TEHRAN – Stephen Bell, Treasurer of the Stop the War Coalition and a longtime anti-imperialist activist, believes the recent US-Israeli war against Iran has exposed the limits of Western military coercion while intensifying public opposition to interventionist policies.
In an interview with the Tehran Times, Bell discusses the strategic consequences of the conflict, Britain’s role in supporting Washington and Tel Aviv, the erosion of Western credibility, and why growing anti-war sentiment could reshape the political debate over foreign policy in the United Kingdom.
“From the 1st of March — the day after the opening of the war — the British government allowed US B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers to fly from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to conduct strikes against Iran,” the political writer states.
The following is the full text of the interview:
The military campaign against Iran was presented in Western capitals as a security necessity. Looking back at the conflict, do you believe the primary objective was genuinely non-proliferation, or was it part of a broader attempt to reshape the regional balance of power?
If the primary objective of the military campaign was genuinely nuclear non-proliferation, then the first question we have to ask is: where is the evidence?
Those advocating military action ignored the Supreme Leader’s fatwa declaring the production and possession of nuclear weapons to be contrary to Islamic principles. They also disregarded the assessment of U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who told Congress in March 2025 that there was no evidence Iran was producing a nuclear weapon. Likewise, they ignored the International Atomic Energy Agency’s May 2025 report, which found no evidence that Iran was attempting to develop a nuclear weapon.
In other words, they ignored the available evidence. Ironically, the countries presenting themselves as guardians of the global non-proliferation regime are the United States—the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in war—and Israel, which is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal, and permits neither public scrutiny nor international transparency regarding its nuclear capabilities.
This suggests that the June 2025 attack on Iran, particularly its nuclear facilities, was driven not by non-proliferation concerns but by a political calculation that Iran had become strategically vulnerable. Western leaders interpreted the change of government in Syria and the severe blows dealt to Hezbollah’s leadership as signs that Iran’s regional position had weakened. On that basis, they concluded that it was the right moment to launch the June war.
In my view, the purpose of the campaign was not non-proliferation but the projection of military power. Ultimately, however, the United States had to intervene to rescue Israel after it became clear that Israel had failed to achieve its military objectives against Iran’s nuclear program and that its missile defense systems had been penetrated. In that sense, the initial assault on Iran failed to accomplish its strategic aims, and it had nothing to do with nuclear non-proliferation.
Do you think Western policymakers fundamentally misunderstood Iran’s political resilience and its capacity to withstand external pressure?
I believe Western policymakers’ approach to Iran has long been shaped by what many would describe as racism or, to use Edward Said’s term, Orientalism. That mindset has profoundly influenced their judgment, leading them to miscalculate both Iran’s resilience and how its society and political system would respond to external pressure.
They believed that the unrest in January 2026 had isolated and seriously weakened the Iranian government. In my view, they became victims of their own propaganda. There is a well-known saying that drug dealers should not “get high on their own supply,” and I think that analogy applies here. They came to believe the narrative they themselves had helped create.
According to statements made by Israeli and U.S. officials, they believed they had already made significant progress in destabilizing Iran. Naftali Bennett has reportedly acknowledged that Israel supplied Starlink terminals during the unrest. Donald Trump has claimed that weapons were delivered through Kurdish groups, while Mike Pompeo has stated that the CIA and Mossad were active on the ground during the disturbances. From their perspective, these developments suggested that the Iranian system was nearing collapse.
Underlying these assumptions, however, was a deeper belief that Iran was inherently weak and vulnerable. They expected that the assassination of senior Iranian commanders and other prominent figures would demoralize both the leadership and the wider population. In doing so, they overlooked nearly five decades of Iranian experience in enduring sanctions, external pressure, and war—particularly the hardships of the Iran-Iraq War. Despite that history, they still believed Iran could ultimately be coerced into submission.
I also believe the Trump administration drew confidence from what it regarded as a successful operation in Venezuela, where it attempted to remove the country’s leadership. It appears to have assumed that similar methods could be applied elsewhere, treating very different societies as if they would respond in the same way.
This reflects a broader worldview in which countries outside North America and Europe are often viewed through a colonial lens—as places that are inherently weaker and less capable of resisting Western pressure. Consequently, Western policymakers underestimated the resilience, political cohesion, and capacity of the Iranian people. In my opinion, that fundamental miscalculation stemmed from the very prejudices that shaped their analysis in the first place.
Despite the obvious military superiority of the United States and Israel, neither Washington nor Tel Aviv appears to have achieved a political outcome from this war. What does this reveal about the limits of military power in contemporary conflicts?
The first question I would pose is: why did they rely on military power to begin with? Why start with a military offensive?
I think this brings us to the underlying problem — the underlying weakness of US imperialism today. The United States is in relative economic decline, and the figures make this very clear. In 1993, the US accounted for 20% of the world’s GDP, while China accounted for just 5%. By 2022, the US share had fallen to 15%, while China’s had risen to 18%. Within just a few decades, China has surpassed the United States. The IMF’s own estimates, based on purchasing power parity — a far more accurate measure of economic growth — indicate that China’s economy is now $10.4 trillion larger than that of the US. China grew by 5% in 2025, compared to 2.1% for the United States. In fact, China has been growing at roughly twice the pace of the US since 2019.
This is the reality of American relative economic decline. The United States remains powerful, but it is declining. Where it is not declining, however, is in military spending. The US accounts for more than half of all global military expenditure, and when NATO allies are included, that figure rises to nearly two-thirds of the world’s total. What Washington can no longer achieve through pure economic competition, it now attempts to achieve through military force — and we are seeing this play out across the globe.
We are dealing here with asymmetric warfare, and history offers instructive precedents. The most notable is surely Vietnam, which set the defining precedent and demonstrated that an oppressed people can defeat a militarily superior occupier. More recently, it is clear that the combined weight of NATO was insufficient to consolidate a military victory in Afghanistan.
As for the current conflict, I believe Washington’s objective was regime change and the effective dismantling of an independent Iranian state. For the Iranian people, victory means surviving this war with their sovereignty and their future intact.
In strictly military terms, decades of sanctions have prevented Iran from acquiring the most advanced fighter aircraft technology. Iranian ingenuity has consequently developed what is arguably the most effective missile and drone technology in West Asia.
This asymmetry forced the United States to withdraw its enormously expensive aircraft carriers and warships beyond the range of Iranian missile systems — meaning Washington could not dominate the (Persian) Gulf as it did during the tanker war of 1984, when it effectively took control of the waterway. Iranian counter-strikes against Israel penetrated the Iron Dome, and strikes also destroyed much of the (Persian) Gulf infrastructure from which US forces had been operating against Iran.
This is the nature of asymmetric warfare — and in these circumstances, commanding a multi-billion-dollar aircraft carrier guarantees nothing if it falls within the range of your adversary’s missiles.
Do you believe Western support for Israeli military operations has strengthened or weakened the credibility of Western claims about a rules-based international order?
I think the most succinct answer comes from Arundhati Roy, the celebrated Indian author and activist. She has said that what lies under the rubble in Gaza is not only the bodies of Palestinians, but the carcass of Western liberal democracy. I believe that is absolutely correct.
This is the first genocide of the digital age. The footage and testimonies emerging from Gaza have prevented the complete domination of the imperialist narrative and laid the foundation for an extraordinary international solidarity movement with the Palestinian people — a movement that has in turn laid bare the profound contradictions at the heart of so-called universal values.
Consider, for instance, the right to self-defense. Israel is apparently entitled to invoke this right without question. The Palestinians, the Lebanese, the people of Yemen, the people of Iran — they are not. This selective application reveals the hollow core of the rules-based order.
That order is premised on the existence of international law, multilateral institutions, and the authority of the United Nations. Yet Israel has committed breaches of international law — war crimes too numerous to enumerate — and has been shielded at every turn from accountability before the ICC and the International Court of Justice by the United States and most European governments, who have refused to implement the rulings of these bodies or to act on arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials. Israel similarly refuses to comply with numerous UN resolutions concerning the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the separation wall, Palestinian self-determination, and the mandate of UNRWA, the refugee agency established specifically to assist Palestinians. In each of these refusals, Washington has deployed its veto power at the UN to defend the indefensible.
For a great many people around the world, Gaza has been a turning point. It has made viscerally clear just how thoroughly the carcass of Western liberal democracy has been buried beneath the rubble of war.
The British government has emphasized de-escalation rhetoric while maintaining close strategic ties with Washington. In your view, can Britain realistically claim neutrality during a major regional conflict involving its closest ally?
From the 1st of March — the day after the opening of the war — the British government allowed US B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers to fly from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to conduct strikes against Iran. The British government’s justification was that these were defensive missions aimed at destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, framed around the protection of allies. But permitting the bombardment of Iranian civilians alongside military targets is not a defensive posture. That is war — an offensive, unprovoked, aggressive war.
Subsequently, Britain also permitted the use of Diego Garcia, the joint US-UK base, for operations related to the conflict. Then on the 20th of March, the British government announced it would allow the United States to use its bases to strike Iranian positions in the Strait of Hormuz — this despite Prime Minister Starmer’s public insistence that “this is not our war and we will not be dragged into it.” It is a remarkable feat of hypocrisy to allow your military bases to be used in a war while simultaneously declaring you are not involved.
The war is deeply unpopular in Britain. The most recent opinion polls show 65% of the British public opposed to the war, with just 16% in favor. That goes a long way toward explaining Starmer’s contradictory stance — actively supporting the war in practice while publicly distancing himself from it. The British involvement is visible across multiple theatres: RAF aircraft participated in missions to intercept Iranian drones and missiles over Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, and the Emirates — supposedly in defense of allies. Yet Britain refused to condemn the initial US strikes against Iran or acknowledge the breach of the UN Charter those strikes represented. Defense of allies, it seems, mattered enormously; compliance with international law did not.
This episode demonstrates precisely what happens when British politicians claim to disagree with Washington — in practice, they subordinate themselves to it entirely.
So do you believe Britain cannot credibly claim an independent foreign policy from the United States in moments of international crisis?
Britain’s real influence in West Asia effectively ended decades ago. You can trace its erosion through a series of defining moments: the 1953 coup in Iran, in which the United States broke Britain’s oil monopoly; the Suez Crisis of 1956; the 1958 coup in Iraq; and the 1967 victory of the liberation movement in Yemen. Each of these events dismantled what remained of genuine British influence in the region and led ultimately to Britain’s military withdrawal from east of Suez. Since that point, Britain has essentially aligned itself with the United States on all questions relating to West Asia.
The situation has sharpened considerably since Brexit in 2016. By isolating itself from the European Union, Britain became ever more dependent on the United States — and you can see the consequences in the increasingly uncritical way London has followed Washington. When the US unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, the E3 governments — Britain, Germany, and France — did not defend the accord. They accepted Washington’s unilateral sanctions and allowed European trade with Iran to collapse. In 2017, the final year of full JCPOA implementation, trade between Europe and Iran stood at 21 billion euros. By 2024, it had fallen to just 4.5 billion — roughly 20% of its former value — with no serious attempt by Britain, Germany, or France to negotiate sanctions waivers with Washington in order to protect their own commercial relationships with Tehran.
Then last year, these same three governments imposed snapback UN sanctions on Iran — this after having supported the US and Israeli war that began in June 2025. There is no trace of independence in any of this. The assault on Yemen was framed as a defense of freedom of navigation, yet it served in practice to reinforce the Israeli military campaign, and Britain actively participated. There has been a complete absence of any British diplomatic initiative over Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria, and no meaningful British role in any of the negotiations around regional agreements. Diplomatically, Britain simply does not register as an independent actor.
How do you assess Starmer’s foreign policy legacy regarding Iran, the Middle East, and relations with the United States? And what do you make of his likely replacement, Andy Burnham? Should we expect any change in direction?
As far as Starmer’s legacy goes — this was a former lawyer who specialized in international humanitarian law, yet who publicly stated that Israel had the right to withhold electricity and water from Palestinian civilians. That is an unambiguous war crime. It constitutes collective punishment under international law. And yet he could not bring himself to acknowledge it as a breach of that law.
This was also the leader who spent months assembling an alliance of 40 nations to guarantee freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz — though the initiative ultimately came to nothing, as Washington never gave him the green light to act. Yet his understanding of freedom of navigation was entirely selective. He never condemned Israel’s systematic interference with Gaza’s fishing industry. He never condemned the Israeli seizure of flotillas operating in international waters that were attempting to break the illegal siege of Gaza. He never condemned the Saudi naval blockade of Yemen. And he never condemned the US blockade of Iranian ports. Freedom of navigation, it appears, applied only where it served the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv.
His legacy, therefore, beyond enabling these wars, is one of slavish adherence to US imperialism without making any meaningful impact in the process. He made the British people complicit in the Israeli genocide by continuing to supply arms, intelligence, and RAF overflight permissions throughout.
As for Andy Burnham — will he be much different? He was a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel, which tells you a great deal about his orientation. His principal policy announcements so far have centered on his willingness to cut welfare spending in order to meet the military spending targets that NATO — that is to say, the United States — is imposing on European governments. He may prove more personable and may save a few Labour seats at the next election, but in terms of his fundamental political orientation, he will align himself with Washington. I expect very little break in the continuity of British foreign policy. I am afraid that is the honest assessment.
What do you think should be the first step toward building a sustainable security framework for the Middle East that does not depend on recurring cycles of war?
The decisive question, in my view, is the full implementation of the Islamabad Memorandum — and activists, peace movements, and concerned citizens around the world should be pressing for exactly that.
If implemented in full, the Memorandum would restore Lebanese sovereignty, end the Israeli occupation, and establish a lasting peace for the Lebanese people. It would lift sanctions on Iran and allow the Iranian people to develop free from the coercion that has been systematically imposed upon their civilian population. It would permit the peaceful development of Iran’s nuclear industry within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it supports Iranian and Omani joint stewardship of the Strait of Hormuz — free from threats originating outside the region. And of course, the final deal would bring about the formal end of the war on Iran.
There is undoubtedly a long road ahead, with many problems and obstacles along the way. But this is what we must be demanding: full implementation and the prioritization of these diplomatic tracks in order to build a new architecture of relationships in the region.
On that note, I am genuinely encouraged by reports of an emerging security understanding between the (Persian) Gulf states and Iran. Various early-stage reports — including one I saw from Reuters yesterday (Friday) suggesting that an important meeting between Iran and regional partners may be taking place in Riyadh — are, if accurate, tremendously positive. This is precisely what is needed: the peoples and governments of the region demonstrating that they can guarantee one another’s security without the presence of US forces. The withdrawal of US forces is a precondition for any peaceful resolution.
And lastly — we must never lose sight of this — there must be full recognition of Palestinian rights, including the right to self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state. There will be no lasting or final peace in the region until the Palestinians achieve peace with justice. I am aware that this is an enormous agenda. But I also believe it is a practical one, and one that the peoples of the region are already actively engaged in pursuing. It is incumbent upon people like me, and upon anti-war activists internationally, to do everything we can to ensure our governments are pressing for these initiatives.
Are you optimistic about the ongoing 60-day negotiations between Iran and the United States? And do you think Europe — particularly Britain — is willing or able to play a constructive role?
Sixty days is an extremely tight timeframe. Fortunately, the Memorandum provides for extension by mutual consent, and if that extension is agreed upon, it would itself be an encouraging sign — because the complexity of some of these issues is very real.
If you recall, the first discussion between President Obama and President Rouhani took place in September 2013 — a phone call that marked the first direct contact between the two sides. Both agreed from that conversation that the basis for an agreement existed. And yet it still took two full years from that moment to reach the JCPOA in 2015. Sixty days, therefore, is going to be very tight indeed.
As for Britain’s role, I am deeply pessimistic that we will see any meaningful shift in attitude at this point. The Iranian people have been so systematically demonized in the British, European, and North American media that politicians do not feel they can afford to take a positive stance toward Iran. Consequently, I do not expect any independent British initiatives outside of whatever Washington decides. That is a sad conclusion to reach, but we must be realistic.
Is there anything you would like to add that was not covered in our questions?
Only this: the international peace movement and anti-imperialist activists have responded to the wars on Iran and have tried to integrate this cause into our broader work. Unfortunately, because of the sustained demonization of the Iranian people in Western media, we have not been able to build the same level of public engagement as we have around Palestine.
Within British politics, there is at least a settled general consensus — however imperfectly reflected in government policy — that the Palestinian people possess national rights, that these should somehow be addressed, and that some form of peace process, perhaps involving two states, is desirable. That consensus exists even amid a significant institutional bias toward Israel. We do not yet have an equivalent foundation of public sympathy and understanding when it comes to the Iranian people.
However, I believe that if the momentum around the Islamabad Memorandum is sustained, it will become increasingly clear to people how the Iranian government and the Iranian people are actively contributing to regional stabilization and to a peace process. And I hope that, in time, this will begin to shift the deeply negative attitudes that have for so long dominated public discourse in Britain.
(Stephen Bell is the Treasurer of the Stop the War Coalition, an anti-imperialist activist and political writer)
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
