Hunt continued:

Let’s start with the good stuff.

Hunt is absolutely correct to point out that Trump’s words are “are disrespectful and wrong to our Prime Minister and my country.” As my colleague Quin Hillyer points out, Trump’s insults have repeatedly afflicted his dealings with America’s closest ally.

But while the president is understandably angry over Darroch’s cables, he has no reason to lash out at Prime Minister Theresa May. She has shown him great respect at all times. Trump’s words to a departing foreign ally are thus petulant, uncouth, and fundamentally unbecoming of the special relationship.

Hunt is also right to point out what should be a basic point: Diplomatic cables are supposed to offer candor. Ambassadors do not serve as simple faces in foreign capitals; they serve as the head of a diplomatic mission. Informing a government of another government’s intricacies is a fundamental part of any good ambassador’s job. Darroch did that. What failed him was either an idiot leaker in the U.K. Foreign Office or a foreign actor who released the cables.

That said, Hunt is quite wrong to suggest that Darroch will remain in Washington if he becomes prime minister. An ambassador cannot function effectively if, as now, a host government is unwilling to facilitate his meetings. From a British interest point of view, this basic diplomatic point must supersede all other concerns in this saga. That doesn’t mean Trump’s refusal to deal with Darroch is appropriate or justifiable; it isn’t. But it is the situation.

Hunt knows as much. Trailing Boris Johnson in the race to take over from Theresa May later this month, Hunt believes this tweet will get him some good press and perhaps buffer his cause to remain as foreign secretary if Johnson wins.

But the ultimate point, however unfair, is clear: Darroch will have to be reassigned.