Washington, D.C.
On 8 January, I tweeted about the Sussex-Markles: ‘Obviously the plan is to return to Canada, lead a revolt against British rule, and establish an independent Canadian monarchy.’ Two days later, the New York Times opened a story about the Canada-bound Duke and Duchess of Sussex: ‘Some have suggested they could become king and queen of Canada.’ IT WAS A JOKE! Otherwise, I’m going to have Canadian security surveilling my cottage in Ontario as a node of Sussexite sedition. Yet maybe I had glimpsed something. A poll has suggested that 60 per cent of Canadians would support the appointment of Prince Harry as governor general. When the Sussexes announced their intention to spend last Christmas in Canada, Justin Trudeau tweeted: ‘You are always welcome here.’ He may not have intended ‘always’ to mean ‘permanently’… but the invitation is in writing.
Seventeen years ago, I was part of a presidential administration that chose war with Iraq. We had with us a broad international coalition, an authorising vote in Congress, majority support in public opinion. We were acting at the zenith of US power, at a time when Russia had ceased to be a factor in international politics and China had only barely become one. And still we failed to leave behind a stable, Western-oriented Iraq. In the weeks since Christmas, President Trump has been driving to a similar conflict with Iran. But Trump can claim none of the advantages behind George W. Bush in 2003: no support from Congress, massive public opposition, no international coalition, and a much less favourable international situation. Unlike the Iraq hawks of 2003, today’s Iran hawks deny they intend a war. They say the plan is to squeeze Iran to the point where the Iranian people arise in democratic revolution.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in