Starmer Wins Praise for Refusing US Bases in Iran Strikes

Published: 14 March 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Keir Starmer has earned praise from his allies for refusing to automatically support US-led military strikes on Iran, a move that contrasts sharply with the positions of Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch. Labour figures argue that Starmer is on the right side of public opinion and history.

Emily Thornberry, chair of the Labour foreign affairs committee, said: “You’ve not had a British prime minister say no to an American president since Vietnam. This is a big deal.” Starmer’s approach has been to deny US access to British bases for offensive operations initially, while later permitting defensive action against Iranian missiles. This strategy has drawn public support in the UK and angered Donald Trump.

The decision has positioned Starmer as a politician guided by principle rather than automatic allegiance to the US. One Labour MP likened the stance to Robin Cook’s approach to foreign policy, contrasting it with Tony Blair’s.

By contrast, Farage and Badenoch initially urged full support for US strikes. As public opinion hardened against the war—six in ten Britons now oppose military action according to YouGov—both figures moderated their messaging. Farage staged a petrol station stunt promising a discount on fuel, framing opposition to involvement in Iran as economically necessary. Badenoch emphasized support limited to neutralizing Iranian missiles.

Senior Conservatives, including Andrew Mitchell, criticized Starmer for refusing Trump’s request, arguing it undermined the “special relationship” with the US. Meanwhile, Reform UK and the Henry Jackson Society maintain that Starmer was wrong to deny the use of UK bases.

Despite this, Downing Street insiders report internal polling showing strong public backing for Starmer’s measured approach. Labour officials highlight that the stance also aligns with concerns over the cost of living and energy prices, emphasizing the domestic impact of foreign conflicts.

Analysts note that the rightwing parties’ leadership inexperience and over-reliance on traditional pro-US messaging has weakened their position. Reform UK’s attempt to balance neoconservative stances with residual isolationist tendencies has led to mixed signals, while Farage struggles with an “America problem” as Trump 2.0 diverges from his campaign rhetoric.

Some cabinet members remain cautious about long-term impacts on UK-US relations, though Thornberry and other Labour allies believe that temporary disagreement does not endanger the strategic alliance. They argue that historical experience shows the UK can maintain close ties with the US while exercising independent judgment in foreign conflicts.

Starmer’s cautious approach reflects a broader public sentiment: initial enthusiasm for intervention often gives way to scrutiny of consequences at home and abroad. By prioritizing measured involvement, he has positioned Labour as a responsible, principled alternative, earning credibility in foreign policy at a time when the rightwing parties are struggling to maintain a coherent message.