Blind loyalty to Washington will not keep Britain safe

Without the rule of law, Britain risks being pulled into yet another conflict not of its making

Sir Keir Starmer speaking in the Commons during Monday’s debate on Iran Pic: UKParliament/Flickr

Keir Starmer is at a defining moment in his premiership.

The special relationship is being tested like never before, and the prime minister is grappling with the realisation that to be a friend of America in 2026 is to accept a friendship that is at best transactional and at worst exploitative. To be Trump’s adversary is to risk public humiliation and strategic exposure. The space between blind loyalty and total disobedience shrinks by the day.

This weekend’s eruption in the Middle East has revealed just how exposed Europe is. For decades, the world order rested on the presumption that the United States would act as the policeman of Western interests, and that our best defence against villains is our shared and mutually respectful alliances. Unfortunately, Trump does not care for either of those things. His aim is singular: Make America Great Again, however he defines it, however he sees fit to achieve it.

Here in Britain, this is particularly problematic. Brexit has left us heavily dependent on the goodwill of our transatlantic big brother. Our intelligence and military systems are so heavily intertwined that attempting to disentangle them would be prohibitively costly and strategically risky. This was all just a theoretical worry under previous US presidencies. Now, it is a question that is preoccupying the minds of government officials more often than it is not.

Starmer’s response to the illegal US strike on Iran reflects that bind. He initially refused to facilitate offensive operations in lockstep with America and Israel, despite outraged crowing from the right of our politics. Here, he adhered to our rules-based system, that such action could not be justified in the absence of a clear and immediate threat. Iran’s regime may well be brutal, oppressive and has backed violence in the region for years. But that is not, in itself, a lawful reason to start a war.

But within days, the situation had changed. Iranian strikes on the Gulf states have put British assets and personnel in danger. The government adjusted its position, now allowing action framed as collective self-defence rather than an offensive attack. Legally, it matters, but politically, it looks like a step from caution toward complicity.

On this, no one will be satisfied. On the right, critics accuse Starmer of hiding behind international law to mask a lack of resolve, and putting at risk the special relationship with our dear friend and trusted neighbour. On the left, Starmer faces accusations of escalation, regional explosion and the fallacy that bombing can create a liberal democracy out of an authoritarian state. For many Labour backbenchers, the memory of the Iraq war looms large in their minds.

So what should Starmer do?

The uncomfortable truth is that Britain’s influence in Washington is limited. He has to balance speaking out on Iran with keeping the US engaged on Ukraine, trade, and NATO’s future. We have little leverage, and staying on Trump’s good side might be the only way to protect Europe from Russian aggression.

But at the same time, blindly following Trump will not make us safer. Watching the US president disregard international law emboldens strongmen; it drags us into crises of our own making and offers a veil of distraction to expansionist powers like Russia or China, who may use our lack of focus to seize land or resources. Upholding these rules and obligations is essential, both morally and strategically.

Starmer was right in his refusal to participate in “regime change from the skies.” But by allowing the US to use our bases for defensive action, Britain now finds itself in murky waters. Who can trust President Trump to respect our boundaries, keep to his word, or refrain from bullying us into further action if he feels cornered or on the brink of victory?

You will hear plenty of talk of the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia in light of the Iran conflict, our most recent edition of The Lead Untangles brings you right up to speed with their future and debunks some myths

What the Hell is actually going on with the Chagos Islands?

With friends like these across the Atlantic, our strength lies in numbers and solidarity with our European allies. Upholding the rules-based international system is our last line of defence against reckless leaders. But we must also reinforce our own alliances and begin, steadily and soberly, the work of reducing our strategic dependence on Washington.

It may feel like there are few good options, but more accurately, there are no easy ones. The old binaries of good versus evil are gone; today, it is strongman versus strongman, the takers and the destroyers who will torch the earth to achieve their goals.

Starmer’s supposed lawyerly instinct, to respect precedent and abide by the rules we have bound ourselves to, should be his compass. The rule of law, our international obligations, and alliances grounded in shared values are the only safeguards left against being dragged into yet another unnecessary and bloody conflict.

The test of Starmer’s leadership will not be how obediently he stands beside Washington, but how firmly he stands by the law. ■

About the author: Zoë Grünewald is Westminster Editor at The Lead and a freelance political journalist and broadcaster.

👫Agree with Zoë? Share this story with your friends, family and colleagues to help us reach more people with our independent journalism, always with a focus on people, policy and place.