Keir Starmer urged Donald Trump four days ago not to “ramp up” conflict in the Middle East. The next day, the B-2 bombers struck.
So what was the British government’s view? The prime minister’s initial reaction was ambiguously supportive of the US: “Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.”
But Starmer had previously said that the way to stop the Iranian regime acquiring nukes was diplomacy rather than military action, so was it wrong of Trump to have ignored him and gone ahead with the bunker-busters?
David Lammy, the foreign secretary, could not say yesterday. He was asked by the BBC: “Was the military action the right thing to do?”
Lammy said: “I’ve said that we weren’t involved in the military action.” When the question was repeated, he retreated to: “What I’ve said is that ultimately this can only be dealt with in diplomacy.”
It was an unusually obvious evasion. So what is going on? The government’s position is normally that the US is an ally, and Starmer has tried to work with Trump even if the president seems to have little interest in working with any of his allies.
Indeed, the whole point of this week’s summit is for Nato’s European members to try to impress Trump with their willingness to increase defence spending – even if it does involve some rather obvious fiddling of the figures, adding in spending on national security, as yet not defined, in 10 years’ time. The hope is that by appeasing Trump’s ego, they will keep the US engaged in the defence of Ukraine.
Why not, therefore, loudly support the US bombing in the hope of gaining a hearing – however fitful – in the Oval Office? Starmer and Lammy support the ends, and even if they disagree with the means, they might as well go along with the bombing because it has presumably made it harder for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon for a few years, even if it may offer no guarantees over the longer term.
One possibility is that they think the bombing was contrary to international law. A government leak inquiry has been ordered into a puzzling sentence in The Spectator last week, which said that Richard Hermer, the attorney general, “has concerns about the UK playing any role in this, except for defending our allies”.
As that referred to possible British assistance in shooting down Iranian missiles aimed at Israel, it didn’t make sense – unless Israel is no longer regarded as an ally. But it has been speculated that Lord Hermer has also advised the government that British assistance for strikes against Iran’s nuclear programme would be unlawful. That might explain why Lammy, in addition to refusing to say it was right, didn’t want to say if the US bombing was “legal”.
But I don’t think that is the real reason for Starmer and Lammy hanging back.
The true explanation was revealed in a YouGov instant opinion poll carried out yesterday: 48 per cent of the British public say it was “wrong” for the US to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities; only 22 per cent say it was “right”; 30 per cent say they don’t know.
I assume that Labour has tested similar questions in its own polling, and that this is why Starmer was so careful. Being nice to Trump is one thing if it helps keep US tariffs at bay, or if it keeps the US engaged in the defence of Ukraine, but there is strong opposition in British public opinion to American military adventures around the world, as there has been since Vietnam.
Even so, there seems to be a danger that Starmer’s equivocation merely draws attention to his powerlessness at Trump’s court. It is notable that Nigel Farage, for example, against whom Labour is competing for votes, took a strong position in backing Trump’s strikes against Iran.
Starmer has been humiliated by Trump so imperiously ignoring appeals for de-escalation – but the prime minister’s failure to support decisive and limited action against Iran’s nuclear weapons programme makes him look even weaker.
