them. Those making fake claims for their freedom, disregard them as standard bearers for the Iranian government, even as they fight against its repression, outside of regime change being imposed on them.

This has only emboldened the regime in Tehran. Israeli conduct has allowed Iran to play the victim, and has reduced mounting pressure. There are increased fears at how the Iranian government will respond with crackdowns, arrests and executions of those thought to have collaborated with Israel.

Israeli aggression, has set back the efforts of those inside Iran to determine their own future. So have our political leaders.

It is grotesque to see the most ardent cheerleaders of carnage and destruction perform women’s rights and queer activism, because it suits their agenda on Iran. We have been here before, and it never becomes any more palatable. These are the instigators of further repression, and not allies. Such voices have either been silent or proactively hostile on the countless numbers of dead, injured, and starving Palestinians in Gaza, or on Lebanon or Syria.

Has the UK establishment learnt lessons from previous Middle East disasters? If it has it is superficial at best. The military option was considered. Ill thought out platitudes such as Israel’s right to self-defence were still trotted out. But above all the UK has failed over the last two years to hold Israel to account, a failure that Netanyahu saw as a green light to set the region on fire on all fronts. All too sadly the British approach is shaped by events, rather than be designed to shape them.

Joseph Willits is Head of Parliamentary Affairs at Caabu (Council for Arab-British Understanding). At Caabu, Joseph has led numerous cross-party Parliamentary delegations to Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine, and engages regularly with parliamentarians.

Follow him on X: @josephwillits

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.