12 hours ago
Starmer's platitudes show Britain frozen out of big decisions on Iran
Expressions of concern, calls for de-escalation. As the 20-year crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions reaches its historic climax, Britain has resorted to a policy of platitudes.
Sir Keir Starmer wants no part in Israel's offensive against the Iranian regime and its nuclear plants.
He will keep Britain as far away as possible from this campaign, and there is no reason to suppose that his position will change even if American forces were to join the assault, as anonymous US officials have been hinting.
That is an entirely defensible position. Israel's bombs could yet achieve nothing but impose a short delay in Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. The uranium enrichment plant at Natanz has been severely damaged, wrecking thousands of centrifuges, but the second such facility, buried in a mountain at Fordow, seems to have escaped attack so far.
If Iran's regime manages to survive the onslaught and then repair the damage in a few months before going for a nuclear weapon as rapidly as possible, then Israel will have failed and Britain's decision to stay out will look entirely sensible.
But the campaign may not end that way and, in the meantime, Sir Keir's empty bromides doom Britain to diplomatic irrelevance.
There is simply no reason for Iran or Israel – and certainly not the United States – to listen to a word that the Prime Minister or his Government say on this subject. Britain wishes to have nothing to do with the enterprise, and therefore it cannot expect to have any influence over what happens next.
That leaves Sir Keir with one deeply traditional goal of British diplomacy: to avoid an open breach with America. Hence the Prime Minister's claims that Donald Trump is fully behind 'de-escalation' and has no intention of joining the military campaign.
Having dined with Mr Trump at the G7 summit on Monday, Sir Keir declared: 'There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.'
Alas, straight after the summit, Mr Trump said plenty to suggest exactly that.
He declared variously that 'we' have 'total control of the skies over Iran' and 'we' know 'exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding' and Ayatollah Khamenei's only way out was 'unconditional surrender'.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, claimed heroically that Mr Trump was 'leading the calls for Iran to do a deal ', which is true if your definition of 'calls' includes issuing blood-curdling threats.
If America now joins forces with Israel – and if this crisis ends with the total destruction of Iran's nuclear programme and perhaps the downfall of the regime – then Britain will have been a bystander in a moment of epoch-making importance.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, but given that British diplomats and politicians have been deeply engaged in the Iran nuclear issue ever since the Natanz plant was first discovered in 2002, it seems strange, after all that effort, to choose irrelevance at the most decisive hour of the saga.
