After Iraq, are we quite sure that smashing Iran is the sensible, proper thing to do? asks Andrew Marr

17 June 2025, 20:10 | Updated: 19 June 2025, 11:10

By Andrew Marr

@AndrewMarr9

“An end. A real end. Not a ceasefire.” What President Trump means by that, pretty clearly, is that whatever happens next, Iran can no longer have the means to create nuclear weapons.

But those means are still there, buried under a mountain. And Israel has now gone so far in attacks, assassinations and the rhetoric of regime change, there’s no way back.

If Iran survives in its present form and is able to produce nuclear weapons, they will be used one day, against Israel. Therefore, almost by definition, the Israel-Iran crisis cannot de-escalate until the Nuclear threat is ended, either by negotiation or by further bombing, which would probably have to involve the Americans.

As you heard last night from a senior Washington advisor Kenneth Katzman, Trump’s preference is strongly for a deal. But can even he trust the Iranian regime?

Confusion all round: Keir Starmer says Trump isn’t going to war, the former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt says he clearly is. And in the last hour, the Vice President JD Vance has said he might.

Then, in the last few minutes, Donald Trump himself has waded in.

Addressing Ayatollah Khamenei directly, he said: “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

At this point, let’s stand back and sum up.

An autocratic regime, prone to executions and torture. A regime trying to get nuclear weapons and not so far away, armed with fearsome rockets. A regime seen as a threat to the whole region and has oppressed its own people.

A regime, therefore, which absolutely needs to go. Because whatever follows can’t possibly be worse, can it?

And then I remember my younger self and I think, hold on, I’ve heard this before. The arguments are uncannily like those before the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein 22 years ago.

Now it’s true that Iraq no longer threatens Israel or other parts of the Middle East. But that invasion provoked years of civil war, the hideous theocratic tyranny of Islamic state and a country still mired in misery.

The Brown University costs of war project estimated the invasion of Iraq directly caused up to 350,000 deaths and indirectly perhaps a million more, because of the collapse of infrastructure and healthcare; disease and so forth. Iraq today is a more peaceful country, but a very fragile one. Isis cells and other militias continue to operate. Power supplies are irregular and there is deep poverty.

And so I ask: what have we learned? After Iraq, are we quite sure that smashing Iran is the sensible, proper thing to do?

________________

Listen to Tonight with Andrew Marr at 6pm, Monday to Thursday on the new LBC app.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk