By Peter Young

With the US launching airstrikes against Iran over the weekend, the Middle East is at a delicate and dangerous point as tensions reach a new peak. Earlier, President Trump had stated publicly that he would take a decision about bombing Iran’s nuclear sites in two weeks’ time. In reality, he acted in two days.

Those returning home late from Saturday evening social events may have tuned in to TV coverage of Trump announcing the US precision bombing attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities that had just taken place. He said that the strikes on three different sites, which had been demolished or severely damaged, had been a “spectacular success”. They included an attack, using a powerful so-called bunker-buster bomb on the deep underground Fordo uranium enrichment plant which, reportedly, is seen as the crown jewel of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Others counsel caution in waiting to see to what extent Iran’s nuclear threat has been successfully neutralised so that this American bombing can remain a one-off. Trump indicated, that his initial assessment was that the successful action could mark the end of the current conflict and open the door to further diplomatic talks and a lasting negotiated peace. That said, he warned that any retaliatory action on, for example, US bases in the region would be met with an overwhelming American military response and start a more deadly phase of continuing war.

As people will be aware from extensive media coverage, recently Israel has been mounting its own targeted airstrikes on Iran – within its more limited bombing capacity than the US - on these nuclear sites and the Iranian military, and these have inflicted widespread damage including killing some of its commanders and nuclear scientists. For its part, Iran has been responding with its own airstrikes on targets within Israel.

Clearly, people in the region and in the wider world now await a reaction from Iran to the US airstrikes but its foreign minister has already condemned the US action, commenting that, by attacking the country’s peaceful nuclear installations, the US has violated the United Nations Charter, international law and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General has warned of a ‘spiral of chaos’, particularly if there is retaliatory action by Iran or its proxies. As well as Trump’s warning of overwhelming US force if Iran attacks American bases locally, there is the danger of the Houthi rebels in Yemen increasing their attacks against US and other foreign shipping in the Red Sea.

What is now needed is rapid de-escalation before the situation becomes further out of control and a wider war is precipitated. The key to the issue is, of course, whether Iran’s nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes. Despite denials by the Iranians who insist that that is the case, Israel and the West maintain that Iran is enriching uranium to the extent needed to produce a nuclear weapon; and they and others have made it clear that Iran must never be allowed to do this.

Unsurprisingly, the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, has praised the American airstrikes in triumphant tones. He has spent much of his political career condemning the threat of Iran as the world’s most dangerous sponsor of international terrorism - including financing Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza – and which has consistently called for the destruction of Israel and its people.

Earlier reports of Israel’s recent bombing attacks on Iran included talk of regime change. But it is noteworthy that this seems to have been dropped more recently. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said explicitly at Sunday morning’s Pentagon press briefing that the operation against Iran on Saturday was not about overthrowing the government and installing a new one. Its objective was to ensure that Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon. The US government has made it clear that it has no interest right now in bringing down the government in Tehran; and it does not want prolonged direct involvement in the country.

The whole notion of one country seeking to bring about political and institutional change in another one -- often by force -- is a highly charged issue not for debate today. It is well known that the US has a chequered history in interfering in the affairs of other countries around the world. There are many who would like to see the back of the theocratic regime in Iran. But it is clear that the priority for policy-makers in Washington, most importantly the president himself, is to see an end to the nuclear weapons threat from Iran.

Trump has taken a huge gamble in putting the US at the heart of the Israel-Iran conflict. The airstrikes at the weekend were an aggressive move for a president who has boasted of not starting any new wars during his first term and who was elected this time on a promise on the campaign trail to keep out of foreign conflicts and be a peacemaker. So it is likely that some of his MAGA supporters will not like this new potentially dangerous involvement in the Middle East.

BRITAIN’S ANNUAL TROOPING THE COLOUR

Amidst the customary pomp, pageantry and display of military precision, the annual Trooping the Colour ceremony on Horse Guards Parade earlier this month to mark King Charles III’s official birthday was as impressive as ever. As Colonel in Chief of the Coldstream Guards, the King not only inspected the regiment on parade but also presented new “colours” to it. Horse Guards Parade in central London is a majestic ceremonial parade ground surrounded by grand architecture. It is a fine setting for Trooping the Colour and other important events.

After the parade the Royal Family returns to Buckingham Palace to join the huge crowds and watch the traditional RAF fly-past of the spectacular Red Arrows together with an array of vintage military aircraft.

Against the backdrop of the ill health of the King and Princess of Wales, the press has been saying that this year’s ceremony was particularly important for the Royal Family as King Charles needed to show yet again his devotion to duty and strength and resilience. But such a consideration applies all the time as the public constantly seeks and receives reassurance about his health while his commitment is taken for granted. To my eye, the whole event this year seemed more relaxed than has sometimes been the case in the past, but perhaps that was because of the wall-to-wall sunshine throughout the day as the rain stayed away.

As I have written before, people wonder why the King’s birthday is celebrated in June when he was born in November. The simple answer is that, going back to the middle of the 18th century, it was considered better to have this sort of parade to observe the monarch’s birthday officially in June when the weather was likely to be good rather than on the individual’s actual birthday if that happened to be during the winter when conditions would hardly be suitable.

So, another splendid ceremonial event in Britain which always shows the country at its best. May this wonderful tradition long continue.

ASSISTED DYING TO BECOME LEGAL IN UK

In Britain, both assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal. The former is a criminal offence while euthanasia, when a healthcare professional administers a lethal injection, is considered murder or manslaughter. In the UK, under current legislation, anyone who helps a terminally ill person to end their life can face a police investigation and prosecution.

There are a number of reasons for the nation’s attitude and position, under the law, to euthanasia. It is based on the sanctity of human life and the generally accepted principle that it is wrong to end the lives of innocent human beings. There is also the danger of devaluing people’s lives that can lead to physicians ignoring other methods of relieving pain and suffering as well as the argument that, if euthanasia were allowed, vulnerable people might be put under pressure to end their lives when they did not really want to do so. This includes the persuasion or coercion of people to take such action because others want their money and are looking at ways of securing immediate access to it, not least family members who expect to inherit substantial sums under a person’s Will.

These issues are in the news in the UK at the moment because last week the British Parliament narrowly voted - after many hours of emotional debate including a number of stories of personal experiences - in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people. It was first debated, and approved in principle, in the House of Commons in November last year.

Before becoming law, the bill will now undergo months of scrutiny in the House Lords, which may put forward amendments, though generally this unelected upper legislative chamber is reluctant to change substantially or block legislation of this sort that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons.

This is a private member’s bill rather than an official piece of legislation proposed by the government itself. The House of Commons last voted on the issue in 2015 when the idea of legalised assisted dying was rejected, before agreeing to it in principle last November.

Since the bill is now subject to further scrutiny in the upper chamber, minor changes of detail might be made that will doubtless be worth discussing at a later point. However, it should be recorded now that it is called officially the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Formally, it gives mentally competent individuals over 18 years old, who are terminally ill with six months or less to live, the right to choose to end their lives with medical assistance.

Thus, such people, subject to safeguards and protections, can request and be provided with assistance to end their lives. But they must show mental capacity to make an informed decision free from coercion. The bill does not apply to Scotland of Northern Ireland which are holding their own votes on the issue.

It is important to note that patients will have to be capable of taking fatal drugs themselves after receiving a green light from doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist.

This is a landmark development of social reform in Britain’s history – a huge moment for the nation that many say is long overdue. It is also a huge moment for English politics, with some people arguing that there ought to have been a proper official sampling of public opinion or even a referendum on such an important matter. That said, according to reports, opinion polls show that a majority of UK citizens support assisted dying and about three-quarters of the population favour changing the law.

I have drawn attention to all this today in case it might of assistance to others in formulating views about such an important issue.