Too little, too late: Starmer’s failure in the Iran war - opinion

This is yet another catastrophic policy of the UK Labour government. The fact that the ship is still a week away from the Middle East shows the government and particularly its leader to be characterized by indecision, dither, and moral cowardice.

Demonstrating a remarkable ability to get everything wrong, Starmer’s initial response to the war with Iran was to refuse Trump permission to use her bases on British soil. This impacted particularly in relation to Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands.

In my previous life as a lawyer, I had been one of very few UK civilians to visit Diego Garcia.

Why did I go? Long story short, as a barrister I was paid by the foreign office of the UK – the island’s administrators – to represent an American who had stabbed one of the military personnel based there.

The five weeks that I spent on that Island became the most pleasurable of my career, perhaps my life. How could it be otherwise with its white sandy beaches and crystal blue waters? It has been administered by the UK since they hived it off from Mauritius, one of its colonies, and turned it into a joint military base with the United States. Since then, America has used it predominantly as a critical bomber base. They call it “an unsinkable aircraft carrier,” designed to meet US needs in time of emergency.

Examples of such emergencies were the two Gulf wars when Diego was used as a base for US bombers.

And so, as the war with Iran began, we assumed we were set for a rerun of bombers taking off from Diego Garcia. After all, the island is 2,000 miles from Iran compared to the 6,000 miles between Iran and relevant parts of the States.

Who would foresee Starmer saying “No” to Trump? The US and UK had shared “a special relationship” through two hot world wars and one cold one. The relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt, MacMillan and JFK, Thatcher and Reagan were each “special.” They were Democracy’s front line – and whilst The War of Independence in the 1760’s had not begun well, it had developed into one of the firmest alliances in the world.

Until along came Capt. Starmer, with the dither that is characteristic of his policies. He decided that America could not use their bases on UK soil. That was subsequently modified: provided the UK could only ever be said to be acting in self-defense.

As every first-year lawyer knows, self-defense includes pre-emptive strikes. The law permits defense of one’s own territory and indeed those of a staunch ally. Considering that Starmer has repeatedly said that in the last year, the UK has foiled 20 attacks by the Iranian regime on UK soil, he of all people knows that, if he had the moral courage, such actions are well within international law.

Britain not only has the right to attack Iran with her allies but also the moral duty. And Trump was only asking to use the bases, not for the UK to participate actively.

THE FLAMBOYANCE of Donald Trump stands in contrast to the mundanity of Starmer.

This has led Trump to say of Starmer that “he is no Churchill” and publicly humiliate him. This insult was chosen carefully as it is the worst thing you could say to a British premier.

Fortunately, one can confidently say that whatever Britain does, or more likely doesn’t do, is unlikely to make any difference, other than make a lame duck premier like Starmer quack the louder.

One final piece of reputational damage: whilst Admiral Nelson led the British fleet to victory over Napoleon Bonaparte in 1805 and Margaret Thatcher put together a task force of 127 ships to sail to the Falkland Islands, by contrast, Starmer managed to put together a task force of one ship, which is too little, too late in getting to the party.