Whilst the announcement of a ceasefire will be welcome news to everyone in the region, it is clear a rubicon has been passed, with the US striking Iran’s nuclear sites.

The objective of the mission, to destroy the Iranian ability to enrich Uranium, is only likely to lead to an acceleration by Iran to seek Nuclear weapons. Whilst the sites which had been declared to the IAEA have been supposedly destroyed, there is no way of knowing for sure. Similarly, satellite evidence shows that in the run up to the bombings, trucks were seen moving materials from the sites where they have ended up in a location yet to be determined. At the same time, the challenge now facing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA,) which is the body tasked with assessing nuclear enrichment, and preventing proliferation, is that the Iranians are unlikely to give access to sites going forward – why declare where their next site is after all. With that in mind, arguably it is now inevitable that Iran will obtain Nuclear weapons at some point in the coming years.

In the immediate, the way Hassan Rouhani, the former President was undermined by the West, when he had sought to negotiate a peace, (the Americans refused to ratify the agreements which would result in sanctions relief) has meant the moderates in Iran have lost their ability to influence. The impact of the Americans bombing the sites therefore is likely to lead to moderates within Iran to be even more isolated. Now the fear is Iran will determine there is no value in negotiating a peace, neither is it acceptable to surrender, especially with Trump now talking about regime change.

In the next phase, Iran is unlikely to close Strait of Hormuz if only because their relationship with China will prevent them from doing this. Nonetheless, the Iranian response is unlikely to be nothing. To start with, expect internal dissent to be ruthlessly clamped down, along with a hunt for sleeper agents and succession plans to be organised. Iranian Leader Khamenei has reportedly even already outlined who should replace him if he is targeted. If such an event were to happen and the Iranians were to then retaliate, the biggest concern for the UK, would be that one of the Iranian strikes actually does some significant damage, whilst causing a large number of US soldiers to be killed. In Qatar for example, the primary military base has up to 10,000 soldiers stationed there at any point in time, so a strike on them resulting in large numbers of casualties, could in theory, enable Trump to cite Article 5. In such a scenario, as a minimum, the UK would be expected to make available the overseas territories in the region, to act as fueling stops for ships and bombers, which would directly draw the UK into the conflict.

Whilst that is a worst case scenario, as a minimum, the Iranians are unlikely to accept any peace dictated to them, equally neither can they be forced to the negotiating table. Iran is a country of 90 million people, and the terrain is such, that any invasion would be as hard, if not harder than Afghanistan. Meanwhile invading would trigger an acceleration of missile strikes and counter insurgent actions, such as mining the Strait of Hormuz, or activating sleeper cells, across the UK and USA. Similarly, the loss of life for American soldiers, would make it unacceptable.

Meanwhile Netanyahu has stated Israel is close to achieving its objectives, equally his personal situation is worth noting, as for as long as the war rages, there will be no progress with the long standing corruption trial against him. And as long as the trial does not conclude, he can remain as Prime Minister. Expect therefore for Israel to continue on a hardline path, with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah for as long as the US permits him to.

So what’s next? The UK already is facing Russia as a hostile actor, to have an axis develop including Iran, is not something the country is ready for. The UK needs to remilitarize much faster than it is. The country is not prepared for a serious sustained conflict. One estimate has the UK running out of artillery munitions within a week of a war starting, if fought to the same intensity to that in Ukraine. The best we can hope for therefore, is a period of quiet, where cool heads prevail. Nonetheless, the lesson from the past remains:

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter for clear, timely insights on the political and economic trends shaping the UK labour market: