Farage and Badenoch U-turn on the UK’s involvement in the Iran war because the British public supports Keir’s position not to fight Trump’s illegal war.
Populist leaders shift position as events unfold, chasing the mood of the moment rather than providing real leadership. Populism thrives on the construction of external threats – immigration being the most familiar example – and on the exploitation of fear, anger and latent prejudice. It offers apparently simple answers to complex problems. But in reality it is not about governing well or solving problems. It is about acquiring power. Issues like the Iran war expose the likes of Farage and Polanski.
When the Middle East edges toward another major conflict, we inevitably think of the Iraq War. The lesson of that disaster still hangs over Westminster: the British public does not want to be dragged into another war in the region.
Against that backdrop, Keir Starmer has taken a position that is easy for those without the responsibility of government to criticise, but much harder to improve upon: support Britain’s allies, avoid escalation, and push for diplomacy wherever possible. It is not dramatic. It is not emotionally satisfying. But it is responsible leadership.
The UK government has made clear it will not join offensive strikes in the current confrontation with Iran. At the same time, it has maintained Britain’s alliance commitments – including cooperation with the United States and regional partners – while emphasising de-escalation and negotiation as the only durable path forward.
This reflects the political and strategic reality Britain faces.
After Iraq, the British public has become deeply sceptical of military intervention. At the same time, the UK remains a NATO power with longstanding security partnerships and global responsibilities. Any serious government must balance those two matters. Starmer’s approach does exactly that: Britain will not rush into war, but nor will it suddenly abandon its allies.
The alternatives on offer from other parties reveal why this balance matters.
The Green Party has taken a clear and principled anti-war stance, but it is cheap. Their position has moral clarity and speaks to the understandable anger many people feel about the cycle of violence in the Middle East. But governing a country with Britain’s security commitments is more complicated than opposition politics allows. A government cannot simply disengage from its alliances without consequences. The Greens’ position works well as protest politics; it would be far harder to sustain in power.
The Conservative Party, meanwhile, has fallen into a familiar pattern of opportunism. Conservative figures have loudly criticised the government for not doing more while simultaneously denying they ever advocated British participation in the conflict. The confusion is reflected in recent reporting that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has denied calling for the UK to join the war, despite earlier statements strongly backing US-Israeli military action.
Then there is Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage. Reform’s position has lurched from hawkish rhetoric about backing military action to calls for Britain to stay out entirely. In fact, Farage has already shifted his position during the crisis, moving from backing military action against Iran to arguing that Britain should stay out of another Middle Eastern war; a U-turn. The shift reflects a deeper problem: populism is not a strategy for governing a nation in crisis. It is a method for chasing whichever mood appears most popular at the moment. Foreign policy, however, requires consistency, judgment and a willingness to make difficult decisions even when they are politically inconvenient.
This is precisely why Starmer’s position matters. It reflects a sober lesson from recent history: Britain should never again slide unthinkingly into a Middle Eastern war. He said this 23 years ago on Iraq and he is saying it now.
Support allies, resist escalation, push diplomacy, and avoid owning someone else’s war. That may frustrate those who prefer clearer ideological lines, but it reflects the political and strategic reality Britain faces.
The Iraq War taught a painful lesson: once Britain commits itself to a war in the Middle East, it owns the consequences for decades. Avoiding that trap while still acting as a responsible ally is not weakness. It is the mark of a government that has learned from history.
Starmer’s approach is a conscious effort to ensure that Britain never again stumbles into “another Iraq”; support allies, resist escalation, push diplomacy, and avoid owning someone else’s war.
It it is exactly the kind of leadership the country needs.
Leave a Reply