Tony Blair’s support for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has long loomed as a specter hanging over the Labor Party.
He was present in 2013 when Ed Miliband, as opposition leader, voted to block UK military action against the Syrian regime.
And it was there again on Monday that Keir Starmer assured MPs that the government remembered the “mistakes of Iraq” and would always act on a “legal basis” and with a “viable, well-thought-out plan” for the crisis erupting in the Middle East.
The prime minister’s implication was clear: he does not believe that the initial US and Israeli attacks on Iran were legal or thoughtful. “This government does not believe in regime change from heaven,” he told the Commons.
It was a significant moment. Starmer has spent much of his tenure as prime minister carefully circling Donald Trump, acting (as he sees it) in the UK’s national interest by maintaining close relations with the US president, but taking a lot of criticism for it at home.
After Trump told the Daily Telegraph on Monday that it had taken the UK “too long” to allow the US to use its bases to carry out attacks on Iran, the naturally cautious prime minister emphasized that the decision was “deliberate” and stood by it.
The UK had initially denied US permission to carry out attacks aimed at regime change from British bases, including Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, citing international law.
But after speaking with Trump over the weekend, Starmer relented Sunday night. He now said the U.S. military could use the bases for “specific and limited defensive purposes.”
It exposed him to accusations of another U-turn. But the UK’s position on those initial attacks has not changed. Lord Hermer, the attorney general, warned that allowing the United States to launch attacks in order to achieve regime change – something Trump himself has advocated – would have been a potential breach of international law.
It is not the government’s position that has changed, but the situation on the ground.
Over the past 48 hours, Iranian missiles and drones have fallen across the Middle East, putting hundreds of thousands of British citizens at risk in hotels, airports, residences and military bases.
Officials argued that the only way to stop the threat to the British in the region was to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles before they were launched: that trying to attack them in flight was like trying to shoot an “arrow” from the sky, while the United States could chase the “archer.”
New legal advice from Hermer concluded that US attacks on missile facilities in Iran – including launch sites and storage silos – would, in fact, constitute self-defense.
“I repeat that we did not participate in the initial attacks on Iran and we will not join offensive action now,” Starmer told the House of Commons on Monday, before making a similar argument to nervous Labor MPs behind closed doors.
“But in the face of Iran’s missile and drone bombardment, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people.
“It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, to prevent the situation from escalating further and to support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and lives.”
The impact of the US-Israeli airstrikes will reverberate throughout the region for months – if not years – to come. Especially since one of the lessons of the Iraq conflict was that once the “shock and awe” stage is over, there has to be a plan for peace and stability.
Starmer doesn’t think the American president has one for Iran. Instead, there is deep uncertainty – and in some parts of the British government genuine fear – about what is to come.
