If Britain joined in a moment of self-doubt, it voted out as a confident, self-assured, optimistic, outward-looking and independent nation state.
Within Tehran’s divided and vengeful establishment, the race is on to avoid blame. But the regime as a whole has been found wanting.
Johnson is “scared to stand up to President Trump” over the US assassination of Soleimani.
“He was not an advocate of a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East.”
The Prime Minister has shown a moderation of which his critics did not believe him capable.
We are well-placed to aid in de-escalating the crisis, and ultimately securing a diplomatic solution.
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.
It is no secret that some senior civil servants in the Foreign Office do not share the Prime Minister’s commitment to implementing the Truro Recommendations.
The seriousness of the uprising can be judged by the severity of the crackdown. Over a hundred people are dead, and the internet has been shut down.
If ministers don’t act soon, jihadis could end up escaping camps in the region and returning to active operations either in the Middle East or further afield.
As well as a response to the immediate crisis, we need to start planning ahead properly and routinely.
The real risk of all this is that it gets praised – but is then quietly filed away. What needs to happen is a change of Foreign Office culture.