The words of Dame Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, urging Keir Starmer not to lose his nerve on Iran in the wake of Donald Trump’s repeated personal attacks were enlightening.
She told The Independent: “We have to stick to what we believe is right.”
It was notable that she referred to a collective “we”, rather than the PM himself. The underlying message is that this is a government not relying on an individual leader’s judgement but one which acts on the collective opinion of its MPs.
Her words, perhaps unwittingly, highlighted that the problem for Starmer now is that the more Labour MPs tell him he is doing the right thing, the more he looks like their prisoner.
The rapidly unfolding events in Iran and attacks on UK sovereign bases in Cyprus have put the prime minister’s decision-making and motivations into the brightest of spotlights.
It has also exposed his own weak position in No 10, where plotters gathering around the rivals looking to succeed him underline how the fight to save his premiership overshadows everything he does.
After all, this year we mark the 375th anniversary of the publication of the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s work The Leviathan, where he encapsulated the cornerstone of governance: “The defence of the nation is the first duty of government.”
If a prime minister is unable to make those decisions clearly without having his hand forced by others then he is unable to govern.
This was unintentionally illuminated on Friday when Starmer posted a video on social media of the week he had experienced regarding the incredibly difficult decisions regarding the war.
The video was aimed at providing justification for his careful middle-of-the-road approach to the conflict – initially refusing to take part or give the US permission to use UK bases and then authorising “defensive action” and giving Trump permission to use RAF bases for that purpose.
It spelt out his interpretation of international law, British national interest and a reflection of recent history with the Iraq War.
His statement to the Commons on Monday last week showed the immense anger and disdain of the Tories and Reform on the issue from the right but underlined the almost universal approval he received from Labour MPs, who have not so enthusiastically united behind him in this way at barely any other time in his premiership.
In fact such was the warmth and praise for his leadership and principles that you could believe talk of a new leader after the local and devolved elections in May was perhaps becoming more fanciful.
But then the leak from the national security meeting came out in The Spectator, which in fact showed Starmer wanted to let Trump use bases at Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford to launch attacks on Iran. Worse, it seems that he was only stopped by four cabinet ministers, including potential leadership candidate Ed Miliband.
Given the precarious position he is in politically, Starmer could not have survived the resignation of four cabinet ministers and the inevitable backlash from the Labour backbenches.
Had that happened, we may already be in a leadership contest.
It puts an entirely different light on the PM’s actions and makes him once again look like a prisoner of his own party just as he was over his attempt to reform welfare, remove winter fuel payments from pensioners, or not end the two-child benefit cap.
In fact the two-child benefit cap situation is an interesting parallel. After being forced to end it by his backbenchers, Starmer has been going around making a virtue of the move as if it was his idea.
It now seems that he is doing the same over not supporting Trump on Iran when secretly he wants to.
It does help him a lot in this case that Tony Blair, the author of the Iraq debacle which still overshadows Labour foreign policy, is so critical of his decision-making on Iran. But, unfortunately, it also underlines that Blair had the strength to persuade his MPs in 2003 and survive two cabinet resignations of Robin Cook and Clare Short.
Starmer does not have that strength. And for a prime minister who only won a massive majority 20 months ago it is a painful position to already be in. It is similar to the position Rishi Sunak found himself in with an embittered, divided Conservative Party, but that was after a dozen years of government.
The Iran war has at least put a decision by Labour MPs on Starmer’s future back until after the local and devolved elections in May, at which point his fate may be sealed. The only question may be whether his replacement is another prisoner to Labour MPs or one who can throw off the shackles and be a leader again.
