Iran crisis is putting our special relationship to the test

Times

7 hours ago

Sir Keir Starmer is being left in the dark by President Trump
SIMON DAWSON/NO 10 DOWNING STREET
S peaking in Kananaskis, Alberta, last Tuesday, ­Sir Keir Starmer offered his thoughts on Donald Trump's intentions towards Iran. 'There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict,' said the prime minister confidently. Sir Keir had spent the previous evening sat next to the president of the United States at a G7 dinner, so he should have known if Mr Trump was considering some form of military intervention. Yet, within only a few days, that ­assessment was shown to be hopelessly wrong. Heedless of Sir Keir's pleas for de-escalation, Mr Trump ordered in the stealth bombers to destroy Iran's subterranean nuclear sites.
Despite all the talk in British circles in recent months of a warm relationship between London and Washington, cultivated assiduously by Sir Keir and his new ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson, Downing Street has clearly been left in the dark about the intentions of this country's most consequential ally. US actions against Iran have a material impact on the safety of British military personnel in the Middle East, who are vulnerable to retaliatory attacks of the kind mounted on Monday against America's giant Al Udeid base in Qatar. Yet, Sir Keir and his foreign secretary, David Lammy, are clearly out of the loop,
When Mr Trump decided that enough was enough and ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, the unprecedented B-2 raid on uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the United Kingdom was given barely any notice. The White House's reticence may have owed something to its belief that Britain was no longer the steadfast ally of the Thatcher, Major and Blair years. The warnings of Lord Hermer, Britain's attorney general, that supporting US action could amount to a breach of international law may have convinced the US administration that its supposedly closest ally might be a hindrance rather than a help if hostilities ensued. As late as Monday Mr Lammy was unable to offer America definitive British support, repeatedly refusing to deny that the B-2 strike was a violation of international law.
• How did Britain get it so wrong on Trump and Iran?
Relief in Whitehall that Britain dodged a bullet in not having to authorise US use of its base on ­Diego Garcia for Midnight Hammer must now have been replaced by the chilling realisation that its view on how to handle Iran is irrelevant to the Trump administration. Not that London's view is especially clear. While Sir Keir has warned of the danger of escalation following Israeli and US strikes, Mr Lammy has insisted that the UK is 'doing everything we can to stabilise the situation', whatever that means. The Americans were ­content for Britain, together with France and ­Germany, to engage in talks with Iran in Geneva, even as they were preparing to bomb its nuclear estate. Being strung along by your closest ally is the price you pay for offering lukewarm support when the chips are down.
The Iranian missile attack on Al Udeid, America's biggest airbase in the Middle East, must now put an end to Labour's fence-straddling. It appears to have been a performative, face-saving exercise for Iran, involving a tip-off to the US via diplomatic channels. But, having first suggested in the wake of the B-2 strike that he was not interested in regime change in Tehran, Mr Trump may now have concluded that the mullahs and their henchmen in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps must go, or their power be so degraded that they can no longer present any kind of threat, nuclear or conventional, to the region.
As with the Falklands in 1982, the bombing of Libya in 1986, the first Gulf War in 1990-91 and in the aftermath of 9/11, this crisis is another acid test of the special relationship. At the moment, it is one the government is failing. If Britain wants to be an ally worthy of close consultation with the US, it should start acting like one.