
David Lammy sleepwalks into ‘fast-moving' Middle East crisis
Maybe we all wish we could do that. These are the days that many of us would rather had never happened. Does the world feel any safer to you today?
Then there is no accounting for Donald Trump. There has never been a more capricious US president. Even The Donald has no idea what The Donald is going to do next. The only certainty is uncertainty. A man who lives almost entirely in the present. No sense of the past. No sense of the future. Just a collection of unpredictable neurons desperately trying to fire across the synapses.
Just last week, Keir Starmer felt able to sign a communique with other leaders of the G6 – Trump had long since got bored and gone home – which talked of finding a diplomatic solution in the Middle East.
There were hopes that The Donald could be talked out of the military option. That his macho posturing was no more than just that. Hell, even Trump was talking of giving Iran two weeks to come good on reaching a nuclear deal acceptable to the west. There again, the president often says things will happen in two weeks. It's almost a Pavlovian response. Almost as if he has no idea how long two weeks is. Could be a day. Possibly two.
Maybe it was the Taco label that got to The Donald in the end. Trump Always Chickens Out. But sometime between sunrise and sundown on Saturday, The Donald decided he knew better than his own director of intelligence services and ordered stealth bombers to unload their Massive Ordnance Penetrators AKA bunker busters on three of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Trump had asked himself, 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' and had decided that, on the whole, he did feel very lucky. Hell, that Nobel Peace prize wasn't going to win itself, was it?
The reaction was everything the Donald would have hoped for. Total confusion. Chaos. Trump's speciality. The US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, immediately declared the operation a total success. The greatest military raid the US had ever done. No other president could have been that visionary.
Iran's nuclear capability had been totally destroyed, Pete said. Just as the rest of the world were saying there was no real evidence as yet to support that. Maybe Iran's nuclear facilities were still in the game after all. But don't worry, Pete added. Everything was going to be just fine. This was just a one-off. Regime change had never been part of the plan. Hold my beer, The Donald chipped in.
Back in Blighty, David Lammy was trying to play catch-up. Trying to look as though he had known about the military operation all along, when he had been just as blind-sided as the rest of us. That he had got the call from the president when the planes were about an hour out of Iran and been presented with a fait accompli.
Even now, he was still unsure whether it would have been better to be in on the plan – part of the inner circle – or to have the legitimate deniability of the outsider.
Come Monday morning, Lammy was in entirely defensive mode on Radio 4's Today programme. Refusing to answer any questions about whether the US action had been lawful. 'We weren't involved,' he said, time and again when Justin Webb pressed him.
Which wasn't really the point. The UK was certain that other wars in which we were not involved were unlawful. So if we could pronounce on their legality, how come the foreign secretary was so reluctant to give a view on the US bombing Iran? A simple yes or no would have cleared things up.
Things were no clearer when Lammy gave a statement to the Commons in the afternoon. Iran couldn't have nukes, he said. It had failed to reassure the west. So … it had sort of had it coming. Not that we Britons would have gone about things that way, but the Americans quite liked the smell of napalm in the morning.
Now things got even more confused. Because although the escalation had been one of those things that just happen from time to time, it was now time to de-escalate.
And it was up to Tehran to dial things down a bit. Run that one past me again, Dave. Iran was the one that had just been attacked and it was somehow their fault. They were the ones who needed to come to the negotiating table. Clearly different rules apply in the Middle East.
We need a diplomatic solution, said Lammy. Though he couldn't rule out a little more recreational bombing in the days ahead. 'What happens next is hard to predict,' he concluded. Code for 'HELP'. 'RUN FOR THE HILLS'.
This was to be a session of firsts. Because in reply, Priti Patel said she wanted to work constructively. Something she has never before done in her life. Mostly, though, she was just sad that she wasn't foreign secretary and could have launched a few bombs of her own. There's no way she would ever have been left out of the loop. Please, please, she begged. If there is to be a second attack, please can she join in. Possibly even flying a plane.
Other people saw things differently. Emily Thornberry observed that the only way to end the crisis was with a deal and at present she could see the US had no clear objectives. Negotiations could only be successful if there was mutual trust. And bombing wasn't generally conducive to trust. Wimp, muttered Priti Vacant. Constructive to the last.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer to give major press conference after Rachel Reeves seen crying
Keir Starmer will give a press conference on the Government's NHS plans - a day after Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen crying in the chamber at PMQs. The PM last night insisted her tears were "nothing to do with politics" and said she would remain in post for "many years to come". Mr Starmer has admitted though that it has been a tough week for his government after a massive Labour rebellion saw flagship welfare reforms torn up. The Prime Minister is expected to appear alongside Health Secretary Wes Streeting to unveil a new 10 year NHS strategy. He will unveil his vision for the NHS in a major speech, which will see him pledge to "fundamentally rewire" the health service. The plan, to be published today, will set out how the NHS will move from analogue to digital, treatment to prevention, and from hospital to more community care. By 2035, the intention is that the majority of outpatient care will happen outside of hospitals, with less need for hospital-based appointments for things like eye care, cardiology, respiratory medicine and mental health. It comes near the end of a torrid week for the PM. In an interview with the BBC he admitted: : "I'm not going to pretend the last few days have been easy, they've been tough. "I'm the sort of person that then wants to reflect on that, to ask myself what do we need to ensure we don't get into a situation like that again, and we will go through that process. "But I also know what we will do and that's we will come through it stronger." He was taunted by Kemi Badenoch about Ms Reeves' future, with the Tory leader suggesting the Chancellor was "toast". But hours after failing to back her in the Commons, he told the BBC: "She's done an excellent job as Chancellor and we have delivered inward investment to this country in record numbers. "She and I work together, we think together. In the past there have been examples - I won't give any specifics - of chancellors and prime ministers who weren't in lockstep. We're in lockstep." The PM said Ms Reeves's tears were to do with a personal matter, on which he would not elaborate. He said it had "nothing to do with politics" or this week's dramatic welfare U-turns. Pressed on whether it was, Mr Starmer said: "That's absolutely wrong. Nothing to do with what's happened this week. It was a personal matter for her, I'm not going to intrude on her privacy by talking to you."


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
What's really going on with Rachel Reeves?
👉Listen to Politics At Sam And Anne's on your podcast app👈 Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics. After Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen visibly sobbing at PMQs, the prime minister last night confirmed she would be chancellor for a long time to come - but will that be enough to calm fears in the markets? And what do we think is really going on with the chancellor? Sam and Anne discuss. And what about Keir Starmer's fate - are some in his own party questioning his longevity? Also, the NHS 10-year plan includes the creation of 200 new neighbourhood health centres as well as improvements to the NHS app - but does it improve the fundamentals?


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
This feels both sacrilegious and scary, but I have a bone to pick with Oprah Winfrey
A very unusual thing happened at the weekend, an event so outlandish, so vanishingly rare, that even in these times of general chaos and disorder it deserves our attention: someone prominent joined the tiny cohort of people willing to publicly criticise Oprah. I'm not talking about an attack from the right. Donald Trump and his Maga cronies routinely go after Oprah Winfrey as (feel free to laugh) a lefty agitator. I'm talking about the actor Rosie O'Donnell, on Instagram, calling out America's queen for showing up at the Jeff Bezos wedding. Of course, criticising someone for throwing in their lot with Bezos shouldn't be in the least controversial. The gross parade of wedding guests attending his marriage to Lauren Sánchez in Venice last weekend looked like a catwalk of shame. There was Leonardo DiCaprio, hiding his face with his hat (we still see you!), in the company of his positively geriatric 27-year-old girlfriend, Vittoria Ceretti. There were the Kardashians, not hiding their faces. There was Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. And there, accompanied by her lady-in-waiting, Gayle King, who walked several paces behind her as is proper, was Oprah Winfrey. Why shouldn't Oprah go to the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez? It's a big splashy event that, given the chance, wouldn't any of us have gone to as well? (Honestly? Probably.) Still, we hold Oprah to higher standards. It's Oprah, for god sake, the woman we grew up adoring, who burst through so many ceilings, who Tina Fey correctly cast as a god-like figure in that episode of 30 Rock (where her character, Liz Lemon, took too many pills, got on a flight, and hallucinated that Oprah was sitting next to her in club class). In that scene, Fey did what we would all do if encountering Oprah while our inhibitions were lowered: she sniffed Oprah's hair, told her she loved her and went on a deranged monologue that included the phrases 'I eat emotionally' and 'I saw your show about following your fear and it inspired me to wear shorts to work'. And it's not only love that staunches our criticism of Oprah. We also fear her. It has been the case for years now that the quickest and most effective way for a screen personality to curb press criticism is to launch a book group, guaranteeing that every hack touting a book – which is every hack in existence – nurtures a tiny flame of hope they will be chosen and whisked away from all this. Who among us has a bad word to say about Sarah Jessica Parker (hello!), or Reese Witherspoon (hi!), or the apex predator of celebrity book groups, the original and best, Oprah. Likewise: who can forget the cautionary tale of what happened to Jonathan Franzen in 2001 when he expressed doubt that being selected for Oprah's Book Club was the best thing ever to have happened to him? Granted, Franzen's criticism was graceless. (He suggested Oprah's picks were a bit low-brow.) But his broader point about TV consuming literary culture was given no credence whatsoever. This was a few years before James Frey's makey-uppy memoir was exposed, and Oprah's book club brand briefly damaged. Instead, Franzen was burned alive for his remarks, not least by Joyce Carol Oates, whose novel, We Were the Mulvaneys, was chosen by Oprah that season and who told me at the time: 'Jonathan Franzen perceives the Oprah book readers as mainly women, and he would prefer a male readership.' Brutal. Anyway, back to Rosie O'Donnell, an icon in her own right who is now living in Ireland after making good on her threat to leave the US if Trump was elected. 'Is Oprah friends with Jeff Bezos,' she asked rhetorically on Instagram in the wake of the wedding. 'Really? How is that possible? He treats his employees with disdain. By any metric he is not a nice man.' That was it. Doesn't look like much, but it was seismic given the general timorousness around Oprah. And this despite years of evidence that a woman who was once a trailblazer for good has drifted into murkier waters, from her promotion of shonky showbiz medic, Dr Oz, to her enabling of cranks like Jenny McCarthy, and the power of positive thinking pseudoscience of Rhonda Byrne, to showing up at the wedding of one of the world's richest men, who begrudges his minimum wage workers their pee breaks. Going back further, you can even take issue with the aspirational tone of Oprah's original brand, the only sustained critique of which I've read is by Janice Peck, an academic at the University of Colorado, who wrote a book called The Age of Oprah in which she questioned whether the media titan's dare-to-dream ethos was so apolitical as to skew heavily rightwing. Per Oprah's narrative, said Peck, 'she was poor and living in sackcloth someplace and then became Oprah Winfrey and everything in between and the whole historical context, all the conditions that made it possible for her to succeed, disappear. The American dream is based on that notion of: if you just put your mind to it.' I understand this point, although I also think there's room for dare-to-dream cheerleading alongside rigorous, data-supported policy platforms. But whichever way you see these things, the bottom line is we should be able to criticise Oprah, right? This should not be hard. And yet as I type this, now, I have a small knot of dread in my stomach. Oh, god. I've done the wrong thing, haven't I. Oprah! I'm sorry! I didn't mean it! I still love you! Please pick my next book for your book club! Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist