Another morning, another overnight broadside directed at the UK prime minister by the US president from his social media account. In a withering take-down of the disclosure that the Royal Navy was preparing one of the country’s two aircraft carriers for possible deployment to the Middle East, Donald Trump referred to the UK as “our once great ally” and said, in effect, thanks, but no thanks.
Addressing Sir Keir Starmer by name, he said the US didn’t need its aircraft carriers any more. “But we will remember. We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won!”
Another, perhaps even less welcome, intervention had come only hours earlier from rather closer to home. Former prime minister and elder statesman, Sir Tony Blair, used remarks at what was intended as a private gathering to remind No 10‘s present occupant of the importance of the transatlantic relationship and criticise his initial decision on the use of UK airbases.
“They were asking to use our bases to refuel. It’s not like it was in Vietnam, not like the Iraq campaign where we had thousands of British troops. The American relationship matters… It’s not a question of whether it’s this president or that president. If they are your ally and they are an indispensable cornerstone for your security, you had better show up.”
At most other times, interventions of this kind would be excoriating stuff, fuel for domestic foes, and potentially damaging. In current circumstances, however, there are those Sir Keir has to fear – who include some of his own cabinet – and those whose criticisms can be seen, perversely, as safely ignored, or positively helpful. Both of these fall into this category.
With the transatlantic relationship in its current parlous state, despite Sir Keir’s best efforts, a US president as quixotic in his judgements as this one, and UK public opinion ranged as strongly as it is both against Mr Trump and against joining the latest US military adventure, Sir Keir has nothing whatever to lose – maybe even something to gain – from being the target of the US president’s sardonic ire. It may be a rare moment in history, but the more the White House rails against its “once great ally” and the wider the strip of clear blue ideological water becomes that separates Washington DC and London, the more credible Sir Keir’s claim to be motivated by the UK’s “national interest”.
This was the phrase repeatedly used by the foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, on the Sunday political talk shows. Heard in isolation, it risks sounding weak. Juxtaposed with the criticism from Mr Trump, however, it carries a lot more weight, as acknowledging a genuine divergence in interests.
The same applies to the intervention by Sir Tony. There have been times in recent years when his interventions have come across as wise and useful, among them some of the recommendations he made during the Covid pandemic. But his blunt call to “show up” whenever and for whatever purpose the United States might call is not one of them.
With the irremediable folly of the Iraq war still well within living memory, and that negative view apparently shared by today’s prime minister, advice from the author of this country’s role in that war is likely to fall largely on stony ground in the UK – as indeed it should. If, as it appears, Sir Keir’s concern to avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq coloured his first response to the US-Israel attacks on Iran, that could be seen as a mitigating factor to the impression of hesitancy and muddle.
This does not mean that there are no legitimate criticisms to be made of the prime minister’s response. There are. They would include the rapid about-turn on the US use of UK military bases and the verbal gymnastics used to justify it; the absence of almost any UK naval presence in the region, despite the US having been openly engaged in preparations for weeks; inadequate readiness for the Iranian military response, which included insufficient protection for the bases on Cyprus. To these might be added a lack of preparedness for the economic and energy fallout that may still be to come.
All these are serious concerns, some of which – primarily the military deployments – are being belatedly addressed. It has also to be acknowledged that the Trump and Blair criticisms contain their grains of truth: whether on the positioning of aircraft carriers or on the reality of the UK’s security reliance on the United States. For now, however, their provenance guarantees the prime minister cast-iron protection from political damage, at least at home. And the more loudly such discredited voices shout their disapproval from the sidelines, the stronger his personal defences will be, along with his claim to be acting only in the national interest.
