Debate contribution: Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 16 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5449227

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that my party's amendment has been selected and that we are debating this subject tonight. We agree with the vast majority of what is in the motion. I am glad that it was moved. Although this is a devolved region in a part of the world that is distant from where these lives are being lost and this conflict is happening, we do, perhaps, have some claim to being heard in debates like this — a little more than that of other small devolved regions — which is that, as other Members have said, we are the product of a conflict resolution process. We are, in a sense, as an Assembly — as divided, dysfunctional and occasionally disreputable as we are — an embodiment of politics as an alternative to violence. That is not to overstate or simplify what is at stake in this conflict or any other armed conflict around the world, but it is to say that, as elected representatives, we should, at all times, do everything that we can, here and everywhere, to promote the alternatives to armed conflict of dialogue, democracy and diplomacy. Most people and parties in the Chamber, in different ways and from entirely different political traditions — my party has always been a party of peace. There are circumstances in which armed conflict has, in human history, been inevitable or unavoidable. Without talking about our own conflict or, indeed, other conflicts that have happened more recently, it is fair to say that this particular conflict is 100 million miles from being a conflict that could be argued to have been unavoidable, let alone justifiable. Other Members who are, perhaps, a little more — I do not want to put words in Mr Beattie's mouth — ambivalent towards, or even supportive of, the idea of armed action against the Iranian regime — I presume that DUP Members will get up to articulate similar positions — will have to justify how bombing a Middle Eastern country from the sky, which has been tried repeatedly over recent decades — I am now old enough to remember what happened in 2003 and the decade that followed in Iraq and, before that, Afghanistan — is going to lead to a stable, peaceful outcome for the people of Iran, whom they claim to support. While many Iranians are unbelievably opposed to the ayatollahs and have had to live under the Iranian regime, I am completely unclear as to how the actions of Trump and his regime, and the lawless regime of Netanyahu and Israel, and their reckless, lawless and apparently meaningless — perhaps "senseless" is a better way to put it — intervention in Iran is going to lead to a better outcome for the people of Iran. I am happy to give way to any Member who wants to explain that to me because, at the minute, I am utterly at a loss. OK, fine.

I am happy to give way to Mr Brooks.

The counterpoint to that is that what has happened is that the Iranian regime has dug in. It is widely accepted that the Iranian regime, of which I am no supporter — let me be clear: I would rather that the ayatollahs were not in power — has fairly resolutely dug in and is squeezing America and other powers through the Strait of Hormuz, using that economic power to place the US under extreme pressure. Let us be clear: we and our constituents are feeling that at the petrol pumps and in our oil tanks through the cost-of-living crisis that is being imposed on us by Trump's attacks. I have not seen any kind of logical explanation of how that will lead to a better outcome, and I am afraid that I did not hear it from Mr Brooks. Of course, it is not just that logic and Donald Trump are not close neighbours; they are complete strangers.

Let me be clear that the US's contribution to world affairs has been, shall we say, mixed in the sense that it has disrupted democracies for its own ends but also has been a leader in democracy at times and offered hope to the world. It is certainly now doing the former, rather than the latter. There is no sense that the lunatic Donald Trump — that is what he is, and I do not think that anyone should be coy any more about saying that — is in any way pursuing anything approaching not just a strategy of peace or support for the people of Iran but a coherent or comprehensible foreign policy or defence policy. The horror of bombing schools and claiming that killing innocent people is part of a logical and coherent strategy is grotesque, notwithstanding the grotesque actions of the Iranian regime in shooting tens of thousands of its own people who resisted its oppression. To stand here and debate the actions of the Trump regime as if it were part of a logical or comprehensible strategy feels absurd at times, but, of course, we have to do it because our constituents are living with the consequences. That brings me on to the purpose of our amendment, which is not to negate the condemnation of Trump and Israel's actions, which is welcome in the original motion and Alliance's amendment, but to bring it back home, since the original motion talks about the impact on households in the North. Through our amendment, we perform our role as the official Opposition and make no bones about doing that. It says that our view is that the Executive's response has been incoherent and fractious. The local Executive are responsible for offering clear and coherent leadership to the public, but their response has not been what it should have been in that. When Donald Trump first launched his attack on Iran just over a fortnight ago, it was clear that there would be a spike in the oil price. Iran is one of the major oil producers, and it controls the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil exports move. It was inevitable that the price of Brent crude was going to spike. We did not know how long that would last. It has now gone on for a fortnight. It appears that it will go on a lot longer, even if Trump were to attempt to de-escalate, and he does not appear to be doing that now. Even if there is a de-escalation, there is increased geopolitical instability. As Kate Nicholl said, we do not know how long that will go on for. Many of us are fearful about the world writ large. The Executive have no control over that. Let us be clear that what we say in the Chamber or what the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or any Minister does will not influence that. That does not mean that our voice is meaningless, but it means that the primary focus of the Executive should have been to respect that there will be complete disagreements on the merit of the action, though I genuinely do not understand how any unionist politician can sensibly and seriously say after the past fortnight that they think that any of this is a good idea, given the impact on their constituents. The response of local Ministers should have been to say, "We are downstream of the crisis. We probably have the largest proportion of home heating oil usage in Europe, let alone these islands, so we need a plan and a response".

I will take an intervention in one second. Local Ministers should have said, "We will need financial support from the UK Government, but we need to understand what our response is going to be and what support we would like to be able to offer our people". That response did not happen. In fact, we saw continual infighting between those parties. That is what our amendment says, and I do not think that it is unreasonable.

I am happy to have taken that intervention, because I did not say that you should have a united position in any way on Trump's actions in Iran. I would not expect that at all, neither would I expect you to have a united perspective on anything that Trump does, Israel and its genocide, Brexit or any other number of controversial international positions. What I expect and what the public should expect is that the two parties do their best to arrive at a joint position on the kind of intervention that they would like to see; for example, that the UK Government give financial support in relation to home heating oil.

That is distinct. It is a downstream consequence, in the same way in which there needs to be an agreed position on the consequences of the travel disruption for British and Irish citizens. That is perfectly clear. I do not think that it is that difficult to understand that the Executive can agree a position on a local impact and agree on a policy response that is distinct from their agreeing with the initial illegal action. That has not happened yet from the Executive. That is all that our amendment calls out. I know that the fact that we are willing to make such points makes some people uncomfortable, but that is our job as the official Opposition. I will return to the main thrust of the motion. The destabilisation visited on the region by Trump and his lawless and, frankly, lunatic regime will, I hope, end quickly. If, however, it does not, we will need a joined-up and coherent response to the downstream consequences locally, even if we profoundly disagree with those in the Chamber who inexplicably and, frankly, insanely continue to support his reckless actions.

1,643 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification