Columna The Telegraph, 17.03.2026 Edmund Fitton-Brown, diplomático británico(1984-2017), exembajador en Yemen(2014-2027) y académico(FDD)
The Middle East is once again in flames, with Iranian proxies active across the region and Tehran attacking British bases and allies. Yet at this very same moment, Foreign Office staff attended a party celebrating the ideological revolution that gave birth to that cruel, hateful regime. Even if no political message was intended, the symbolism could scarcely have been worse.
Downing Street brushed off the event as “standard practice”, even defending it as part of maintaining diplomatic relations. Of course, diplomacy requires engagement with unpleasant governments, it does not require celebrating the founding mythology of a hostile one.
Britain has foreign relations that range from warm to chilly, and there is guidance and experience to help calibrate engagement with problematic interlocutors like the Iranians. That officials thought it appropriate to celebrate the Iranian Islamic revolution speaks volumes about the strange topsy-turvy morality of the Foreign Office, an institution increasingly unsure who Britain’s friends and enemies actually are.
As Britain’s former ambassador to Yemen, it saddens me to see my former place of work get to this point. But it is now undeniable that parts of the Civil Service have developed a systematic bias when it comes to the Middle East.
Israel is treated with a forensic level of scrutiny that few other states receive, while the behaviour of its adversaries is frequently contextualised, rationalised, excused or ignored. Take the long list of recently retired senior Foreign Office signatories to a letter last year, calling for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, in the face of strenuous US objections. Or the official advice blowing hot and cold over Britain’s involvement in the current conflict with Iran.
There is some context to the Foreign Office bias against Israel. When you have a couple of dozen posts where Arabic is spoken and only one Jewish state, you train large numbers of Arabic speakers. I was one of them myself. What I didn’t do was confuse transacting business in the region with relaxing into its prejudices and failings.
But the coffee and dates are seductive. Many British ambassadors end up sounding like their hosts. Successive prime ministers have been badly advised, for example when many of my colleagues cried wolf about how the “Arab street” would react badly to any Western attempt to liberate Kuwait from the 1991 Iraqi invasion. They had a better case for caution in 2003, but by then Downing Street had stopped listening to them.
Two decades on from Blair/Bush, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that another factor has grown in importance: Islamist entryism not just in the Foreign Office but also throughout the Civil Service and a range of other professions. We have seen a steady reframing of debates, including in the sphere of national security. Allies portrayed as the problem, adversaries become misunderstood actors with legitimate grievances. Hate marches for Hamas and the Houthis show that inversion in society and the Civil Service reflects society. Over time, that inversion produces exactly the kind of misjudgment we saw this week.
The Islamic Republic has been waging undeclared war on the West for nearly 47 years, promoting a “Death to America” message that applies equally to the Little Satan, the UK. Iran still refuses to withdraw the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. That decree called for the murder of a British citizen for the crime of writing a novel – and very nearly killed him in 2022. Until it is formally rescinded, the idea that relations with Tehran can ever be described as friendly is fanciful. A government that still sanctions the killing of writers should not expect to party with British officials.
None of this means Britain should sever all diplomatic contact with Iran. Outside times of war, there may be grounds for maintaining diplomatic relations, but they should be severely restricted. A chargé d’affaires, not a full ambassador, should head the mission. At home, Iranian intelligence activity should face zero tolerance.
It is mystifying that Sir Keir Starmer, having promised in opposition to proscribe the IRGC, still hasn’t done it, even after the EU has. We have had many recent terror plots in the UK, often against Jewish targets, and often sponsored by Iran. Who exactly needs to get killed before we take decisive action?
Foreign policy begins with moral clarity. If we cannot even decide whether celebrating the birth of the Islamic Republic is appropriate for British officials, then it is little wonder that our position in the Middle East increasingly resembles that of a country sitting nervously on the fence, hoping the conflict will pass us by while our influence quietly ebbs away. The Americans have certainly noticed our lack of resolve. Our Gulf allies have looked elsewhere for assistance. We weren’t even there to protect our bases on Cyprus.
And this vacillation is not without cost. We fought for the Falklands, but what happens when a predator next casts envious eyes on our overseas possessions? How do we justify our permanent seat on the UN Security Council if it is ever called seriously into question? The Prime Minister needs to understand the potential cost of inaction, and act accordingly.
