“This government does not believe in regime change from the skies.” The words are those of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, putting considerable distance between himself and US President Donald Trump over the US-Israeli attack on Iran.
Mr Starmer also called for a viable thought-through plan and a lawful basis for the conflict. The statement implies – but Mr Starmer does not say openly – that he doubts whether a thought-through plan and a lawful basis for the attack actually exist. This distancing from the Trump administration may cause future problems in the UK-Trump relationship. There are ripples of that even now.
Before Mr Starmer spoke, Mr Trump expressed his disappointment that the UK refused to allow the US to use a Royal Air Force base in England – Fairford in Gloucestershire – and another base on Diego Garcia to launch the initial attacks on Iran. But then came an Iranian Shahed drone attack on a British RAF base at Akrotiri in Cyprus.
It’s possible the attack was launched not from Iran itself but perhaps from Iran’s allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Either way, Mr Starmer then changed his mind. He did offer subsequent British facilities requested by the Americans, while remaining publicly sceptical of the core idea of the American mission.
The belief that bombs and rockets can change a regime to a government more amenable to American interests appears to be the triumph of hope over real-world experience.
Mr Trump, however, was irritated. Mr Starmer’s about-turn, Mr Trump said, “took far too much time … far too much time” and the lack of immediate UK support in combat “probably never happened between our countries before”. Again, Mr Trump’s rhetoric does not accord with historical facts.
The idea of British reluctance to join a possibly doomed US foreign war conducted outside the Nato area has indeed happened very publicly before.
From 1965 onwards, British prime minister Harold Wilson absolutely refused to send UK troops to join the Americans in Vietnam. Britain, instead, offered diplomatic backing and did not publicly condemn American bombing in the region but did not get militarily involved. Given the outcome of that war, Mr Wilson was vindicated by not sending troops to a doomed cause.
In coming months, we will perhaps learn whether Mr Starmer’s reluctance in 2026 will, like that of Mr Wilson in 1965, also be proved correct. And history also teaches how significant – and tricky – Iran and the region has been for the UK for more than a century.
Back in 1901, a shrewd British entrepreneur called William Knox D’Arcy obtained a lucrative concession from the Shah of Persia to exploit the country’s oil resources. These arrangements lasted until the Iranian monarchy was overthrown and the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalised the oil industry in 1951.
Two years later, the British and Americans conspired together to overthrow Mr Mossadegh, reinstate the Shah and return to business more or less as usual. In 1953, regime change worked – for a time.
But then came the overthrow of the Iranian monarch – Mohammad Reza Pahlavi – in February 1979. The Shah fled Iran. Many Iranians came to Britain and settled here. The tangled web of UK-Iran relations is, therefore, part of our shared history. And part of our future problems. The contortions of British and American military involvement in Iran have also been of long-standing.
In 2007, the US presidential candidate senator John McCain – a Vietnam war hero – was asked at a public meeting what America should do to get rid of the hostile Iranian regime. The questioner suggested Iran was causing trouble to American interests, threatening Israel and other US allies and destabilising the Middle East. Mr McCain responded by jokingly re-writing The Beach Boys song Barbara Ann and singing to his audience “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”. The audience laughed.
It has now taken a president who avoided military service in Vietnam, Mr Trump, to do with full seriousness the very thing that Mr McCain the war hero once joked about. Whether the result will be successful remains in doubt, although Mr Trump characteristically may claim success whatever the outcome. After all, Mr Trump told the world in June 2025 that “Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”.
Completely and totally? Despite the redundant repetition, it appears Mr Trump was either wrong or misled or putting a gloss on failure. Or, perhaps, the Iranians have miraculously resurrected enrichment facilities from the dust in a few months.
British quiet scepticism about the Iran mission is also based on scepticism about the reliability of Mr Trump himself. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper forcefully denied that the UK will be pulled into an escalating conflict by our American allies.
“That’s simply not true,” she said. British involvement “is about the defence of our partners in the Gulf and defence of countries where we have so many British citizens and interests in those countries”.
There are about 300,000 British citizens in the Gulf region. About 102,000 of them – at the time of writing – have registered their presence with UK authorities so that they can be evacuated if necessary. As Ms Cooper put it: “We’re sending out rapid deployment teams to the region to work with the travel industry, to work with airlines, to work with those governments in the region as well, on what the options will be to ensure that people can safely return home.”
That’s the immediate British problem. In the longer term, big questions remain. As Mr Starmer put it, “we all remember the mistakes of Iraq. And we have learned those lessons”.
Perhaps, Mr Trump has learned different lessons. Or, perhaps, a month or so of bombs and rockets mean the war will be over, a new Iranian government will be installed, and Mr Trump will claim total victory. My guess is that the US President will probably claim total victory. Whatever happens.
