The Iran war is only days old, but with every hour that passes, it is spreading further out of control. It is thus becoming increasingly clear how sensible – indeed courageous – it was for the prime minister to keep the British out of this conflict, so far as practicably possible.
It may not make much difference to American and Israeli military operations, but it was the right thing to do. That it has caused some strains in the special relationship is a matter for regret, but the transatlantic alliance is an old and durable one, and it has recovered from many crises of confidence.
The conversations Sir Keir Starmer has had with Donald Trump in recent times cannot have been easy. It takes some bravery to stand up to such a notoriously overbearing figure leading the planet’s pre-eminent superpower. More than that, it takes moral courage. Yet Sir Keir did so, to the now evident disappointment of his counterpart.
In selected interviews with sympathetic outlets, Mr Trump has remarked that he is “not happy” and is “very sad to see the relationship is not what it was”. Sir Keir, in his view, “has not been helpful. I never thought I’d see that. I never thought I’d see that from the UK. We love the UK.”
It is rich indeed to hear the “America First” president attack our PM for acting in the best interests of the British people.
In fact, Sir Keir’s initial refusal to allow those bases to be used for operations in and around Iran – later amended to permit their use in “defensive” mode – is a proportionate and supportive response to American requests for cooperation, and one that goes as far as it can in terms of the military and political “rules of engagement” so clearly laid out by the government.
These, in contrast to the Israeli and American administrations’ vague and shifting goals, place a high priority on upholding international law, but are also soundly based in a cool assessment of the merits and prospects for success of the US-Israeli operations (or lack of them). British forces will continue to engage the enemy where it shows itself, notably at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, apparently targeted by a drone sent by Iran’s Houthi rebel allies.
It has to be said that the “special relationship” doesn’t mean either side has to agree with everything the other side wishes. The national interests of the US and the UK have normally converged, based as they have been on shared values and interests. But each partner is entitled to protect its own national position. That is something neither Kemi Badenoch nor Nigel Farage seem to want to acknowledge.
Despite siren calls from the Labour left and the resurgent Greens to sever ties with Mr Trump completely, Sir Keir has tried his pragmatic best to preserve the long-established friendship with the United States in these difficult circumstances, as the long-term British national interest demands. This is also to be applauded. In this field, above all, Sir Keir is displaying qualities of international leadership that none of his putative rivals possesses.
This rift over Iran, such as it is, is not the first such disagreement. As far back as the Eisenhower administration, America couldn’t support the Suez fiasco, nor entirely trust the British with nuclear secrets. Harold Wilson famously endured immense pressure from Lyndon Johnson to send a token force, even a “bagpipe band”, to Vietnam.
When Richard Nixon asked Edward Heath if US bases in the UK could be used in the Yom Kippur war in 1973, he was refused. In 1983, Margaret Thatcher had a rare falling out with Ronald Reagan over the US invasion of Grenada, where the Queen was head of state. Try as she might, Theresa May couldn’t extract a post-Brexit trade deal during Mr Trump’s first term.
Such differences crop up from time to time on both sides, and the US-UK partnership has survived. The Trump administration’s policies, on Ukraine, on Nato, on tariffs and now the Middle East, represent a more fundamental challenge than past ones, as does the absurd Maga rhetoric about “cultural erasure”. Yet that is all the more reason for Britain to work to preserve the basis of this old alliance. In due course, and perhaps relatively soon, Sir Keir’s caution on the Iran war will be vindicated.
Only last weekend, Mr Starmer’s biographer, Tom Baldwin, wrote that, even in the wake of a catastrophic by-election defeat in Gorton and Denton, the PM’s friends and allies believe he is “finally asserting his own personality and values on a government in which he has too often appeared like the vegetarian manager of a butcher’s shop”. That remains to be seen. Yet in taking on Mr Trump, he has at last shown some of the backbone that this country deserves from its leaders – in wartime and in peace.
Finally, Rachel Reeves has given Keir Starmer something to smile about
Poll: Are you worried the Iran conflict will push up your cost of living?
If you thought the cost of living was bad, wait for the ‘Iran shock’
I’m stuck in a war zone – but Keir Starmer will come to our rescue
The prime minister was right to keep the UK out of this war
The Ayatollah is dead – but the fate of Iran cannot belong to Donald Trump
