King’s Speech

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I want to talk about the war in the Gulf. I do not often agree with Rachel Reeves but I had some sympathy with her when she told her opposite number in America that the war in Iran had made the world more dangerous. The Iranian regime is murderous, duplicitous and criminal. Regime change is something profoundly to be wished for, but this is not the way. It has to come from within.

The economic effects of the war could be far-reaching. It is not just fuel but, as my noble friend Lord Callanan pointed out, food. The Gulf is at the heart of the global fertiliser market, where many producers depend on gas. As we approach the planting season, if that is delayed then we could see something more serious than just shortages.

President Trump has started a war he does not know how to end. The war is justified on two dubious claims. First, there was no imminent threat to the US. Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, made that crystal clear in his resignation speech. Equally, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, in her evidence to Congress made clear that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said, this war had no clear objectives when it started, and now the objective is to get back to where we were before it started.

The President seems to see two options: escalation or economic attrition. It remains unclear whether the US blockade of Iran will force Iran to capitulate more quickly than Iran’s blockade of the rest of the Gulf will hurt its neighbours. For the American blockade to succeed, it has not just to cause hurt but to bring the regime in Iran to its knees—a higher threshold. On escalation, the US can reduce Iran to a pile of rubble, but the consequences could be as dangerous as they were in Iraq. The last thing that the Middle East needs is another failed state. The CIA apparently has warned that bombing again would probably lead to a wider conflict and, even worse, damage further the infrastructure of the neighbouring Gulf countries. It is a grim situation and it could all have been avoided.

The tragedy is that we had, in 2015, a nuclear agreement—for which I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—which Iran observed, submitting to rigorous international inspection and confining enrichment to low levels. President Trump chose to tear up the deal. Why? For no reason, apparently, other than that it was President Obama’s deal. Unsurprisingly, the Iranians then reacted by enriching to much higher levels while emphasising that this policy was reversible if the West came back to the negotiating table.

Is a deal possible today? The JCPOA ought to provide the template. Both sides, according to reports, have dropped some red lines. According to some, America is now pressing not for a ban on enrichment but for a number of years without enrichment. The Iranians have sent proposals through Pakistan to negotiate in phases. A phased agreement is indeed a possibility, as it would give the opportunity to build some trust. Reports say that US intelligence agencies have been asked to analyse the effects of the President simply declaring victory and withdrawing from the conflict. No one wants to see America humiliated or Iran strengthened, but the alternative of restarting the war and the bombing is not the answer. It would be futile. In the end, after more fighting and more deaths, there would be negotiation—better to start now and let diplomacy have its day. Better jaw-jaw than war-war.