Rupert Wieloch

Or worse? The latest strikes this week are unlikely to bring long-term peace in the Middle East and more likely to lead to revenge attacks for the next decade. One could argue that there never was peace in the Middle East. However, before the beginning of Operation Epic Fury on 28 February 2026, there was diplomatic dialogue, free passage for everyone through the Gulf and economic success. Now, there is the chaos that was predicted by American think tanks, which you can see in the slide below.

Having failed to achieve its strategic objectives, the war has descended into tit-for-tat strikes over the control of the Strait of Hormuz, with the Gulf still closed for business (British Airways has not restarted its operations since they were stopped at the beginning of March). From afar it appears that a Superpower is illegally attempting to take what is not theirs through military blockades and coercion; some might call this colonisation except that it is all about Sea Power and Air Power. Gun boat diplomacy sometimes works, but the Iranian regime is unlikely to bow its head to Washington anytime soon.

Twenty-five years ago, we wrote a paper about America’s role as the World’s policeman after the end of the Cold War. At that time, the USA provided the largest financial support to UN peacekeeping and the World supported them by deploying their blue-helmet forces on the front line. How things have changed. Now, the USA has lost friends and allies, while Iran has gained support from rival powers. Washington’s clumsy demand for a 20% tariff this week is seen for what it is: a desperate attempt at extortion to pay for their folly. Surely, it must be time for a change of approach.

Is a combined arms fighting troops exercise in the United Kingdom that shows the British Public what it means to be At War. In the 1980s, the British Army of the Rhine practised their operating procedures with a deployment of 1st British Corps every autumn, after the farmers had collected their harvest. If it was particularly wet, our 60 ton battle tanks were restricted to roads and tracks. This continued in the UK until the Millennium. For example, in 1994, I organised a brigade FTX that took in the East Midlands, Cumbria, Northumberland and Scotland with live firing at Otterburn and Warcop and gruelling combat training in Kielder Forest.

The organisation of a Corps FTX is probably beyond our current crop of staff officers; for example it takes deep knowledge to co-ordinate a move of 3,000 vehicles without coming to a complete standstill and providing the enemy air force with a sitting-duck target. However, it would not be beyond their capability to link the major training areas of Salisbury Plain, Brecon, Dartmoor, and Otterburn with tanks. artillery and infantry moving between each of them.

The benefits would be two-fold. Firstly, we would relearn many military lessons that have been forgotten in the past 25 years. Second, the public would actually see the armed forces do something real at home not just in some far-away place. For too long, the military has been sidelined in the shadows compared with the American armed forces and those on the front line with Russia.

Exercise Lionheart in Germany

There is a tendency in government departments (and especially the MoD) of avoiding difficult choices. An amusing story that illustrates this is the way Michael Heseltine, as Secretary of State for Defence, avoided making the decision to centralise the three Schools of Music after a number of studies concluded that only one was necessary and money could be transferred to front line troops if one of the three was chosen. A less amusing example is the way the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2007 created the Black Hole that subsequently devastated the Armed Forces fighting capabilities.

Senior officers are as much to blame as the politicians. Between 1999 and 2006, I witnessed countless occasions when the Executive Committee of the Army Board avoided difficult decisions about equipment policy and resources and retreated to their comfort zones of cap-badges and uniforms. The Future Rapid Effects System was a classic army project that failed because it was rooted in theory rather than reality. The problems with Ajax are inherited from that failure combined with the MoD’s headcount reduction forced on the Technical Director’s teams in Abbey Wood (e.g the Reliability and Maintenance Group).

History seems to be repeating itself this month. Politicians are retreating to their comfort zones and avoiding the difficult decisions to meet the Nation’s needs for Defence. Despite the reassuring words from Dan Jarvis this week, we are no closer to resolving the key issues of how to build credible capabilities for the next decade – UAVs may be part of the answer, but Air Power alone will not win a modern war as the USA has learned this year. We need strong armour to deal with the threat.

When is a war not a war? Both Russia and America have begun wars against large independent countries this decade but denied they are in a war to their domestic audiences. In Putin’s words, the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was a “special military operation” to protect Russian national security. In Trump’s words, the “major combat operations in Iran” that he launched on 28 February 2026 were to ensure America “will never be threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran” and to facilitate regime-change.

Both these expensive operations have failed to achieve their stated aims and have stagnated with highly contested front lines in Eastern Ukraine and the Strait of Hormuz. However, there is a significant difference between the two wars. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Air, Maritime and Cyber forces are all engaged, but the vicious hand-to-hand fighting involving ground troops means that the neighbours are still At War and In War. In the Gulf War, the memorandum-of-understanding signed last week pretends that Iran and the USA are not At War, but we all know that the tit-for-tat strikes yesterday will continue and in reality, they remain stuck in a never-ending ideological war.

Why is this important? First, the legal consequences of starting a war of aggression. Second, the Global economic consequences of closing the flow of energy from the Gulf. Third, the diplomatic consequences of breaking the international rule-book. Can this situation be retrieved? Yes, but it will take a Mahatma Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela to overlook the grievances and heal the wounds. Who is waiting in the wings with the political and diplomatic credibility?

Taking a break from the current conflicts that seem to be stuck in perpetual stagnation, I paid a visit to Perugia and Assisi for two commemorations. In October, it is the 800th anniversary of the death of St Francis and the build up has included a magnificent exhibition of the work of Giotto, who brought life to art in the 14th century. I managed to catch the last day of this show in Perugia before visiting the Basilica of St Francis, where Giotto painted a number of frescos.

Below the Basilica, as you can see in the photograph, lies the Commonwealth War Cemetery of Assisi where 946 casualties rest. Fourteen of these were from my regiment, including the tank crew of Leach, Lunnon and Sharp, who could not be separated when they died together on 19th June 1944.

On that day, the 17th/21st Lancers were part of 26th Armoured Brigade, tasked with capturing Perugia. Advancing along the line of the railway, they came under heavy artillery fire. The bridge into town had been prepared for demolition but was unblown. As they were about to cross, an enemy shell hit the charges, which exploded, utterly destroying the bridge. The way was shut and the day turned into a bitter fight through thick and tangled country, where the enemy was hard to locate.

That night the German Army moved west out of the town towards Lake Trasimene. The 17th/21st Lancers continued to support 2nd Rifle Brigade, before they were withdrawn into Perugia for five days to refit the Sherman tanks and recover their casualties. The fighting in Italy is now thought of as a side-show compared with the Normandy Landings, but the reality is that it was a really tough campaign in much harder country than North-West Europe.

The American announcement that the US-Iran deal will be signed on Sunday is a bold assertion given the hurdles to that happening. To my mind, it is symbolic of the difference between the two countries and Washington’s lack of understanding about the devolved nature of the Iranian chain of command.

I have written about this before because it happened in Bosnia in 1995. The West would negotiate a deal with the Bosnian leaders in Sarajevo and then be surprised when the agreement was ignored by the so-called warlords in the provinces. This is not necessarily a characteristic of a failed state, but rather a clever mechanism to ensure its strength is spread to ensure its survival as an independent country. One of the finest examples was in France during World War II when the Resistance did not allow Germany a peaceful occupation.

I spent two years interpreting probabilities when I was Head of Reliability in the Ministry of Defence. In my view, the likelihood of a deal is high, but the chances of it happening today are less than 50%. Will this mean peace in the Middle East? One can only look at historical examples to answer that question and if you look at that data, one might say with some confidence that the percentage is low and conclude this deal is unlikely to last.

The UN Is Watching For A Peace Deal

I know Dan well. He was the best Army applicant for the University of Cambridge MPhil in International Relations in 2009 when I helped him to gain a place at Jesus College. He gave this up to be a politician and has brought a much needed infantry officer’s perspective to the House of Commons. His previous army service commanding soldiers in the parachute regiment and working on operational deployments are clear signs that he has the capacity to cope with the demanding workload as Secretary of State for Defence. However…

Dan is wrong to accept this role because if he does, the military services will be forced to make do with insufficient funds to be credible in the volatile world that we live in today. With two prominent politicians making a stand, now is the time to overturn the Treasury’s disastrous policy of denuding Defence as it has done for the past 16 years.

All soldiers are imbued with the spirit of managing with fewer resources than ideal. In many ways, this has been the characterisation of all my years service. The only Prime Ministers who actually gave us more were Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair in their first terms. So if Kier Starmer wishes to survive, he should follow their example and side with the Armed Forces over the Treasury. And Dan Jarvis should only accept the appointment if the Defence Industrial Strategy is fully funded.

Churchill Didn’t Let Down The Armed Forces