Well the war seems live now, doesn’t it.

The Americans officially want our help.

Which brings us back to the original question - if this encounter ends up ridding Iran of the ability to produce nuclear weaponry, has it been worth it?

No, they didn’t see the Strait of Hormuz being the mess it is. You can debate that forever if you want, but ultimately there is no question Iran is done for and it's just a matter of time before they fold.

The price is high, inflation is up, the supply chains for a lot of stuff like fertiliser and plastics and ceramics and oil doesn't look good.

The economic damage is virtually everywhere. Is that the price we are prepared to pay to see Iran neutralised?

Here is the tricky question; given no one asked us, why would we help now?

The great diplomatic cock-up from the Trump administration is they didn’t get buy-in. Unlike other conflicts no coalition was built.

What made it worse was when he realised he was in trouble, Trump started whining about the lack of help. NATO and Britain got a good going over.

Can you unilaterally start a war with global economic implications and then whine that we aren't too thrilled about lending a hand?

In other words, does the so-called "favour" he has done us by finishing off Iran allow us enough positivity towards him to come to his aid?

Also at play is the cold, hard reality of geopolitics. We are kind of obliged to help. We are in the American camp and if push came to shove they would help us.

So we sort of have to assist when asked. And the fact we are tiny doesn’t help our cause because we need all the help we can get.

As the Prime Minister told us the other day when I asked, almost in a way that he knew this was brewing. He offered the idea that our Boeing P-8A Poseidon could do some patrolling.

We have sort of answered the question before it even needed to be asked, haven't we?

Are we in? What choice do we have?

LISTEN ABOVE