The Iran War which erupted in March 2026, has laid bare some realities. It is clear that the US President appears to be behaving as if an autocrat, much to the alarm of liberal voices in the US. What is increasingly evident, though, is the degree to which he leads his government personally and in real time. His thought process (or lack of it) is clearly revealed every time he steps up to a microphone and shares his very subjective version of events. It shows his level of knowledge, his lack of the full appreciation of consequences, his assumption that might will trump all and sheer level of hubris. Conducting a war with the kimono open in this way highlights the vulnerability of a country governed being at the whim of one individual.
It is not difficult to imagine that the President constructed the campaign codename and imposed it – ‘Epic Fury’ has his language all over it. One might think it a minor point, but this is building a picture of someone who is invested in other interests rather than in the national interest. The autocrat and nationalist who obviously has more in common with Vladimir Putin who both do things for their greater credibility, perceived personal security and glory. He has said that the war is nearly over; however, in his presumption he has overlooked that although he may start the war, he may not be the one to end it.
Iran has been driven underground and is hunkering down. They need only hit one US warship and they can call that a victory. US forces need to hunt down and destroy every single missile launcher which are harder and harder to locate the more dispersed they are and the more reduced in number. Not to mention the drone swarms which can be launched from anywhere at any time to threaten the carrier strike group or international shipping. The prevarication that was so evident in the language used to define the US goals is now a snare which the US cannot readily escape from with reputation intact. The war will be over when all parties stop fighting, not when Donald Trump says it is.
The sheer level of presumption is jaw-dropping. Having threatened European allies in NATO over Greenland, then not consulted or even informed them about his plan for Iran, he now expects them a few weeks later to do his bidding sending warships to pick up the pieces of a messy conflict he created.
How does this impact the choices for voters in the UK? Donald Trump is an idealogue – it is important to recognise the type. Idealogues are fine for single issue campaigning but scary as a head of government with any real authority.
He is High Priest of the MAGA sect of the Republican Party, although he primarily espouses the doctrine of MAGA at the expense of the GOP’s traditional values. The Founding Fathers abhorred authoritarianism and imperialism; and despite flirting with imperial trappings in the form of favoured families in government, eagles as national symbols and the occasional ill-judged and fateful forays abroad, the US has, in the main, kept to its founding principles up to the incumbent’s second Presidency.
In this term, his own base in MAGA is already rebelling at his deviation from the prescribed ideology and it is clear that by its nature, ideology will not tolerate dissent – individuals at any level must conform or face cancellation. It will be interesting to see who wins – he should not overlook, though, that in both Russia and Iran, the systems exist to protect and sustain the leader. He may wish it to be so in the US, but he may soon find this not to be the case if he becomes increasingly isolated.
Idealogues have some dreadful disadvantages; unfortunately looking at those definitions shows how remarkably tolerant our society has become to this type and how prevalent those attitudes now are. However, lacking judgement based on principles and values, idealogues promote their alternative reality where only their priorities and doctrine hold sway and exist only in isolation, not to be muddied or contaminated by inconvenient reality and blurred lines.
The United Kingdom requires a party governed by a statesman, not one ruled as a personality cult. This is increasingly likely to be the case though as the country eyes alternatives to the established parties and considers leaders of game-show qualities rather than substance. These individuals should be questioned as prospective heads of government, not as messiahs of their own interests – they should be forced to swap ideology for the national interest across the whole scope of government responsibility. If another government is elected on the basis on no policies at all, then we the electorate deserve what comes next.
If the press will step away from the ‘Gotcha’ questions, the silly ‘yes or no’ answers to complex issues and be bothered to dig deeper for proper answers, propriety, integrity and strategy should receive their appropriate recognition. Case in point is recent criticisms of Prime Ministers past and present which has descended into frankly boring and irrelevant allegations of unproven minor impropriety, mostly nothing to do with the business of governing and generally the purview of their aides or ministers. There seems to be plenty of grounds to question the same people perfectly properly based on their performance in the role.
In attempting to catch out a head of government with silly, superficial questions, it establishes the potential for a blurring of the truth, where the responder fires out glib answers which end up on the record in a quantity that intentionally prohibits a serious or sincere interrogation based on the original question.
In other words, it creates an environment where believable lies hold sway, which then needs considerable effort to be unpicked and contradicted. This plays into the hands of narcissists and autocrats who for different reasons do not always care about the truth anyway.
Goodness knows, with our spiralling national debt, unemployment rising and lack of growth, the last thing we need are single-issue idealogues with no ability to take a contextual view and act appropriately. Least of all those espousing views that are totally contrary to the national character, like: supporting appeasement with Russia; sycophants of either Putin, Trump or both; those espousing Marxism in our century; disassociating the state with the Church of England; bankrupting the country with a pyrrhic victory for environmental policies that harm society and the environment; or encouraging division by pandering to identity politics which highlight silly and irrelevant differences rather than point to our more profound common values.
“Beware of people preaching simple solutions to complex problems. If the answer was easy someone more intelligent would have thought of it a long time ago”.