2 hours ago
13
Donald Trump’s demands for Keir Starmer’s unwavering support in the Iran strikes last week has echoes of earlier episodes in the US-UK “special relationship”.
The prime minister’s response has been striking. There were no Bush-style flying jackets or aviators. He resisted calls to wade blindly into another US war in the Middle East. Instead, he has supported the US where possible within the confines of international law, allowing the use of bases in defensive strikes, while protecting lives and prioritising British interests.
The media has been in a frenzy, with political commentators decrying his decision as an act of self-harm. But these claims are shortsighted and certainly not in tune with public opinion. Or history.
Since the second world war – when, let’s be honest, the US entered the conflict only after it had suffered a humiliating attack at Pearl Harbor – the “special relationship” between the US and the UK has had its challenges. It’s been fraught with complexities, disagreements and nuance.
Take the Suez crisis in 1956 as an example. The US did not support Britain’s military action. Instead, it exerted considerable financial pressure on the UK, in a move that consolidated its postwar influence in the Middle East at the expense of British interests.
Or if we look at the catastrophic “US war” in Vietnam, Harold Wilson, the then Labour prime minister, rightly refused for UK troops to be deployed. It was a tough but principled decision, grounded in the national interest.
And let us not forget the Falklands war, which proved a severe test. Despite Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan enjoying an especially special relationship, the US refused to get involved and only subsequently agreed to logistics and other support, but no military. A year later, the US invaded Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) despite the country being a member of the Commonwealth and without consulting the UK government of its intentions. Queen Elizabeth II was Grenada’s head of state at the time.
Given the recent rhetoric from Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, I wonder what they would have been calling for back then? Have they learned nothing from Iraq?
Clearly, the reality is that the UK and the US have diverged on foreign policy on several occasions. It’s understandable: if we don’t have the privilege of disagreement, it is not a special relationship but an abusive one.
These historical parallels matter, and they help us understand the choices we face today. What now for the people of Iran, the wider region and the UK’s security? More than a thousand people have already died in the current Iran war; tens of thousands more may die there and in areas the conflict has spread to, such as Lebanon.
Beyond these horrific losses, there will be devastation and upheaval across the region. Mass migration. Economic implications. And undoubtedly economic hardship here at home as well as globally. Given all this, it is absolutely the right decision for the UK not to be involved in offensive strikes, but it is also right that we act militarily to defend our people and our interests.
In a moment of geopolitical peril, the prime minister has been cool and remained resolute. He acted in the national interest and put his principles and the UK’s long-term security first. In fact, the prime minister is aligned with the public on this issue, with polling consistently showing that the public agrees with his course of action. In a survey for the i newspaper, 47% said the UK should not join the US in striking Iran, with only 22% in favour. But be assured, the UK and US intelligence services and military will continue their special relationship including through Aukus and the Five Eyes alliance.
As the sinews of global order and security strain and sever around us, the prime minister has once again stood his ground. Right now, there is no one better placed to navigate the challenges ahead.
-
Matt Western is the Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, and chairs the joint committee on national security strategy. He is writing in a personal capacity
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
