Sir Keir Starmer promised the nation that he was determined to deliver “calm, level-headed leadership” as the conflict in the Middle East widens – “no matter the pressure to do otherwise”. This is admirable, as is his general reluctance to see Britain dragged inexorably into the increasingly unpredictable and deeply unpopular war on Iran, launched last weekend by the US and Israel. As the prime minister has indicated, it is not part of his job to simply ask “How high?” every time Donald Trump tells him to jump.
International law matters, but so does the British national interest, and it is not going to be served by deeper and deeper involvement in a campaign with no clear aims and no plan for what to do with Iran when the fighting eventually stops. Indeed, turning it into yet another failed state, torn apart by a civil war, is in the interests of no one in the region or the wider world – with the possible exception of Israel, now apparently taking the chance to occupy southern Lebanon again. Britain should have no part in that.
That said, Sir Keir’s “terms of engagement” in this conflict are also unclear. In less than a week, British policy has gone through three distinct phases. The first, which lasted about a day, was to have as little to do with it as possible because it was unwise and illegal. Hence the refusal to permit the Americans to use their bases on British territory – specifically in Gloucestershire and on Diego Garcia – for an aggressive war of choice against Iran that runs contrary to the UN charter and to legal advice provided by the attorney general.
It may be that Sir Keir was “persuaded” not to grant Mr Trump his wishes by pusillanimous cabinet colleagues (Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood are supposedly the “gang of four” who prevented him from following his own instincts), but it was at least a clear policy that was widely understood – and has attracted considerable public support.
When the missiles started flying towards British expats in Dubai, and a Shahed-like drone, probably fired by Hezbollah, tore a hole in a hangar at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, such purity of principle had to be swiftly diluted. By Monday, the Americans were granted permission to use British bases (excluding Cypriot ones) for “defensive” missions, though this would in practice extend so far as “to take out Iran’s capability to launch these attacks, which of course means taking out the launchers and the infrastructure that sits behind them”, as the prime minister informed the Commons.
But still, British forces would not be joining in these sorties, even though British and allied interests had already come under the same fire from Iranian (and Iranian proxy) rockets and drones.
There were now two weaknesses in the British policy. First, it defied logic, because the distinction between “aggressive” and “defensive” was hopelessly blurred – and it certainly made little difference to the Iranian commanders sheltering in their bunkers. A “defensive” bomb is still a bomb.
The second problem was that, insofar as “defensive” action meant anything, it was “catching the arrows and not the archer”, as Kemi Badenoch put it – in other words, dangerously ineffective and rather pointless.
Now, a few days on, policy has morphed once again. The defence secretary, John Healey, refuses to rule out more aggressive moves by British forces: “As circumstances in any conflict change, you’ve got to be willing to adapt the action you take.” Still more explicit is the deputy prime minister, David Lammy, even endorsing pre-emptive hits: “Yes, we can take down sites that are anticipating attacking our people.”
On the other hand, Downing Street still insists there has been no U-turn, and that the policy hasn’t changed. This is not a good look for ministers who directly criticise the White House for lacking clear war aims.
It is just as well, then, that Sir Keir is commendably clear about his overriding focus, which is to end the war as soon as possible. He wants to see “a negotiated settlement with Iran, where they give up their nuclear ambitions”. Nominally, that is also what Mr Trump wants. After all, it is only a week since his envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, were on the brink of a new agreement with Iran. In recent days, President Trump has made reference to a deal with Iran, though that will now be via coercion and diktat rather than talks – a demand for “unconditional surrender” and a veto over Iran’s future leader.
Bitter experiences, as much as any supposed undue deference to international law, are what made Sir Keir and his cabinet colleagues so wary of getting entangled in Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump’s latest reckless adventure. Nothing seen in recent days gives any hope that a free, democratic, stable Iran will emerge from the latest orgy of destruction, propagandised like a computer game by the US secretary of war, Pete Hegseth.
When Mr Trump eventually declares victory – and public opinion will surely stop this war before it is too late – Sir Keir will be vindicated for his restraint, even though the Dow Jones will have done more than the British government to force a winding down of the conflict. A negotiated peace with Iran is inevitable, and the sooner the better.
Is Keir Starmer about to fall in line with the US over Iran?
The first casualty of war in the Middle East? The British consumer
Which frontbenchers turned the cabinet against Starmer over Iran?
Volodymyr Zelensky is the heir to Churchill this continent needs
When will the UK show it is serious about defence?
By taking on Trump, has Keir Starmer finally found his footing?
