Starmer caved to Trump on Iran within hours of backing Miliband revolt | Politics | News
Ed Miliband has emerged as the driving force behind the Cabinet’s resistance to military action in Iran, rallying senior colleagues to block British intervention before Sir Keir Starmer dramatically reversed course within two days, insiders say.
The Energy Secretary reportedly brought together Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper at a National Security Council meeting on Friday, with the three ministers making a concerted push against any UK support for pre-emptive strikes, a position they say is legally untenable.
As we now know, Starmer shamefully sided with them and turned down Washington’s request for access to RAF bases in Gloucestershire and the Chagos Islands.
However, this stoppage lasted less than 48 hours. B-2 stealth bombers are expected to be in Diego Garcia in the coming days and have been allowed to carry out what Downing Street called “limited, defensive” missions against Iranian targets.
Miliband’s opposition
Friday’s NSC meeting was called to examine the potential consequences of the conflict on Britain’s energy supplies, but it appears to have become the flashpoint in a deeper Cabinet debate about the legality and wisdom of siding with Washington.
Armed with the legal opinion of Attorney-General Lord Hermer, Miliband launched what one insider described as a “petulant, pacifist, legalistic and deeply political” case against the strikes. “He basically doesn’t like Trump and he doesn’t like this Iran thing,” a source told The Spectator.
According to a report by the Telegraph, the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary have thrown their weight behind him, pressuring Starmer to keep his place. Defense Secretary John Healey took a different stance, apparently in favor of opening British facilities to support allies coming under Iranian fire.
The Express understands the NSC meeting was the culmination of two weeks of increasingly heated talks between London and Washington; This included a direct conflict between Matt Collins, the UK’s deputy national security adviser, and Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for policy.
Starmer’s return
The report stated that by Sunday, the renewed American approach, shaped entirely around defensive operations targeting the Iranian missile infrastructure, changed the calculations. Allegedly, Starmer granted access to the narrowly defined task. Downing Street has flatly rejected suggestions that it was prepared to go further and only backed down under pressure from Miliband and his allies.
The political consequences of his initial refusal were swift. Trump told reporters on Monday he was “very disappointed” in the Prime Minister, and it followed a ruling on Tuesday that Starmer was “no Winston Churchill” and had “ruined relationships”.
The frustration wasn’t limited to Washington. Cyprus’ High Commissioner to the UK, Kyriacos Kouros, made clear to The Times that the UK’s hesitation was noticed. “The French are coming, we expect at least the British to be there too, because as I said, we are not just defending the Cypriots on the islands,” he said.
historical parallel
Observers were quick to draw the comparison from 2013; The moment Miliband, then leading the Labor opposition, torpedoed proposed military action in Syria following the Assad government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. He expressed no regrets about the intervention, arguing that the intervention of British forces at that time required a “clear plan”.
Starmer used similar language before MPs this week, insisting that Britain’s involvement in the Iran conflict would require a “considered” approach from Washington and Tel Aviv before any commitments were made.
David Miliband, brother of the Energy Secretary and former Labor foreign secretary, offered a more nuanced position on Wednesday. He refused to put his weight behind the attacks, warning that Britain “should not divorce the United States” and urging the government to “strengthen our position in the discussions” with the Trump administration.
