Within Tehran’s divided and vengeful establishment, the race is on to avoid blame. But the regime as a whole has been found wanting.
Plus: What Johnson was supposed to do about Iran from Number Ten that he couldn’t do from Mustique is mysterious. I imagine that it has phones and the internet.
Iran, accustomed to artful brinksmanship and operational deniability, and equipped with an experienced cyber army, may take its revenge online.
The Defence Secretary accused the Leader of the Opposition of spouting anti-American, “anti-imperialist guff”.
The Prime Minister has shown a moderation of which his critics did not believe him capable.
Johnson, Macron and Merkel don’t agree on everything, but they share a common concern about ISIS now being allowed the space to revive.
It isn’t obvious that his foreign policy has been less effective than George W.Bush’s activism or Obama’s passivity. But what’s his aim here?
His decision to mistreat America’s traditional allies in the region, especially the Kurds, now look likes an even worse error of judgement than it did at the time.
The death toll that can be laid at his feet is far greater than that attributable to ISIS and Al Qaeda.
For the first time in decades the levers of British influence – defence, diplomacy, aid and trade – could sit alongside domestic efforts in education and infrastructure.
Johnson’s opponents must avoid the error of supposing it is enough to demonstrate, at least to their own satisfaction, that he is a bad person.
The scale of his domestic ambitions and the legacy of the Iraq War suggest that his ambitions will be limited – for the moment at least.
Donald Trump’s approval ratings in the next month may signal whether he is heading for the fate of Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon.
We economic liberals should be cautiously thankful for the stay of execution that his leadership and manifesto have given us.
My research suggests that parties of the centre-right should be cautious about mistaking transactional voter support for deeper allegiance.