Is Starmer going to do in Iran what Blair did in Iraq?

While Sir Keir Starmer appears determined to etch out the UK as being first in the queue for a trade deal with the US, he seems distinctly more on the fence about shoring up Trump’s position on backing Israeli action against Iran – although that too may evolve. 

The Prime Minister has come under fire from one side of the spectrum for his immediate calls to de-escalate, while drawing criticism from others for having subsequently sent jets and other military assets to the Middle East.

So, is this yet another example of what some lambast as Keir’s flip-flop approach to policy and the politics of governing? Not quite. 

In fairness, it would seem that Donald Trump’s own approach to intervening against the Iranian regime is becoming a more of moveable feast, and so perhaps Starmer’s positioning is remaining flexible to adapt as needed. 

Much can be viewed through the prism of insisting that all steps must be taken to ensure Iran does not breach the terms of its hitherto non-proliferation obligations – obligations that the global International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) watchdog found it had violated just days before Israel began its strikes. Both the PM and the US President have said this remains their priority. 

But the whispers of it being the most opportune moment in decades for regime change have become more explicit that implicit, begging the question of whether Sir Keir will end up pulling another Blair, 20 years on. 

Perhaps, if taking out so many of the regime’s head honchos ends up with such instability that its foundations crumble, regime change will be another happy byproduct in the short term – though it would raise major questions about longer-term implications. Starmer lacks the charisma Blair once had to make a proactive case for aligning with Washington on this front, but he may end up going along with it all the same. 

We are all old enough to remember celebrating the Obama-brokered nuclear deal that restored, not only US, but also UK diplomatic relations with Tehran. British businesses eager to take advantage of trading and working with their Iranian counterparts, buoyed by its extremely well-educated workforce, felt reassured that a new future for Iran’s relations with the outside world had arrived. 

Fast forward a decade and that same opportunity is being framed as one the original reasons to bring down the clerics’ regime. Members of the Iranian diaspora, whose families fled after the 1979 revolution, dare to dream of a future where, as one put it, they might open the first British pub in Tehran. 

But the stickier questions remain more pressing: is all-out war - and the costs it would bring - necessary to have any kind of stable relations with Iran? Already the trajectory for oil prices is being held up as but one reason to put the brakes on this conflict.

We know where the views of one of Starmer’s predecessors lie. Tony Blair, who continues to frame the Iranian regime as “the origin of the instability of the Middle East”, remains adamant that the West must ensure it never has nuclear weapons. And the current PM is now consulting his national security advisor, Jonathan Powell, over joining the US in attacks against Iran. Powell was of course Blair’s chief of staff during the Iraq war. 

The safest bet is that Sir Keir will continue to hedge his position while looking to the US to take the lead. That die was cast long ago. And Starmer has continued in the tradition of leaders around the world who appear better on the global stage than they do on domestic fronts. 

Perhaps the resurging right in Britain will end up in a quandary over how to respond, given its apparent admiration for the Trump movement, which it seems to be emulating in part. But Labour has more than one political constituency to worry about; foreign policy could yet prove to be its making or its undoing at the next election.