Discussions on going to war have become a circus

Ever since the mid-1990s, I have been deeply involved in the debates on every foreign intervention the UK has and has not made in the Middle East. This has meant protracted meetings with ministers, parliamentarians and officials, as well as debates in the media.

Yet one thing stands out in 2026 and the US-Israeli war on Iran: This is by far the most low-grade debate on any conflict Britain has engaged in over the last three decades.

Even in the run up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003, the analysis and debate were of a higher caliber. But it does not appear that the UK experience is unique.

The tenor of the debate has descended into a farcical mishmash of chest-thumping, hyperbolic histrionics and cheap political point-scoring. War is being trivialized. The White House’s advert promoting the war was a stunning example of this.

Equally as jaw-dropping is the way the media, much of which feels far more jingoistic than the general public, has recycled the same faces that promoted and sold the colossal failure that was the 2003 war on Iraq. Rather than treat them as the largely discredited rabble they are, much of the media gives them top billing. Even Tony Blair, the architect of the Iraq war failure, was taken far too seriously when he promoted the war, given his record.

There has not even been a vague attempt to assess the pros and cons, the rights and wrongs or the implications of this war

Chris Doyle

There has not even been a vague attempt to assess the pros and cons, the rights and wrongs or the implications of this war on Iran. For sure, there are reasons that support multiple positions, but these should be forensically tested.

Discussions on war used to be sober affairs. War was the most onerous of decisions to be taken, which demanded due care and attention. Yet, in 2026, questions as to whether the war is legal, wise and well-planned or whether negotiations and diplomacy would have succeeded are dismissed out of hand. This approach is dead. The absence of any proper American and Israeli strategy or planning is part of this.

Discussing going to war has become a circus. Many on the right in Western politics simply argue that because the American president is going to war, other leaders must back him. Not joining the war is depicted, quite falsely, as cowardly. A host of right-wing war hawks have described the British decision not to join the attacks on Iran as making it irrelevant — a ludicrous argument. Remarkably, many of those pushing these views normally insist that the UK must make its own sovereign decisions. But not on this.

Opposition to the war among the public in Europe and even the US is overwhelming, not that this matters much in the media. The British right derisively dismisses this as “the Muslim vote,” yet only 8 percent of the British people would back London joining the war, so the opposition is found in all communities.

And where was the debate prior to the war about defending regional allies? The complacency was shocking. It was as if many thought that talk of such Iranian missile and drone attacks was just scaremongering.

Experts on the Middle East, even ones from the region, now seem to be given far less exposure in the media

Chris Doyle

Also ignored is why the Israeli role is off-putting for potential wartime allies of the US. Israel is perpetrating what many experts view as a genocide in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Netanyahu is largely not trusted in Israel and certainly by other international leaders. Many Middle Eastern states, as well as European nations, do not want to be fighting alongside a government with this record. Netanyahu’s agenda is also not the same as Trump’s. He wants to prosecute the war on Iran for far longer than others and smash it far harder.

Another feature of the debate on this war is the further decline in expertise on the Middle East in policy and decision-making circles. For example, Westminster used to have access to a wealth of expertise. There used to be members of Parliament reasonably familiar with international affairs.

Those days are over, not because MPs have lost interest but because politics is now so domestic — they do not have time for international issues. Even diplomats and civil servants are no longer of the quality of yesteryear. In the US, this administration has ditched most of its career experts in the State Department and the Pentagon. That has consequences when devising successful war plans.

The remaining experts on the Middle East, even ones from the region, now seem to be given far less exposure in the media. This is just like Iraq in 2003, when expertise was sidelined.

None of this helps cultivate a proper policy or consensus about the Middle East. Those forces that are engaged in this conflict, even in a defensive capacity, are entitled to demand a coherent, well-thought-out approach to know that their efforts will make a positive difference.

Is a cool, calm examination of the options still possible? It does not seem likely, even if the return of grown-up debate is sorely required.

• Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech