Britain wants no part in Israel's war
Photo byPacifism is a dirty word in Britain. The pre-war premier Neville Chamberlain's undoubtedly well-meaning but naive appeasement in the face of Hitler's Germany is rejected by all and sundry in the history books today. Ask Britons whether they'd sooner be a Chamberlain or a Churchill and the overwhelming number would reach for the latter. But how persistent the Chamberlain mindset is!
'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.' This was Chamberlain in 1938. And in 1938 he was a popular premier. And it could almost be forgiven for being the view of the median Britain in 2025.
The nation's attitude to war overseas is more often than not best characterised as an aversion to engagement; an unwillingness to expend excess material and wealth for foreigners in far-off places. In the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, that isolationist approach has been inverted. But the Middle East? Iran? Israel? In the shadow of Iraq? Britons baulk.
Here is the state of public opinion about possible action involving Iran.
You can see YouGov's wording of the question mentions Israel. It provides much-needed context, but mention of Israel may toxify attitudes somewhat – voters are increasingly unfavourable towards the state because of its actions in Gaza. But it doesn't detract from the main narrative: voters, for the most part, want to give this part of the world as wide a berth as possible.
So how did we come to this? Is it all just Iraq?
Not quite.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
In the 1990s, voters were against military action in Bosnia. In the shadow of the Vietnam War – 30 years hence, mind you – Britons did not want to risk British lives for a country in which many could not even name its capital. 'Don't risk UK troops' came the Independent's headline, accompanying an NOP poll that found popular support for aid but total aversion to anything that 'would end up like Vietnam'.
On the rare occasion that Britons are willing to risk war, it appears to come only with very specific circumstances. It would be wrong to say voters were opposed to intervention in Iraq from the beginning. They weren't. And at one point most Britons did favour intervention to topple Saddam Hussein.
Nevertheless, YouGov found there was consistent but tepid support until the middle of 2004, including in the shadow of the well-attended anti-war protests.
It's a tale of two nations. On the streets, a country adamantly against any form of intervention. But when it came, voters in their living rooms rallied to the troops. But it was not to last. Not one survey since shows voter appreciation for US-UK intervention in Iraq.
But Iraq has not nullified British overseas ambition. In 2015 most voters backed airstrikes to combat Islamic State in Syria. In 2018 those numbers dwindled. In 2022 Britons were quick to rally in favour of Ukraine. And as late as March this year a plurality support sending peacekeepers to the country.
With the right conditions, people in the UK can be rallied to support friends in the face of adversity. But emphasis on 'friends', there.
On Israel vs Iran, few regard Israel with much favourability. Right now Israel is the least liked it's ever been in Britain and much of western Europe. It's unlikely this country's public could be rallied to Israel's aid any time soon. Without a serious deterioration in regional or global security, Britons would sooner turn their backs on this 'quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing'.
[See more: Let the non-doms leave]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
In the wake of Trump's strikes on Iran, what are Keir Starmer's options?
The choices Keir Starmer makes in the next few days could define his premiership. Tony Blair never escaped the accusation he had been George Bush 's 'poodle' over the invasion of Iraq. And how far the current Labour PM goes in backing another US president in another foreign conflict could help or haunt him for years to come. Despite the prime minister last week repeatedly saying ' de-escalation is the priority ', the Trump administration pressed ahead with strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran overnight on Saturday. The prime is now walking a tightrope between supporting the UK's closest ally and attempting to call for calm. In the wake of the strikes, Sir Keir appeared to give the US his cautious backing – describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. But he has also issued stark warnings about the conflict escalating beyond the region. As the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate, the prime minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. He is currently sat firmly on the fence - with his most senior ministers refusing to say whether Trump's strikes were either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. And while the US did not ask Britain for help in its first round of strikes, at some point, the prime minister will be forced to make a decision. So what are his options? One option – albeit the most diplomatically tricky – is to withhold support entirely. Sir Keir has spent months trying to build a special relationship with President Trump. Anything less than support for their actions is likely to go down badly in the White House. However, the Attorney General Lord Hermer, a close political ally of Sir Keir, is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. Lord Hermer is reportedly reluctant to sign off any offensive operations, with a source telling The Spectator: 'The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.' The weight the Labour leader places on his old friend's legal judgement could limit the extent of any support for the US, if Trump does decide to act militarily. The PM's own background will also play a role in the decision. The energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said on Thursday that he 'who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law.' But will he really risk infuriating President Trump at a time when the Republican's tariffs on goods entering the US have already led economists to downgrade their forecasts for the UK economy? Another option, considered the most likely, is to allow the use of the UK-US airbase at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. On Saturday, Trump's strikes on Iran were launched directly without the use of the Diego Garcia base. But in future military actions, the US may ask Britain's permission to use the joint airbase in the Chagos archipelago. The type of B-2 stealth bombers which are often based there are the ones that are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which were used in the operation over the weekend. This is a middle ground seen as the most likely option for the UK government to back. It would not require action from the UK, but could protect the relationship with the US by seeming to offer support. He is already under pressure over the issue at home. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has said the UK should give permission for the US to use Diego Garcia to launch bunker-buster bombs. One step beyond the Diego Garcia option is to provide logistical support to the US, and what that would look like in practice is being wargamed in Whitehall. The benefit of this option is that it would allow the UK to appear to be more supportive of Present Trump than just simply allowing him to use a US airbase, and at the same time risking only a limited response from Iran. The UK is keen not to allow Tehran a pretext to strike British bases or interests and has sent extra assets to the region, with another six Typhoon jets sent to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, joining the eight already there. The final option, considered the least likely, is full UK military intervention. Britain is still pushing hard behind the scenes for a de-escalation in the Middle East. The UK's most favoured outcome is a diplomatic solution, in which both sides dial down the aggression. Keir Starmer is also, as a politician, a gradualist and as such is considered less likely than some of his predecessors as prime minister to commit the UK military to support this kind of intervention, even if it is in the aid of one of our key allies, the United States.
The Sun
17 minutes ago
- The Sun
First vid of Trump's B2s after mammoth 37hr ‘bullseye' Iran blitz… as Russia warns US ‘Pandora's Box has been opened'
Starmer calls for Iran to return to the negotiating table Sir Keir Starmer has warned there is a risk of the Middle East crisis spiralling beyond the region after Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran's nuclear programme. The Prime Minister spoke to the US President on Sunday night after an air raid by B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities. Downing Street said the leaders agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations. "The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security," Downing Street said. "They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. "They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. "They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days." Earlier, Sir Keir - whose previous calls for restraint appear to have been ignored by the American leader - said there was a "risk of escalation", adding: "That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme." The UK was not involved in the US operation but there is the prospect of British forces being dragged into the conflict if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders a retaliation.
Sky News
20 minutes ago
- Sky News
Israel-Iran live: Israel attacks Iran's Fordow nuclear site - as Tehran threatens US with 'decisive response' after strikes
The Israeli military has targeted Iran's Fordow nuclear site a day after the US bombed the facility. Iran has vowed revenge against the US, while Donald Trump has hailed the "bullseye" strike. Follow the latest and listen to The World podcast as you scroll.
