As the conflict in Iran and the Middle East continues, Herald writer Brian Taylor says America is unclear as to its objectives – with an impact upon global defence strategy. 

Missives from the bank are seldom welcome.  This week was no exception.  In a customer message, my bank attempted to assess economic stability after the outbreak of the Iran War. 

It noted, with almost litotic restraint, that the situation was “worrying” – but advised that it was important to “stay calm”. 

I make no complaint.  Eminently sensible guidance.  But a decidedly tough ask in these exceptionally troubled times. 

It is not just that a hideous conflict has arisen in the Middle East.  It is not just the lengthening list of casualties.  It is not just the evident prospect of escalation. 

The underlying concern is that there is no clarity as to the onslaught’s objectives.  From the United States, from Israel, from the Gulf states, from EU nations, from the UK. 

What Labour’s Gorton collapse really tells us about British politics

Starmer is finished but when does Scottish Labour need him gone?

What is left of the Parliament Jim Wallace helped create?

Just how do we cope with President Trump’s self-obsessed world view?

That means it is very difficult to discern how the conflict might be ended, what might be a moment of resolution.  And so equally difficult to calculate how long the fighting might last. 

Team Trump dismiss warnings of an “endless war”.  They talk loosely of four to five weeks.  But this is without accompanying substance.  It is a glib message for the domestic audience from a President who previously said he could settle the Ukraine crisis in a day. 

In practice, there is very little in the way of cogent analysis from the US administration.  Just the barbarous jingoism of the Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth who said of Iran: “They are toast and they know it.”   

I comprehend the origins of such remarks.  A belief that might is right.  A belief that America lost its way in recent years.  Detestation of the terror propagated by Iran.  Enthusiastic support for the US military. 

But such attitudes do not help us discern a route to peace.  They do nothing to clarify the USA’s war aims – and thus give Iran a precise demand to meet. 

The difficulty is that President Trump and his close advisers equivocate as to the purposes of the conflict.  At various points, the President has made three broad claims, each distinctive.

He has said that the purpose was to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime”.  There has been no evidence offered as to the nature of this imminent threat to the USA. 

Alternatively, he has talked of regime change, advising the people of Iran to “take over your government.”  Such talk was then played down by others in Team Trump, such as Hegseth. 

More commonly, it is said that the aim is to excise the prospect of Iran developing an atomic weapons capability from its civil nuclear capacity. 

'The difficulty is that President Trump and his close advisers equivocate as to the purposes of the conflict' (Image: Getty Images)

But there are practical problems with each of these.  President Trump said last year that the Iranian nuclear programme had been obliterated.  Is he now to return annually to secure that gain? 

Secondly, the Iranians deny that they are building nuclear weapons.  It is entirely understandable that such assurances would not be trusted by the USA.  But, if Iran persists in such assertions, it is difficult to see how the issue is resolved without prolonged military action by the USA and Israel.  Perhaps not even then. 

Thirdly, what would regime change look like?  The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been killed.  Yet the regime has closed around him, reconfiguring without any evident transformation. 

To end this conflict, would it require that entire regime to be ousted, perhaps replaced by a fledgling democracy?  Would that remove the terror threat posed by Iran, its malign influence in the region?  What would satisfy Trump? 

In keeping with this uncertainty, the Gulf states face a dilemma.  Under attack from Iran, do they pile pressure on Trump for a settlement?  Or, more probably, do they respond by targeting Tehran? 

And what of the European Union?  The aim of a common EU defence strategy seems fractured.  France and Germany appear cautiously keen to avoid alienating Trump. 

Yet Spain says it is possible to rage against the “hateful regime” of Iraq while also opposing “an unjustified, dangerous military intervention outside of international law.” 

Broadly, the position adopted by John Swinney who told MSPs: “I am in no way, shape or form a supporter of what has happened in the past few days.” 

And the UK Government?  The first couple of days produced equivocation, to some degree, prompting speculation about Ministerial disputes – which the Prime Minister denied. 

Sir Keir Starmer has arrived at a slightly uneasy compromise.  Assisting the USA in “defensive” measures to target Iranian missiles – while rejecting a request for full-blooded support. 

I comprehend his perspective, focusing upon the gargantuan task of repatriating UK citizens from the warzone.  I applaud his endeavours to offer reassurance, although he seemed understandably distrait himself. 

But Iran may not readily grasp the distinction between offensive and defensive.  And President Trump is upset, complaining that Starmer is no Churchill. 

Wisely, Sir Keir refrains from noting that Trump is no Roosevelt.  Instead, he insists that the “special relationship” is still in being, through intelligence sharing and military co-operation, within specified limits. 

But there is a clear shift in attitudes.  In 2003, on the brink of the Iraq invasion, Tony Blair told President George W. Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.”  Starmer says that, in thwarting Trump, he is learning a lesson from the Iraq conflict. 

Does that division matter in the longer term?  Some say not.  The immediate turmoil may subside – just as it did after Harold Wilson refused to commit British troops to the American mission in Vietnam. 

But, much more significantly, there is again a discernible change in global defence strategy, with particular reference to NATO. 

European NATO members – individually and collectively, but not via the EU – have concluded that they must bolster their own defence capabilities.  That will divert spending from other needs, even as economies struggle to absorb the shock of this conflict. 

Which also means the proportion of NATO spending borne by the USA will shrink.  Probably with reason.   But is a MAGA-focused White House now a completely reliable NATO ally?  In all circumstances? 

As our Prime Minister wrestles with a civilian air lift and with accusations of a slow military response, that is the most fundamental question of all. 

Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC. 

© Herald Scotland