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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…
Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation. All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes. If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high. British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon". He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base. And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved? For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own. While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.' But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme. Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah. It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however. Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris. All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him. Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'. The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light. The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off. Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s. In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Netanyahu: I understand the true cost of war - my own son had to postpone his wedding
Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked outrage after suggesting he understands the 'personal cost' of Israel 's war with Iran - because his son had to postpone his wedding. The Israeli prime minister made the remarks in a solemn address to TV cameras while standing in front of the ruins of a hospital in the southern city of Beersheba, hours after it was hit by Iranian missiles. Officials said at least 40 people were injured in the attack on Thursday. 'There are people who were killed, families who grieved loved ones, I really appreciate that,' Netanyahu said, comparing the attacks on Israel to the blitz in Britain during World War II. 'Each of us bears a personal cost, and my family has not been exempt. This is the second time that my son Avner has cancelled a wedding due to missile threats. It is a personal cost for his fiancee as well, and I must say that my dear wife is a hero, and she bears a personal cost.' Israel and Iran have been exchanging missile attacks for a week after Netanyahu instructed the IDF to target Tehran's nuclear sites and top military officials. The Israeli authorities say 24 Israeli civilians have so far been killed by Iran 's retaliatory strikes, with footage showing Iranian missiles slamming into residential areas. Meanwhile, Washington-based human rights activists estimate 639 people have been killed by Israeli strikes on Iran. Netanyahu's comments angered his political opponents and the relatives of Israeli hostages remaining in Gaza. Anat Angrest, whose son Matan has been held hostage by Hamas since the militant group's attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, said in a post on X that the personal cost of the war 'didn't go unnoticed' by her and her family. 'I have been in the hellish dungeons of Gaza for 622 days now,' she wrote. 'I'm waiting for you, Prime Minister, to save him." Gilad Kariv, a Knesset member for the Democrats, described Netanyahu as a 'narcissist'. 'I know many families who were not forced to postpone a wedding, but who will now never celebrate the weddings that were once meant to take place,' Kariv said. Netanyahu, who is currently on trial in Israel for corruption and is wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges, has faced criticism for the ongoing war in Gaza and for being out of touch with everyday civilians. Israeli opposition figures have criticised the prime minister for continuing his war in Gaza, which has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry. A total of 53 hostages remain in captivity, of whom Israel believes 30 are dead. Hamas killed around 1,200 people during their cross-border attacks on 7 October, 2023, and took 251 people hostage. Previous ceasefires have seen dozens of hostages released from captivity in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned in Israel. Netanyahu's government says Hamas must be eradicated, but after nearly two years of war, the militant organisation continues to fight in some areas of Gaza. Peace talks between Hamas and Israel, meanwhile, have broken down. Several anti-government organisations previously announced they were planning demonstrations in the area of the wedding of Netanyahu's son, Avner. Iron roadblocks and barbed wire fences had already been erected within a 100-metre radius of the venue, the upscale Ronit's Farm event hall in Kibbutz Yakum, north of Tel Aviv, when the Netanyahu family announced last weekend that the wedding would be postponed. Police had also announced that all airspace within a mile radius of the venue would be closed during the ceremony, except for police helicopters.
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
UK preparing to charter flights from Israel, David Lammy says
The UK is arranging charter flights to return British nationals from Israel once Israeli airspace re-opens, the foreign secretary has Lammy confirmed the government was working with the Israeli authorities to provide flights out of Tel Aviv airport, the number of which will be based on demand. Israeli airspace is currently closed due to the ongoing conflict with Iran. The two nations have exchanged waves of air strikes since Israel targeted military and nuclear sites, as well as military commanders and nuclear scientists, a week statement came as Lammy arrived in Geneva for talks with Iran, in the hopes of negotiating an agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme. British nations who wish to return home from Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been advised to complete a form with their email and UK passport number. Lammy said this was to "register their presence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be contacted with further guidance on these flights". Flights will only be provided to those who hold a UK passport, the Foreign Office said. Land routes out of Israel remain open and Lammy said UK staff will be on hand to support British nationals who have crossed the border - including providing transportation to nearby the Foreign Office said families of staff at the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate in Jerusalem had been temporarily withdrawn "as a precautionary measure".The talks in Geneva with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will also include top diplomats from the EU, Germany and France.
