“I have been attacked by some for my decision not to join the offensive against Iran. But at every stage, I have stood by my principles – Principles which I held just as strongly when it came to the debate on the Iraq war in 2003. Principles which I believe are shared by the British people – That our decisions should be based on a calm, level-headed assessment of the British national interest… And that if we are to send our servicemen and women into harm’s way – The very least they deserve is to know that they do so on a legal basis… And with a proper, thought through plan”.
Sir Keir Starmer, March 16th, 2026
March 17th. Sir Keir Starmer is right. There is nothing wrong with restraint in international affairs. He is also right that the primary mission of the British or any other government is to serve the national interest. He is again right that Trump has no thought through plan as friends of mine close to the White House have confirmed. Given the circumstances, what is the British national interest?
Starmer is also right to resist Donald Trump’s efforts to bully Britain and other Europeans into joining the US-Israeli coalition against Iran. Trump is utterly wrong to link US membership of or US support for NATO to the support of Europeans for his current war on Iran. The US leadership of the Alliance is an essential, probably vital US interest. If the Americans abandoned NATO it would be an act of immense self-harm. Still, in their current hyper-nationalist mood driven by The American Idiots Guide to Made Up History in which the Americans won everything and saved everyone and gained nothing for it, they may just fall into that trap. When Europeans also fell into the trap of supporting American military adventures out of fear they would lose NATO, poor American leadership led to fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subjugation of the national interest of Europeans to mercurial US domestic politics.
If Starmer (and Merz and others) is right to suggest that offensive British military action against Iran is not in the British national interest, confronting the aggressions of the appalling regime in Tehran clearly is. What is the plan? Thus far, British policy towards Iran, such as it exists, has been covenants without the sword of no use to any man or woman. It is a clear and present danger to Europeans to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA which was meant to prevent Iran enriching weapons grade uranium was in fact a not very joint, not at all comprehensive, no plan of inaction.
Furthermore, whilst it may not be an obligation for Britain to join the Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran, it is a vital British and wider European interest to get oil flowing again through the Straits of Hormuz. And yet, the most Starmer is offering (possibly) are a few anti-mine drones that will do nothing to counter the 2500 unmanned attack boats the Iranians possess and which threaten any ship in transit. Air, surface and subsurface defence is needed along with protected convoys through the Straits.
What Trump has again revealed is the utterly broken relationship between the ends, ways, and means of the British national interest. Trump will also exact a price on NATO allies for their lack of support for his war on Iran. He is likely to exact a particular price on the UK for what he regards as betrayal by America’s closest ally (not the oldest – that is France). If Trump is in a particularly vengeful mood he might even close one or all of the US bases in Britain, even if that causes self-harm to the US national interest and freezing the British out of the intelligence partnership.
Starmer? He now faces a choice. He can either force the British people to live with even more insecurity and risk to their interests, which is the real meaning of the national interests. Or, he can bolster the national interest by investing in the instruments of power vital to it. The appalling state of the British armed forces is not Starmer’s fault. That accolade belongs to Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson. However, if Starmer was really committed to realising the national interest he would move immediately to lessen dependence on the US by increasing defence investment.
Starmer is doing the opposite. He pretends his government is making the greatest increase in UK defence spending since the Cold War whilst cutting the defence budget to pay for ever more social welfare. There is still no sign of the long-promised Defence Investment Plan. He would also increase investment in the other instruments of power available to London, such as diplomacy and intelligence. He does not.
The reason I dislike Starmer is not because I disagree with the ‘principles’ he outlined yesterday in his speech in Downing Street. It is because he is a strategic fraud. He hides behind international law simply because he lacks strategic judgement. He talks about the national interest but does not have a plan to realise it and destroys the very instruments of power vital to it. He rejects Trump’s bullying but makes Britain ever more vulnerable to it. He talks about leadership and yet promotes sectarian politics for narrow political gain which is the very antithesis of leading a complex society in the twenty-first century world. He routinely confuses values with interest, and his even greater confusion between the strategic and the political. His biggest failing? He talks too much!
Julian Lindley-French
