It was perhaps the most attention-grabbing moment among the Prime Minister’s questions. Responding to another Tory broadside about his approach to Iran and how it could affect ties with the United States, Keir Starmer was blunt.
“American planes are operating from British bases; that’s the special relationship in action,” he said. “Sharing intelligence every day to keep our people safe — that’s the special relationship in action. Hanging on to President Trump’s last words is not the special relationship in action.”
And certainly, in recent days, latching onto Trump’s ever-changing views and then endlessly and painfully analyzing them has become an even more national activity than before.
On Monday, the US president told the Daily Telegraph that Starmer “took too long” to allow US forces to use UK air bases. Speaking to the Sun on Tuesday, Trump said the prime minister “has not been helpful.” Later that day, he commented witheringly about Starmer to reporters: “We are not dealing with Winston Churchill.”
In previous times, this kind of criticism from an American president, especially in such a concentrated barrage, would provoke mass soul-searching in Downing Street and the Foreign Office, where the flame of the so-called special relationship with Washington still flickers.
But for now, as demonstrated in PMQs, Starmer is, if not completely optimistic about Trump’s comments, then certainly confident in his path, and for three closely interrelated reasons.
The first is the modern diplomatic truism that, as with the old joke about the British climate, if you don’t like Trump’s opinion on something, then don’t worry, wait a while and something very different will appear in its place.
Starmer was nothing but politely pleased and privately bemused by Trump’s past declarations of affection for him, covering everything from Starmer’s impeachment to his “beautiful” accent.
No American president in history has been as prolific or fractious in his public statements, and other world leaders have long learned to essentially ignore much of what he says, usually waiting to see if it is backed up by some kind of action.
Secondly, No 10 knows full well that while Kemi Badenoch and her colleagues might criticize the government for not signing up to the US-Israeli attack on Iran from the start, public opinion tends to be more on Starmer’s side.
YouGov polls on Monday showed fairly strong opposition to the overall US operation in Iran, and slightly against even allowing US planes to use British bases to attack the country.
Finally, there is some quiet frustration within No 10 at the way Starmer’s decisions on Iran have been portrayed and analyzed entirely through the prism of the Trump administration.
“It is clear that the Prime Minister is acting in the interests of Britain and to protect the British people,” one of them said. “That is why he has taken the measures he has taken.”
Perhaps this is an oversimplification, slight but understandable. Downing Street has been happy to receive praise from Trump in the past, along with broader praise for Starmer as a skilled diplomatic interpreter, someone who could, in the words of one minister, act as a bridge between the United States and Europe.
Starmer has played his full part in sweetening his erratic counterpart, arriving on his first visit to the White House with a letter from King Charles proposing an unprecedented second state visit.
Even though Trump is portrayed as transactional, the UK’s approach is very clearly done in the hope of acquiring tangible benefits, particularly success in avoiding part of Trump’s tariff regime.
However, there are some red lines. Downing Street has condemned Trump over the US president’s repeated and inaccurate criticism of Sadiq Khan and how the London mayor has allegedly allowed unrestricted migration to destroy the city.
Most obviously, in January Starmer rebuked Trump for his comments that British soldiers in Afghanistan were avoiding the front line. The prime minister called the comments “insulting and frankly appalling” and suggested Trump should apologize.
As a diplomatic stance it is coherent, although not always comfortable and, by the standards of earlier times, often unorthodox. But this is the world in which all of America’s other allies also operate, and so far none have found a way to keep Trump on their side all the time. This is a massive effort and a shared burden.
