- Analysts say Starmer is trying to balance alliance demands with legal caution
- Civil society groups call for diplomacy as political pressure mounts over UK’s role in conflict
BIRMINGHAM, England
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to allow the US to use British bases for what he described as “defensive” strikes against Iran has triggered political criticism, diplomatic friction with Washington and renewed debate in the UK over the legacy of Iraq.
Starmer initially declined to permit the US to use British bases for the first wave of joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran, saying Britain does not support “regime change from the skies.” He later approved limited access to bases for defensive operations following Iranian retaliatory missile and drone attacks across the region, including incidents affecting British forces.
*US President Donald Trump on Tuesday slammed Britain for being “very, very uncooperative” and criticized Starmer as “not Winston Churchill.”*
Starmer, speaking in the House of Commons, defended his position as grounded in international law and national interest. “It is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest,” he told lawmakers, adding that any UK action must have “a lawful basis” and a “viable thought-through plan.” He repeatedly invoked the lessons of the 2003 Iraq war.
A ‘middle ground’ under strain
Security analysts say the government is attempting to balance alliance commitments with domestic and legal concerns.
Speaking to Anadolu, Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said Britain’s position reflects broader European tensions.
“Much of the European initial response was that international law should be upheld ... For example, Prime Minister Starmer said that it would be illegal for the UK to allow the US to use its bases,” Melvin said.
But he added that events on the ground have exposed “the reality of international politics” and “the overwhelming power of the US to change the situation.”
Melvin described Britain as struggling to occupy “a middle ground,” allowing limited use of bases for defensive purposes while maintaining legal reservations about the wider US campaign. As the conflict continues, he said, “these difficulties and contradictions in the European position are going to be exposed.”
Limited scope and significant constraints
In a comment to Anadolu, Anthony Dworkin, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), said Starmer’s approach has been more constrained than critics suggest.
Although Britain has granted access to its bases, Dworkin noted this applies only to narrowly defined defensive targets: Iranian facilities being used to launch attacks against regional allies that were not previously involved in the conflict.
“The US still cannot use British bases to conduct attacks against the broad range of targets in Iran,” including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps buildings, missile production facilities or nuclear sites, he said.
Dworkin argued that the restrictions are “as significant as the decision to let them use the bases at all,” particularly given Trump’s pressure.
He said Starmer’s stance reflects both a commitment to international law and sensitivity within the Labour Party over former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
“In this way, Starmer has been consistent and taken a stronger stand against the US than he has done up to now as prime minister,” Dworkin said.
Public view
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, a British-Iraqi researcher and analyst, told Anadolu that Starmer’s move does not represent a major change.
“I don’t think the UK decision constitutes a big strategic shift,” he said, describing it instead as a “reactive measure” aimed at minimizing harm to British assets in the region.
However, he warned that Tehran and its allied groups are likely to view the UK as enabling US and Israeli action regardless of the limitations.
“As for the British public, I think there’s extreme weariness about getting involved in any new war in the Middle East, particularly any war aimed at ‘regime change,’” he said.
That public mood, he added, helps explain why Starmer has repeatedly emphasized that Britain will not participate in a campaign to topple Iran’s leadership.
Political pressure at home and abroad
At home, Starmer faces criticism from the opposition, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accusing him of using international law as cover for hesitation and *pushing for more “offensive action.”*
Some Labour lawmakers have also urged caution, wary of deeper entanglement.
*Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, warned that the decision could lead the UK down “a slippery slope,” urging Starmer to “not let Trump drag Britain into another prolonged war in the Middle East.”*
*Green Party leader Zack Polanski also said Starmer was “dragging the UK into another illegal war.” He stressed that the government should “immediately withdraw permission for the US to use UK bases … (and) think about our own national security.”*
Abroad, Trump’s rebuke underscores strains in the transatlantic relationship, even as British officials insist operational cooperation with Washington remains close.
Beyond Westminster, several British civil society groups have strongly criticized the US-Israeli campaign and the UK’s role in facilitating it.
The United Nations Association-UK described the strikes as illegal and escalatory, arguing they undermine the UN Charter and risk deepening instability across the Middle East. The organization urged the British government to prioritize diplomacy and work through international institutions to prevent further conflict.
The Campaign Against Arms Trade also condemned the military action, saying Britain’s decision to allow access to its bases risks entangling the country in another war. The group said the move makes it difficult for the UK to present itself as detached from the offensive, particularly given longstanding concerns about arms exports and military cooperation.
Meanwhile, the Stop the War Coalition denounced the attacks as reckless and warned of the danger of a wider regional war. The group called on the government to refuse any participation in the conflict and announced plans to mobilize public protests.
