Ever since Donald Trump returned to office in 2025, Keir Starmer has had to perform a difficult balancing act.
On the one hand, he has sought to avoid open confrontation with Trump despite policies that have directly affected British interests, including imposing trade tariffs on the UK and threatening to annex Greenland, the territory of a NATO ally. On the other hand, the British Prime Minister has tried to carve out a space in which to pursue what he perceives as Britain’s national interests. One of the main bases of this strategy was the idea that appeasing Trump would allow Starmer to become “the Trump whisperer”, nudging the US President towards more amenable policies.[1]
With the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran, this effort has reached an ignominious end. Like many UK prime ministers before him, Starmer appears to have discovered that a policy predicated on accommodating 90% of an American president’s agenda in the hope of influencing the remaining 10% is doomed to failure. When Washington decides to act, it will do so anyway – and London will often be left picking up the pieces.
Starmer is not wrong that US foreign policy is very important for the United Kingdom, and that influencing it is desirable. In particular, the US commitment to NATO and the defence of Europe more broadly is vital to British security. Faced with trade-offs in other less vital areas – for instance the exact level of tariffs affecting US-UK trade – pragmatic concessions might be necessary to maintain it. Keeping channels of communication open and friendly is certainly wiser than engaging in unnecessary diplomatic spats.
Ultimately, the administration of President Trump is not one that can be constrained through careful diplomatic management alone. Trump has an expansive view of his right to use military force across the world, scant respect for alliances or international law, and a chaotic decision-making process. It is not so easy to ‘nudge’ him in constructive directions.
Starmer recognised the dangers inherent in the US military build-up in the Middle East at an early stage. He decided to deny the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford as launching points for strikes on Iran and kept quiet about his views on the coming war. At the same time, Starmer – ever the balancer – did not directly state his opposition to it, either.
Had he done so, he would have been on extremely firm ground for two reasons. The first is international law. The US and Israel’s attack on Iran was patently illegal. The UK government recognised this and it was apparently one reason why the use of UK territory for striking Iran was denied.[2] Whatever the horrendous crimes committed by the Iranian government against its own people, further weakening of the norm of non-aggression is clearly not in the UK’s interest.
The second reason is geopolitical. At a time when the UK desperately needs the US to recommit to European security, Trump is once again leading his country down the path of launching a costly war of choice in the Middle East. Rather than preserving their military assets and diplomatic goodwill to deter Russia, both the United States and Europe are now expending them to justify and deal with the consequences of a war of aggression of their own. The economic consequences and strain on military readiness could significantly damage European and British security.
Yet now that the war has begun, despite what appeared to be Starmer’s obvious private opposition, the UK once again finds itself being swept up in America’s wake. After Iran’s predictable retaliation against both Israel and Arab nations, the Prime Minister has authorised the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford for what he terms “defensive” strikes on Iranian missile launchers.[3] Legal gymnastics aside, these “defensive” strikes are indistinguishable from the “offensive” operations that Starmer only a few days ago refused to allow Trump to launch from British bases.
Nor can we be certain that this will end up being the full extent of British involvement. Already, an explosive drone has struck RAF Akrotiri, a British base in Cyprus, and others have been intercepted en route.[4] There are hundreds of thousands of British citizens in Israel and in the Arab nations that are now under Iranian bombardment. The possibility of UK involvement in opening shipping lanes threatened by Iran and its regional allies cannot be ruled out.
In other words, the UK now shares much of the risk that the United States has taken on with this reckless war of choice. Starmer’s policy of balance could not prevent it, and nor can it protect Britain from its consequences.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual author and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.
Andrew Gawthorpe is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre. He isa specialist in US politics and foreign policy at Leiden University. He also writes a newsletter called America Explained. He was previously a teaching fellow at the UK Defence Academy, a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, and a civil servant in the Cabinet Office.
[1] Rowena Mason, Starmer Faces Great Quandary Over ‘Special Relationship’ After Iran Attack, The Guardian, March 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/keir-starmer-donald-trump-uk-us-special-relationship-iran.
[2] Brad Lendon, Britain Blocking Use of Air Bases Trump Says Would Be Needed for Strikes on Iran, UK Media Reports, CNN, February 2026, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/20/europe/britain-air-base-access-us-iran-intl-hnk-ml.
[3] Lucy Fisher and George Parker, Keir Starmer Will Let US use UK Bases for Attacks on Iranian Missile Sites, Financial Times, March 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/b988499b-1a89-4e56-b0cf-19d5a8ac7111.
[4] Cachella Smith and Nikos Papanikolaou, Two Drones Intercepted Heading for RAF Base, Cyprus Says, BBC, March 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2r0q310e3o.