Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.
The Iran conflict is making the case for defence more forcefully than a decade of articles, think tank commentary, Defence Select Committee reports or debates in Parliament put together.
The impact of United States’ Operation Epic Fury is being felt on the British economy and in turn, on household bills. Fuel and energy costs are going up, as is inflation.
Iran highlighted myriad problems within Britain’s defence sector, particularly in the Navy, reflected by the HMS Dragon (or Drag-On) debacle. More positively, it offers the chance to kick-start the National Conversation on defence.
This dialogue was one of 62 recommendations in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review accepted by the Starmer government as part of “strengthening the nation’s readiness for war.” To this end, the SDR mentioned a “whole-of-society” approach 20 times.
The government wants citizens actively to boost the nation’s resilience, i.e. the ability to withstand, adapt to and bounce back from the threats identified in the July 2025 Resilience Action Plan. They include “natural hazards, deliberate attacks, geopolitical instability, disease outbreaks, and other disruptive events, civil emergencies or threats to our way of life.”
Alas, at present, Resilience Inaction Plan seems more apt: a plan implies a detailed programme of responses.
NATO’s Article 3 could provide the necessary vim. This demands allies must be able withstand a major shock, such as “a natural disaster, failure of critical infrastructure, or a hybrid or armed attack.”
In March, the new House of Lords’ Resilience Committee began taking evidence about the nation’s readiness to cope. Among the witnesses was Dr Fiona Hill, one of the co-chairs of the Strategic Defence Review. She reminded the Committee of Russia’s novichok attack on the Skripals which had wider impact on Salisbury: the same Russia is “bombarding” Britain with propaganda and disinformation. In the context of the SDR, she observed: “We prioritised the launch of a National Conversation about defence and these related issues of readiness, preparedness and resilience, which we have yet to see.”
Far from “it’s good to talk”, the National Conversation has yet to begin. It is even lagging behind the Defence Investment Plan, finally to be launched on Monday.
Ahead of last year’s NATO summit, the Starmer government committed to a hefty increase in the defence budget, up from about 2.3 per cent GDP today to 3.5 per cent GDP by 2035. The OBR forecasts this will cost an extra annual £32 billion. With No.10 unable to convince Labour MPs to cut the welfare budget by even £5 billion, defence must surely be funded by more taxes.
The National Conversation should, in part, focus on selling defence to a sceptical public. The government needs to make the case for drones not doctors, tanks not teachers.
There are few politicians today who have the communication skills allied to geopolitical insight to persuade the public to back the nukes not the nurses. Wednesday’s interviews with Tony Blair were reminders of how impressive he is. King of the North Burnham seems unaware that the premiership – not that one, Andy – has North Korea in the in-tray.
Ideally, the National Conversation should be a dialogue, not a series of handed down diktats from the Cabinet Office or whoever else is working “at pace” to improve national preparedness for war and other emergencies.
Civilians can be more self-reliant and do much of their own prepping. A nudge could work. Having a good torch and three days cash to hand in case of localised power outages, for example, makes sense. Last year’s blackouts across Spain and Portugal offer lessons.
A parley about power cuts is an entirely different matter from confronting the possibility of conflict.
In the event of armed attack, where are Britain’s air raid shelters? Why no British iron dome? A defence conversation needs to address this – which might explain the official silence.
A national conversation implies the nation supports defence and would embrace the whole-of-society approach. What nation? The recent local elections reflect Britain’s increasing balkanisation. The SNP opposes basing nuclear submarines at Faslane and Sinn Fein is against the £50 million Defence Growth Deal in Northern Ireland. Plaid Cymru backs rural resilience [sic] but ducks talking about defence.
Too many Green Party members, like the Independent Alliance MPs, prefer to talk about Gaza, rather than Grimsby or Guildford. Should an armed attack occur, would they be prepared to defend Britain?
From what exactly is Britain defending itself? While there is consensus over the threat from cyber-attacks or possibility of sabotage to undersea cables, there is unease over recognising that migration has long been weaponised by adversaries, including Russia.
Like any serious conversation, the National Conversation on defence should involve some awkward questions.