Iran crisis puts UK leader Keir Starmer in a new political bind

Politico Europe · Mar 2, 2026 · Collected from RSS

Full Article

News Politics The U.K. prime minister is under pressure from all sides over his stance on U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. Copy Link Copied Share via email Share on X Share on WhatsApp Share on LinkedIn British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Defence Secretary John Healey during the 62nd Munich Security Conference last month. Starmer’s Middle East balancing act risks pleasing no one. | Stefan Rousseau/WPA Pool/Getty Images March 2, 2026 4:00 am CET LONDON — Keir Starmer thought he had mastered the special relationship. Donald Trump’s Iran gambit is putting that assertion to the test. Starmer has been trying to keep his distance, repeatedly stressing the U.K. “played no role” in the joint U.S.-Israeli operation that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — though he conceded late Sunday the U.S. will be allowed to use British bases for the “specific and limited defensive purpose” of hitting missile storage depots and launchers as Iran escalated its retaliatory attacks. “We were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran and we will not join offensive action now,” Starmer said in a recorded message published on X Sunday night. The shift came after escalating threats to British troops and citizens from missile and drone attacks. Just hours after the release of Starmer’s Sunday statement, the Ministry of Defence told the Daily Mail that it was responding to a suspected drone attack on a key British airbase in Limassol, Cyprus, at midnight local time. There were no casualties. The government is also scrambling to help tens of thousands of Britons stranded in Gulf states amid airspace closures across the Middle East. Commercial interests are also at risk: A Gibraltar-flagged oil tanker was struck Sunday by “an unknown projectile” in the Strait of Hormuz near the United Arab Emirates, though the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre said it was able to proceed after the resulting fire was extinguished. But Starmer’s Middle East balancing act — neither condemning nor celebrating Trump’s action, helping out but not joining in — risks pleasing no one. “The Americans would have expected the U.K. to take this position,” former Foreign Office Permanent Secretary Peter Ricketts told POLITICO. “The American system, the Pentagon and State Department, won’t have been surprised. This is a long-standing British position.” That didn’t stop Trump ally Lindsey Graham from immediately branding the U.K.’s initial understated joint response with France and Germany in the immediate wake of the strikes early Saturday “pathetic.” At home, Starmer’s ruling Labour Party, which was beaten into third place by parties to its left and right in a by-election last week, is coming under pressure to take a stand against Trump from the victors of that election, the left-wing populist Green Party — which has already declared the U.S. and Israeli strikes illegal. “It’s quite astounding that we have a prime minister that seems to be singularly incapable of standing up to Donald Trump and letting the U.K. stand on its own two feet,” Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said in a BBC interview earlier Sunday. It all amounts to fresh political danger for Starmer, who already faced deep questions about his ongoing leadership ahead of crucial midterm local elections in May, and for the rest of his Labour allies. Who owns it U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey was on the media rounds Sunday, but declined to answer questions about the legality of the U.S. attacks on Iran. “That is for the U.S. to set out and explain; it’s not for me,” he said. Green Party Leader Zack Polanski listens to new MP Hannah Spencer after her victory in the Gordon and Denton by-election. Commenting on the US-Israeli strikes, Polanski said it’s the “the law of the jungle” and “an end to international law.” | Christopher Furlon/Getty Images Polanski, still riding high from last week’s blowout victory for his party, quickly seized on Healey’s equivocation. It’s the “law of the jungle” and “an end to international law,” Polanski declared Sunday. It is a criticism that will particularly sting Starmer — Britain’s former chief prosecutor. A summary of the U.K. government’s legal position, published Sunday night, stressed Britain would be solely focused on ending the threat of air and missile attacks, and allowing U.S. to use U.K. bases did not signal involvement in the broader conflict. Polanski also pointed back at Labour’s willingness to join U.S. President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq more than two decades ago, warning against any similar move now. “I don’t think the British people want to see another war in that region,” Polanski said. Starmer acknowledged the “mistakes of Iraq” in his Downing Street statement Sunday, and insisted the U.K. had “learned those lessons.” No, back the Americans Starmer’s opponents on his right came in with a different line of attack. Earlier Sunday, leaders of the U.K.’s main right-wing parties said Britain should allow the U.S. to operate from its bases when striking Iran, amid reports Starmer had blocked their use. Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage, a close ally of Donald Trump, said in a social media post that Starmer “needs to change his mind on the use of our military bases and back the Americans in this vital fight.” Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel endorsed the U.S. actions during a Sunday appearance on Sky and questioned why Starmer has “not actually worked with our American allies to be much more proactive.” Already counted out Starmer remains keen to stress the U.K. is not involved in strikes on Iran. Former Conservative Middle East Minister Alistair Burt said that the U.S. and Israel would have expected Britain to take a step back in their planning. “If you consider the nature of the individuals — [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and Trump — I suspect they would just have known that the United Kingdom would not be in a position to support unless there was some legal backing for it,” Burt said. Calvin Bailey, a Labour MP and member of the U.K. parliament’s Defence Committee, said the U.S. clearly didn’t need Britain’s help in executing its operation against Iran, and said narrative being pushed by Labour’s political opponents — “Are you with Trump or are you not?” — should be resisted. Calvin Bailey, a Labour MP and member of the U.K. parliament’s Defence Committee, said the narrative being pushed by Labour’s political opponents should be resisted. | Nicola Tree/Getty Images “If we allow people to base these things into simple us-and-them kind of questions and decisions, then they become vehicles for populism,” he said. Logistical danger But now Starmer faces the reality of what is happening in the Middle East, and how to respond. The immediate hurdle — and danger — for Starmer’s government will be helping stranded British nationals. More than 76,000 Brits have made themselves known via the U.K. government’s Register Your Presence hub — a number that is almost certain to rise in the days ahead. And senior Labour figures see merit in Britain playing a leading role in bringing stability to Iran. “It takes great strength to try to stand in the way and call for diplomatic solutions when so many have their blood up and are beating their chests on the path to all-out war, but it must be done,” said Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee, adding that it won’t be “glamorous” and “the armchair generals will be furious.” Ricketts says Britain’s lack of involvement in the immediate strikes could give London more leverage in the aftermath of the conflict. “If the U.K. can be in the center of the post-conflict activity, then perhaps there shouldn’t be too much damage from the position we took in the actual strikes,” he said. With those tricky local council elections looming in May, Starmer may not have the luxury of a long game.