Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newspaper.
Consider the option posed to Sir Keir Starmer less than a week ago.
If Britain were to support another open American war in the Middle East – from where no threat was imminent – it would show that it had learned nothing from the recent past. But then, if Britain opposes this action, it will invite the wrath of Donald Trump, which itself has life and death implications. The defense of our archipelago depends on US support, including the Trident nuclear deterrent. The future of Ukraine is also like this.
To this terrible dilemma, Starmer’s answer is to resist the initial attack, but then to join in defending against Iran’s retaliation. This is not excessive caution. This is the minimum amount of luggage that one can expect. Nor is Starmer indecisive. They opposed that phase of the war which they considered illegal, and supported that phase which they considered legitimate. Or, if international public law is not of paramount concern, then put it that way. They may not have provoked Iran, but once British allies were attacked, they responded with force. British jets shot down the drone Jordan On Tuesday.
Finally, Trump’s Anger It came anyway, as it did with Spain, with which it wants to “cease all trade” in order to prevent the use of its bases. But pleasing America is not the test of policy. The extent to which Conservative and Reform UK believe otherwise is worrying. The Tories give more importance to the fact that Canada and Australia supported Trump from the beginning. Well, Australia also sent combat troops to the Vietnam War. Like the rest of Europe, Britain also did not do this. If the Tories regret that abstention as a betrayal of the Anglosphere, they should tell us. On Iran, Starmer’s Post Aligned with France and Germany.
Even more important is the connection with the public. Surveys show that British voters opposed to American action. At this point, a certain kind of armchair admiral will puff himself up and say that leadership means leading, that Winston Churchill never read a focus group. No one who lived for years in Iraq could entertain this absurdity. The ability of a country to accomplish its war objectives depends on domestic sentiment. Occupying Iraq (and Afghanistan) with doubled or tripled military presence might have been better, but Western voters would not have tolerated it. The unpopularity of a war is a logical operational argument against waging it, if not a conclusive one.
In Britain’s parliamentary system, the Prime Minister does not get a chance to ask questions to the opposition leader. Columnists are not so bound. Then, here goes. Did you expect that some of the air strikes on Iran last Saturday would escalate into a regional conflict by Monday? If not, doesn’t this call for some humility going forward? If Iran is to become a failed state, what should Britain do to stabilize it? After all, based on geography, the UK is more likely than the US to feel the waves, including the influx of refugees. If the regime becomes even more hostile, what should be the British contribution in removing it? Sorry to bore you about it, but neither the interveners in Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Libya are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
There is not enough contempt in the state for the domestic record of this government. Labor was never ready to run the country, as some were willing to warn at the time, with the credulous talking point “Britain is back”.
However, “domestic” is an important qualification. On the foreign front, Labor has rectified some of the barbarity of the post-Cameron Tories through innovative moves such as a plan to visit the second-largest economy on earth. Starmer has also improved relations with the EU and aligned himself with Trump in Britain’s (and Ukraine’s) interests.
His caution regarding Iran is linked to this record. By contrast, the least electable thing about the otherwise reform-minded Conservative leader remains her foreign currency. It’s worth paying attention to what Kemi Badenoch said this week. “There are groups throughout Britain whose political loyalties do not align with British national interests when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East. These are the people Labor looks to as its voters because without them, they cannot remain in power.”
Badenoch’s most impressive quality is articulate speaking, born of clear thinking. Here, she is completely shy and spontaneous. If he means Muslim voters then he should mention it clearly. Then some refutations can be put out in the open. First, opposition to this war is not limited to Muslims, as they may find out in the coming weeks. Second, his party has been sensationally bad at interpreting British “interests” for decades. Examples include its support for the Iraq War and Brexit which most voters consider a mistake.
Those who question the patriotism of fellow citizens should not object to the return of rudeness. The British right’s desire to live indirectly through the US is even more evident than in the Brexit vote a decade ago. Most of the time, it’s just rude. It is even worse when the issue is war. The malignant chauvinism that Wilfred Owen wrote about with such controlled anger in “Dulce et Decorum Est” was, at least, on behalf of one’s own country.
janan.ganesh@ft.com
