.png)
4 hours ago
5
It was perhaps the most attention-grabbing moment of prime minister’s questions. Responding to yet another Conservative salvo about his approach to Iran and how it might affect ties with America, Keir Starmer was direct.
“American planes are operating out of British bases – that is the special relationship in action,” he said. “Sharing intelligence every day to keep our people safe – that is the special relationship in action. Hanging on to President Trump’s latest words is not the special relationship in action.”
And certainly in the last few days, hanging on to and then endlessly, painfully analysing Trump’s ever-changing opinions has become even more of a national pursuit than it was before.
On Monday, the US president told the Daily Telegraph that Starmer “took far too long” to allow US forces to use UK airbases. Speaking to the Sun on Tuesday, Trump said the prime minister “has not been helpful”. Later that day he commented witheringly about Starmer to reporters: “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.”
In previous eras, such criticism from a US president, particularly in so concentrated a volley, would prompt mass soul-searching in Downing Street and the Foreign Office, where the flame of the so-called special relationship with Washington still flickers.
But for now, as demonstrated at PMQs, Starmer is, if not completely sanguine about Trump’s comments, then certainly confident of his path, and for three closely interlinked reasons.
The first is the modern-day diplomatic truism that, much as with the old joke about the British weather, if you dislike Trump’s opinion on something then don’t worry, just wait a bit and something very different will come along in its place.
Starmer was no more than politely pleased and privately baffled by Trump’s previous declarations of affection for him, taking in everything from Starmer’s political judgment to his “beautiful” accent.
No US president in history has been as prolific or wayward in his public utterances, and other world leaders have long learned to essentially ignore much of what he says, generally waiting to see if it is backed by any kind of action.
Secondly, No 10 knows full well that while Kemi Badenoch and her colleagues might lambast the government for not signing up to the US-Israeli attack on Iran from the very start, public opinion tends to be more on the side of Starmer.
YouGov polling on Monday showed fairly strong opposition to the overall US operation in Iran, with opinion also slightly against even allowing US aircraft to use British bases to attack the country.
Finally, there is some quiet frustration inside No 10 at the way Starmer’s decisions over Iran have been portrayed and analysed entirely through the prism of Trump-management.
“It is clear that the prime minister is acting in the British interest, and to protect British people,” one said. “That is why he has taken the action that he has.”
That is perhaps a slight if understandable oversimplification. Downing Street has been happy to take Trump’s praise in the past, along with wider compliments for Starmer as an adept diplomatic performer, someone who could, in the words of one minister, act as a bridge between the US and Europe.
Starmer has fully played his part in buttering up his erratic counterpart, arriving at his first White House visit with a letter from King Charles proposing an unprecedented second state visit.
For all that Trump is portrayed as transactional, the UK approach is very clearly done in the hope of acquiring tangible benefits, most notably the success in avoiding some of Trump’s regime of tariffs.
There are nonetheless some red lines. Downing Street has condemned Trump over the US president’s repeated and inaccurate criticisms of Sadiq Khan and how the London mayor has supposedly allowed unrestricted migration to destroy the city.
Most obviously, in January Starmer rebuked Trump over his comments that British soldiers in Afghanistan avoided the frontline. The PM called these “insulting and frankly appalling” remarks, and suggested Trump should apologise.
As a diplomatic stance it is coherent, if not always comfortable and, by the standards of previous eras, often unorthodox. But this is the world in which every other US ally also operates, and as yet none has found a way to keep Trump onside all the time. This is mass endeavour, and a shared burden.
