One can't help but compare this to the contemporary scene in the British Foreign Office. Over the weekend nine British embassy workers were detained by the Iranian police in Tehran, they were accused of having orchestrated the riots and demonstrations that have been shaking the foundations of the Iranian regime. David Miliband's response parodies that of his predecessor when he responded in the following manner; "The idea that the British Embassy is somehow behind the demonstrations and protests that have been taking place in Tehran in recent weeks is wholly without foundation." It seems that all Miliband had to offer was a carefully worded statement denouncing the claims made by the Iranian authorities. Although I cite him with obvious caution, this contrast brings to mind Marx's adage regarding history, explaining that "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." [18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte]. 

I am not advocating that the British fleet immediately be rocketed into the Persian Gulf. Diplomacy has evolved significantly since the Palmerstonian era of gunboat foreign policy, most countries don't only react to military persuasion; negotiations, economic incentives, cultural co-operation and a whole host of other avenues form part of the modern day diplomatic armoury. Diplomats must also be constantly aware of the consequences that military actions might have on other parts of the region too. However, one can't help but think that these diplomatic tools only work successfully with countries that are willing to 'play ball' and abide by an unwritten code of decency. Radical states, whose very character is ingrained with a desire to flout the international community, as North Korea has perfectly illustrated, will not be swayed by yet another strong statement from the UN Security Council.

However, perhaps the problem also lies closer to home. Irrespective of the correct course of action that the situation necessitates, one needs to consider whether the sentiments and values that lay at the very core of Palermston's policy have not been left back in the nineteenth century. Palmerston felt that it was his duty to ensure the safety and security of British citizens all around the globe. There appeared to be a genuine pride in all British citizens. This was combined with an equal aspiration to quash injustice in whatever form, whether it took place on Britannic shores, or on Mediterranean ones. Foreign diplomacy is visibly a tricky and complicated business, but the preservation of justice must lie at the very root of its endeavours, as Palmerston exclaimed, it was his duty to "conduce to the maintenance of peace, to the advancement of civilization, to the welfare and happiness of mankind." Perhaps a re-assessment of both our diplomatic tools and the moral values which guide them are in order. Palmerston is not just a personality for the curious student of history.