Prime Minister Keir Starmer is navigating a diplomatic tightrope after the US launched strikes on Iran, with the UK refusing to endorse or condemn the action. The position has left the government in a precarious spot, as it declines to support the strikes—backed by Canada and Australia—while also avoiding criticism, despite many in his party calling for a stronger stance.
The UK's ambivalent stance has been difficult to maintain. Defence Secretary John Healey struggled to offer a moral or legal opinion on the strikes when pressed, stating only that the government will not mourn the ayatollah whose regime has 'menaced' western countries. The UK has allowed the US to use its military bases for subsequent attacks targeting Iranian missiles, despite initially playing no part in the strikes.
Starmer's strategy of getting close to Trump has been evident since their first meeting in New York 18 months ago, where aides celebrated Trump calling Starmer 'very nice' and 'popular'. The prime minister has consistently avoided public criticism of Trump, from the honour of a state visit to refusing to condemn the capture of Venezuela's president. The closest he came to opposing Trump was defending British troops in Afghanistan after the president downplayed NATO's role.
Now, questions are mounting over whether Starmer should change course and move closer to Europe, standing up to Trump more robustly. The Green party has called the strikes illegal, and the Lib Dems urge the prime minister to resist Trump's bullying. With Labour losing a huge majority in the Gorton and Denton byelection, partly due to anger over Gaza, distancing from Trump may also serve Starmer's political interests.
