US voters have done their nation – and the world – a service

Trump and the Republicans are paying a high, and deserved, price for the Iran calamity

You probably won’t agree with all of Mr Embery’s policy prescriptions, but he will force you to think outside your usual political grooves — Wall Street Journal

Photo: Daniel Torok, via Wikimedia Commons

IS Donald Trump about to order the restarting of major combat operations against Iran?

Certain US officials and commentators think it a possibility, and some weeks ago the president himself indicated that a renewed offensive would be launched after the mid-term elections.

There is a suggestion that, with the Democrats set to take charge of Congress in January, Trump may be persuaded to act sooner rather than later.

But more likely the sheer scale of the Republicans’ defeat in the mid-terms has put paid to such plans.

That may be a blessing in disguise for Trump. For any fresh military onslaught would surely serve only to compound his original catastrophic error – with all the adverse consequences it brought for the world – and send his faltering presidency and reputation (such as it is) into an irreversible nosedive.

Trump ought to have listened to his vice-president, JD Vance, who privately warned against the whole Iran folly and knew that, if it went badly, the MAGA base, which was attracted by the president’s pledge to end the ‘forever wars’, would be pretty angry about it. The Republicans’ drubbing at the polls has proved Vance correct.

Many experts and commentators who understood Iran and its governing regime much better than Trump did also counselled against the assault. Events have proved their counsel wise. For surely nobody could look at how things have played out and consider the adventure to have been anything resembling a success.

The theocratic Iranian regime remains largely in place – albeit with new faces - and is now arguably more hardline than it was before. Moreover, there is no hard evidence that its ability to develop a nuclear weapon has been seriously impaired.

In addition, the regime’s tactic in turning the Strait of Hormuz into Bomb Alley – a response that was entirely predictable – has caused profound damage to the global economy, pushing up the cost of living and compromising energy security across the planet.

And, though it won’t matter especially to the White House, the US has, as a consequence of its president’s recklessness, unquestionably been diminished on the world stage.

But such is Trump’s belief in his own infallibility and general all-round arrogance that it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that he will conclude ‘one more heave’ is all it will take to bring total victory over Iran.

If he did, then buckle up, because the global crisis will only deepen.

Let me say, incidentally, that I’m not your average anti-Trump leftist. In fact, I was one of few on the left who didn’t react with horror on each occasion the man was elected president.

While it was always clear to me that Trump was an egotistical oaf, he was undoubtedly – and refreshingly – right on some of the big issues, not least in his critique of globalisation and the damage it had caused to industry and social cohesion across the West, his understanding of the need to moderate the US’s longstanding aggressive foreign policy, and his rejection of militant wokedom and the extremes of DEI ideology.

But the Iran caper, the absurd threats to annex Greenland, his general hostility towards the US’s closest allies, and, of course, his personal unpleasantness, have so damaged Trump’s standing that it means he has often ended up being the worst advocate for his own causes.

This is a point recognised by conservative-minded friends of mine, who tentatively welcomed his rise to political power but often now lament the manner in which he has damaged the entire conservative brand.

So, the bloody nose given to Trump and his party at the mid-terms was thoroughly deserved and ought to serve as a major corrective. But will it? If the president decides, after taking such a beating that the right move is to go for broke in Iran, it will prove that he remains cocooned in his own narcissistic bubble.

And the consequences of that for the US and the world may be unthinkable.

Tory party deserves death, not recovery

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone in Britain would cast their vote for the Conservative party.

I didn’t always see things that way. Though I have never voted Tory in my life, it wasn’t hard to understand why some of my fellow citizens were attracted by the party’s traditional philosophy rooted in small government, low taxation, law and order, and respect for the family unit and national institutions.

The party, when in power, has not always succeeded in its mission. But never did it fail more spectacularly than in the years 2010-24. On virtually every measure, that period of Tory government was abysmal.

The economy remained largely stagnant. Woke took hold throughout our institutions. Social divisions deepened. Brexit was mishandled. Lawlessness reigned in many of our communities. The welfare bill ballooned. And immigration? Well, what needs to be said?

So, I find talk of a Tory mini-resurgence in the polls quite baffling. Why should anyone wish to see the party returned to office so soon after it crashed and burned, taking much of the country with it?

If there was any justice, the party’s most recent outing in government, calamitous as it was, would ensure that it never came near power for a good couple of decades.

In fact, the party deserves to die a slow death.

Scottish government snubs the fallen

At precisely 11.00am on Remembrance Sunday, the Scottish government posted a message via its X (formerly known as Twitter) account.

You’d imagine the message related to the remembrance events, right? Maybe a tribute to fallen Scottish soldiers and a pledge that their sacrifice would never be forgotten?

Well, you’d be wrong. The message wished the Sikh community a happy Bandi Chhor Divas (a major festival in Sikhism).

A second standalone post was made from the account later in the day. That one was about climate change.

When challenged by Conservative MP Harriet Cross over the 11.00am post, first minister John Sweeney went on the offensive. He attacked Ms Cross for seeking to ‘politicise’ the matter and implied that, as the Scottish government account had later reposted one of his own posts about the remembrance events, she was spreading a ‘falsehood’.

Well, I’m with Ms Cross on this one. Why did the Scottish government post the Bandi Chhor Divas message at 11.00am – the very moment the rest of the nation was falling silent in memory of those who had laid down their lives?

And why were the Bandi Chhor Divas and climate change messages deemed worthy of standalone posts via the official Scottish government account but the remembrance events only a repost several hours later (as though it were some sort of afterthought)?

It seems to me to be another glaring example of asymmetric multiculturalism. The SNP government has form for this sort of thing.

Is Remembrance binding Britons more tightly?

Speaking of Remembrance Sunday, I attended the proceedings in the fine city of Norwich, with the act of remembrance being followed by a parade and service at the wonderful Anglican cathedral.

Among the crowds, I got talking to a woman who had been turning up to the event for several years. She felt that the gathering had grown larger in recent times.

Having attended on and off myself over the past 15 years, I think she may be correct.

This may be the consequence of people concluding that, as the war generation itself grows ever small in number, there is an even greater obligation on the rest of us not to forget their sacrifice.

Or – and I suspect this is the more plausible explanation – many native Britons, feeling increasingly buffeted by rapid and deep-seated cultural churn, are huddling together and clinging on to any vestige of patriotic tradition that remains.

Daft cricket rule leaves old boys’ team stumped

Old Hamptonians cricket club, which is comprised of former pupils of the independent all-boys Hampton school, have been relegated from Division One of the Surrey Championship.

Not because they lost too many games. But because they don’t field a junior or girls’ team.

The rule, says the England and Wales Cricket Board, the sport’s governing body, is designed to promote ‘inclusivity’. And if a team cannot meet it, they must pay a price.

Club chiefs pointed out the obvious: that the school itself serves as the junior section, and if team members are drawn from a student body made up exclusively of boys, it’s a bit unfair to receive a punishment for not running a separate girls’ section.

In this DEI-obsessed world, however, such arguments cut no ice.

I’m all for youngsters - girls included - playing cricket. But this absurd rule deserves to be smashed for six.

---

A reminder that you can also follow me on ‘X’: @PaulEmbery