Should the UK government support a US military seizure of Iran’s Kharg Island?

The case against a seizure was not simply reluctance to confront Iran: No won comfortably, and its strongest arguments centred on what would follow the landing. One of the most-respected No cases warned, “it wouldn't be a one and done military escapade”; another called escalation “a disaster”.

The most-respected Yes case took the opposite view of American alignment: “About time we started standing with the Americans on this one”. Other Yes voters argued that controlling Kharg would cut Iran’s oil revenue and weaken a dangerous regime; one called for “any means to curtail iran”. Their case made the island a source of leverage, but left the cost and duration of holding it largely unanswered.

The No case answered with geography and precedent as well as caution. A well-respected argument said a garrison would be “a sitting du” — its post cut off mid-sentence — while another warned that “There is simply no valid exit strategy”. Alongside those strategic objections ran a more immediate refusal: “Not our war.”

The argument also exposed a split over the UK’s relationship with Washington: Yes voters framed support as standing by an ally, while No voters questioned whether the partnership was reciprocal. The debate’s most forceful Yes language promised decisive action; the most-respected No cases kept returning to the possibility that the action would not end.