The UK has been dragged into Trump’s Iran war. But what will Starmer do next?
Keir Starmer’s partial U-turn last night to allow the Americans to use British RAF bases defensively against Iran could be seen as the first stage of Britain’s descent into war in the Middle East.
But in the critical hours ahead for the prime minister, the ghosts of the premierships of Tony Blair and the late Labor prime minister Harold Wilson haunt his difficult decisions.
The lessons of Labour’s recent past will explain why Sir Keir could not take Britain into war even if he wanted to.
As prime minister, Wilson made the decision to refuse to enter Vietnam with Britain’s American allies.
History has shown that he made the right decision. But at the time, in the late 1960s, this was a controversial decision.
In lines of attack from the right that may sound all too familiar today, Wilson was accused of damaging Special Relations with Britain’s most important ally and downplaying Britain. Other allies, such as Australia, sent troops to help the war effort and regretted it.
Of course, Sir Tony took the opposite decision regarding Iraq. He thought it was better for British interests to be America’s closest ally, even if it was led by a right-wing Republican president.
In fact, as his famous speech in Chicago in 1999 showed, Blair had embraced the concepts of positive military action and regime change as a foreign policy goal even before George W. Bush.
Now the world is seeing another Middle East war escalate as a result of the massive military strike against Iran ordered by Donald Trump.
Sir Keir has come under intense attack from the right, both Conservative and Reform, for refusing to allow the US to use RAF bases and even playing an active military role in these attacks.
Sir Keir, as always in his premiership, tried to take the middle ground and received little thanks for it. He initially refused to allow the US to do so, but as things escalated he allowed defensive measures to be taken for allies and the UK’s presence in the region.
However, it is important to note that even if the UK comes under more direct attack from Iran, as it did last night with terrorist attacks on a Cyprus base or on British streets, it is highly unlikely that it will follow the example of its predecessor, Sir Tony.
After all, Sir Keir has already noted that 20 Iranian-backed terrorist attacks have been foiled in the UK in the last 12 months. That would provide more than enough justification to get involved in Trump’s war.
Some would point out that he would preoccupy himself with the legality of this conflict as a human rights lawyer obsessed with international law. According to reports, Lord Hermer, the attorney general, certainly his closest ally and friend in the ministry, suggested this was illegal.
But the harsh reality is that Starmer cannot get any further involved in the fight because he is in an incredibly weak position.
Blair was at the height of his political power when he backed Bush in Iraq, only to be met with interference that crossed the line with a dodgy dossier, a mutiny and two cabinet resignations (Robin Cook and Claire Short). He eventually ended his term as prime minister.
Starmer starts in a position where he has lost Labor’s seventh safest seat to the left-wing Greens, is facing attempts by Labor MPs to oust him, is facing humiliating election results on May 7 and is one of the most unpopular prime ministers in modern history.
Even if he wanted to, he doesn’t have the moral or political authority to drag the UK into an all-out war, which is highly doubtful anyway.
Even his decision to allow the US to use RAF bases for defensive actions was condemned last night by large sections of the Labor backbencher, and it seems impossible to imagine he could go any further.
The only way for Britain to become involved in this war – beyond defensive measures – would require Iran to commit a terrible atrocity against that country. Even then there would be a long debate within the Labor Party about whether Britain should enter the negotiations first.
