David Cameron’s performance has been sound. But his message is exceptionally bleak.

Over the weekend, David Cameron’s performances were exceptionally sound. Everyone I spoke to found them reassuring. “Glad he’s back,” said one old friend: “just about ready to forgive him for Brexit.”

Yet there is a paradox. Although the Foreign Secretary made people feel better, his message was bleak. There was “naught for your comfort” (I am drawing on Chesterton, not Trevor Huddlestone). Not since 1940 has a British statesman – he has earned that accolade – given such a grim assessment of the international situation.

This is not to claim that his rhetoric reached Churchillian heights. But we will be lucky to avoid blood and tears.

Let us imagine how that could be averted. Start with Israel: Mr Netanyahu is unseated, a new government declares victory in Gaza, and the Abraham Accords are revived. It is generally agreed that progress must be made on a Palestinian state. Crown Prince MBS, Saudi’s de facto ruler, has ambitious plans for his country. Many members of the Saudi elite would privately admit to suffering from Palestine fatigue; if only that problem could be put on one side. 

The Houthis have proved themselves in combat with the Saudis and have evolved from being mere insurgents. Now, they control the former North Yemen. So where next? Do they want to make war on the US, who will not stint on bombing raids, or will they bank their prestige and get on with running their country?

What view will the Iranians take? Thus far, they have kept Hizbullah more or less on the leash and have been reluctant to risk all-out conflict with America. The Mullahs’ regime may not rest on a secure basis of popular consent and they have no desire to be overthrown.

Taking of fatigue, blood, tears and statesmanship, could we find a young Henry Kissinger to flit between the Middle East and the Ukraine? Apropos Moscow and Kyiv, is it not time for both sides to recognise that neither of them can win? What would be so wrong with a ceasefire which would gradually become a new frontier? There is one obvious objection to that. Moscow might conclude that it is possible to get away with invading another country. Yet is it likely that the Russians will feel that they have “got away with'” anything and that their losses have been justified? The butcher’s bill is already enormous. There must be those who are ready to switch off the meat grinder.

So it is possible to construct an optimistic scenario. But there is one slight difficulty: the total absence of any evidence whatsoever that any of the above has any purchase on reality.

The Ukrainians and Russians seem content to lock horns in intransigence. As for Netanyahu, may I apologise for another reference to Yeats? “The best lack all conviction/the worst are full of passionate intensity”. Most of the best people in Israel want a new PM, but how do they get rid of the present one? Equally, any incoming government, however well-intentioned, would find it desperately hard to deal with the settlements on the West Bank. The most extreme elements in Israeli society have altered facts on the ground in such a way as to make a Palestinian state almost impossible. Where is the scope for compromise? 

That will not distress Israel’s enemies. Again – sorry – more Yeats: “Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart.”  Hamas does not want to see a Palestine co-existing with Israel. They wish to destroy Israel and the butcher’s bill will not deter them. It is desperately hard to deal with stone-heated foes who are prepared to wade through unlimited quantities of blood.

That may also be true of the Houthis, a lot of whom are battle-hardened religious fanatics, who believe that they are tougher than us and can outlast our resolve. Look at Syria, they might say, and look at Obama’s red lines. Look at Kabul, that appalling scuttling humiliation. Condi Rice used to say that Afghanistan is where great powers go to die. The abandonment of Kabul was where a great power upped and left, and came perilously close to forfeiting its reputation for greatness.

The rulers of Iran may well have reached similar conclusions. It helps if you believe that God is on your side and that many of your fellow Shias are imbued with an ethos of martyrdom. The West is dealing with enemies whom it has difficulty in understanding. Far from sharing our assumptions, they despise them. Their contempt will not be diminished by the forthcoming Presidential election, which could well confront the Great Republic with a choice: craziness or senescence.

Contempt breeds anger. Rage breeds volunteers for suicide missions. On both sides of the Atlantic, the authorities are vigilant. The threat of terrorist outrages is ever-present. We can rely on our teams’ skill. We can only hope that they are also lucky.

David Cameron has everything he needs to be an outstanding Foreign Secretary, with one exception. Lord Cameron enjoys playing bridge. In this desperately important game which he is now playing, we could wish that his hand had more high cards. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life