Sir Keir Starmer faces a diplomatic quandary after declining to endorse US strikes on Iran, while also refusing to condemn them. The prime minister’s ambivalent position has placed the UK in a precarious spot, caught between allies Canada and Australia, who backed the strikes, and domestic critics who want stronger opposition.
The ‘special relationship’ has been under severe strain in recent months, with disagreements over the Chagos Islands sovereignty and Trump’s push for Greenland. Starmer’s attempts to influence the US president on Iran have appeared unsuccessful; Trump proceeded with strikes despite the UK refusing the use of its bases for the initial attacks.
The UK now says it played no part in the initial strikes but will allow US use of bases for defensive operations to destroy Iranian missiles aimed at Gulf states. Defence Secretary John Healey struggled to articulate a moral or legal opinion, stating only that the government would not mourn the ayatollah, whose regime has ‘menaced’ Western nations.
The strategy of getting close to Trump has been central to Starmer’s approach, from a two-hour meeting in New York to a state visit and refraining from criticising the US capture of Venezuela’s president. The closest Starmer has come to opposing Trump was defending British troops killed in Afghanistan.
Pressure is mounting from opposition parties, with the Green party and Liberal Democrats calling the strikes illegal, and urging Starmer to stand up to Trump. Analysts suggest the prime minister may need to reassess his approach, particularly after Labour lost a large majority in a byelection, partly due to anger over his cautious stance on Gaza.
