I don't know whether Keir Starmer plays chess but I have a very strong hunch that he doesn't. My reason? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he can see more than one move ahead. Which is why he's had to make so many U-turns.
The latest debacle, which I count as a U-turn, is the smouldering ruins of his carefully cultivated personal relationship with Donald Trump. Now Trump says one thing one day, another the next and sometimes back to his original view sometime after that so, while I see this particular train wreck as detrimental to the UK's well being, I don't for a moment see it as being very harmful to the relationship we have with the USA, whether you regard that as "special" or not. The bigger danger to that relationship is that the UK's capabilities have become so weak and feeble that what the Americans get back for what they put in is ever more limited. I would hope that our contribution on intelligence is still valuable, GCHQ having a high reputation. On nuclear weapons technology we probably still generate some valuable knowledge and experience we can share from our atomic weapons establishments and capabilities. On civil nuclear power we still had useful things to share up to about 30 years ago, now zilch apart from decommissioning and waste managemement. Though that probably isn't regarded as important any more it used to enable us to have very strong relationships with the US National Laboratories. Just as we haven't invested in defence, we haven't invested in the associated technologies. The American programmes were always very much bigger but the UK traditionally punched above its weight technically and so was able to bring things to the party. I suspect that situation is rather different now.
So, notwithstanding the Commander in Chief's hissy fit, I'm sure intelligence sharing and military collaboration between the UK and USA is continuing pretty much as normal. The longer term problem is that is that "normal" now means the UK continues to slide steadily into irrelevance as a partner for the USA. Now that the UK public has realised that we didn't even have a small naval vessel available to go at short notice to protect our interests in the relatively near-field (i.e. Akrotiri at Cypus in the Med) will the government now grasp the real and imminent threats we face and start to build up our defence capability, both in terms of the services and our manufacturing base? Sadly, I wouldn't bet on it.
But back to Starmer and his inability to see much into the future. The prospect of an American attack on Iran had been bubbling in plain sight for several weeks. In that case Israel was always going to join in. What did Starmer think was then going to happen? Surely his red box briefings must have included likely Iranian retaliation at a range of targets around and beyond the Gulf. Just because the Starmer had used the UK's singular interpretation of international law not just to sit on his hands but also to deny the USA the option of using its bases on British territory in Cyprus and Diego Garcia, did he think the Iranians would leave those locations off their target list? Was it assumed that the Iranians wouldn't lash out at the Emirates, where lots of Brits would be present?
So as night follows day the UK had to change tack and allow the US to use those bases for "defensive" operations, an angels on a pinhead bit of hair splitting with no great material difference, at least as far as the Iranians are concerned.
I was nervous when the bombing of Iran started. I thought it a gamble on Trump's part, moving us into a time of risk and unpredictability. But my main concern was Trump's special military expedition works. The jury is very much out on that point.
Iran has been the source of many problems in the world over the last 5 decades. It has sponsored terrorism on a huge and growing scale. It's easy to think that it doesn't affect us directly but it clearly does as there are reports of up to 50 Iranian terrorist plots being foiled in the UK. All this could appear trifling if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons. A world with an Iranian nuke would be immeasurably less safe. If you need any persuading on this point, consider the words of Ayatollah Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri, who was one of the candidates to take over as spiritual leader, spoken on Iranian TV:
"to reach the goal of divine proximity, even if half the world's people are killed, it is worth it. Therefore, the killing of 42,000 people in Gaza does not matter compared to that great goal."
Iran armed Hamas and encouraged the 7 October 2023 on Israel, knowing that the scale of that attack would inevitably lead to Israel attempting to neutralise Hamas. It had no qualms whatsoever about the impact on the Palestinian people who were mere pawns in their determination to prevent the progressive normalisation of relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours, Saudi Arabia in particular.
Nuclear weapons have helped to avoid conflicts between the major powers throughout my lifetime. But that is because the principle of deterrence works when the leaders of the nuclear weapon states have even a scintilla of humanity. From Kennedy and Kruschev, through Nixon and Brezhnev, Reagan and Gorbachev to Trump and Putin we could take comfort from the fact that MAD (mutual assured destruction) would stay the hand from first use of nuclear weapons. Yes, even Putin with his predilection for feeding his troops into the meat grinder in Ukraine (though historically that's pretty normal for Russian leaders).
The Iranian leadership are different. Utterly idealogically driven and with little apparent concern for their own people's well being.
The Americans learned a lesson with Kim Jong Un. Once you let a rogue state obtain a nuclear weapon the game changes and you can't just bully them. Fortunately North Korea so far seems to want to just be allowed to plough its own furrow. However the success of Rocket Man in building a nuke was also a big lesson for the Iranians. Get a nuke and you can't be bullied. But I don't expect the Iranians would be happy to plough their own furrow, we know they want to change the world.
The hand wringers have been out in force since the Amercans hit Iran, saying that negotiations were making progress (how do they know?) and that diplomacy was the way forward. I tend to the view that the Iranians were playing for time. They have never co-operated fully with international inspections. If the intelligence of USA and, particularly, Israel was that the Iranians were getting very close, that's enough for me.
So the world with an Iranian nuke would be a much more dangerous place. But does that give the USA and Israel the right to make a pre-emptive strike? What about that advice to Sir Keir about international law?
The reason I called the UK interpretation of international law "singular" a few paragraphs back was that it fits the definition: "exceptionally good or great" - some would think that; "remarkable" - a flexible word as it could imply good, bad or just notable; or referring to just one person or thing. I'm coming from the last of these because that's the way the UK government gets its advice: from one person, the Attorney General. It's my understanding that the Attorney General's status in this regard dates from the 1950s when the then occupier of the post, in a debate of some substance about what the law said, pronounced that, in the context of parliamentary debate, it said what he said it said. (Or something like that).
This has proved useful for prime ministers ever since. They can't be accused of deliberately or knowingly breaking the law if they've asked the Attorney General for his advice. The advice may or may not be right but that doesn't matter, the PM can't be blamed.
What puzzles me about this is that while a hundred lawyers would agree what the law says in a simple case, in a complex case they most certainly would not. Hard cases go through appeals and to supreme courts where, both in the UK and the USA, a panel of judges delivers a majority verdict. So if you ask the (singular) Attorney General on an issue of any compexity, how do you know he's right?
Well, you don't. But if, like our lawyer PM with his background in human rights you appoint your buddy Lord Hermer with his background in human rights to the post of Attorney General, while he may or may not be right you can be pretty sure about what advice you will get on quite a few subjects.
Starmer took advice from Hermer and followed it straight into a blind alley. Hermer's interpretation of international law was very restrictive, effectively ruling out a pre-emptive strike in pretty much any circumstances. Yet the imminent risk of a hostile, fundamentalist regime obtaining a nuclear weapon could clearly justify a pre-emptive strike.
As a result Starmer offended our main ally. It's quite a bizarre thing for the UK to have fretted since Trump's re-election about the USA's reliability as an ally, only to prove ourselves to be the unreliable ally at the first real test. I appreciate one could argue the point about Trump's treatment of the UK over tariffs but that isn't really relevant to a military alliance.
I'm with Tony Blair who is reported to have said "we should have backed America from the very beginning" and that Labour "had better show up for Washington". If the USA and Israel thought the threat from Iran was imminent (and let's face it, if they got a nuke, it becomes imminent) the only precarication should have been to ask about the intelligence. After that, are we an ally, or not an ally? I'm not suggesting here that we needed to actually join in the bombing of Iran. All we needed to do was say yes to the use of America's British bases. Bases that the USA does not now know if it can rely on using - unless it does what Trump said in the case of Spain (i.e that they'd just use them anyway).
This was a simple test which Starmer fluffed. Oh sure, he'd have had his left wing jumping up and down but the problem there is that he gave up any semblance of control over his party a long time ago.
Now we have steadily got drawn in, as was inevitable. So Starmer's lefties are jumoing up and down anyway and we upset the USA and allies in the middle east needlessly. It'll take more than a handshake from the King to repair.
I said earler that I thought the most important thing, given that Trump did decide to hit Iran, is that it works. There we run into problems because, as usual, there's little sign that Trump or anyone in his team thought this one through. There is very little - or no - precedent for bombing a population into submission using conventional weapons. We've seen in Syria and indeed Gaza that populations are remarkably resilient to enormous destruction and that quashing a faction - be it Isis, Hamas or in this case the IRGC, can't be done by that means alone.
Trump seemed to think that Iranian liberals would rise up but that always looked unlikely. This is not like the fall of communism. Opinion in Iran seems very divided between supporters and opponents of the regime. But the opponents don't have weapons. Trump seems to be flirting with supporting minority ethnic elements opposed to the regime - but they are just that, minorities. So that wouldn't be quick.
There is every sign that the regime will hold and that it will use whatever means at its disposal to cause the US problems. In the era of drone warfare there is plenty of opportunity for that. One wonders if Trump was aware of the importance of trade through the Strait of Hormuz. Could it be a bit like Dominic Raab who admitted that the cabinet hadn't realised just how much food came in through Dover when queues of lorries built up in the days after Brexit?
Part of the problem is that Trump doesn't take advice like any previous president and has very much surrounded hiself with yes men. He's a very monarchical president. And guess what - he is a bit like a monarch.
A few days after things kicked off, I listened to a BBC radio reporter interviewing an expert on the American legal and consitutional position. I was suprised that the interviewer was surprised (indeed, sounded utterly shocked) at the interviewee's response to a question on the USA being bound by international law. The response was that the American president is only bound by the constitution of the United States. Moreover the president can commence hostilities without reference to Congress and can continue for at least 30 days before needing to do so. I thought the BBC man was going to have a seizure for a moment. But that is the position from an American perspective.
The curious point about the American system is that it was set up in response to what the patriots perceived as a tyrannical monarch, George III, who they saw as being determined to impose his absolute authority on a people seeking a representative system of government. Never mind that George was defending the will of the British parliament and personally backed repeal of the Stamp Act, the legislation that sparked the rebellion against the Crown. So what did the patriots do? There was a significant debate at the time of independence about whether to create a republic or a monarchy, with many pushing for George Washington to be a king. The creation of the constitution took more than a decade. According to historical accounts a lady called Elizabeth Powell asked Benjamin Franklin, as he left the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 "well doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?" Franklin's response was " a republic, if you can keep it".
Franklin's didn't think the draft constitution was perfect, far from it. But he thought it was good enough and that it was time to move on and adopt it. His greater concern, reflected in his comment ("if you can keep it") was that there was little precedent at that time for long lived republics and that, unless the public maintained the virtues necessary for self-governance, the American version would eventually devolve into a despotic government.
In that context it's interesting to reflect that, according to historian Sir David Cannadine, the founding fathers gave to the American presidency those powers they erroneously believed King George III still possessed - to appoint and dismiss his cabinet, to make war and peace and to veto bills sent up by the legislature. From the outset the presidency was vested with what might be termed monarchical authority, which meant it was really a form of elective kingship. Trump is far from the first president to make extensive use of executive orders, he's just gone large on that. But in doing so he is only exploiting to the full the powers vested in him by the US constitution.
It's why some say the US is a monarchy disguised as a republic while the UK is a republic that thinks it's a monarchy, an aphorism that contains more than a nugget of truth.
So, for now, all we can do is hope that King Trump's gamble works: Iran is neutered and hopefully (a longer shot this) falls under the control of a less rather than more despotic regime, that the disruption to energy supplies is brief and so does not lead to an inflationary spike, that things calm down and the Americans aren't too sore with the UK. We are currently a long way from that rosy scenario.
We can also hope that the midterms rein Trump in and that the American public regain the virtues Franklin thought necessary to maintain a healthy republic and start to elect better leaders. I'm not holding my breath on the latter part of that.
As for Starmer, one of the few successes he could point to was the relationship he had forged with Trump. All in ruins. The road to Labour being re-elected just got even harder.
Oh dear, Keir. Maybe go and practice chess?
Who might replace Iran's supreme leader? CNN 1 March 2026
Blair sparks row with Starmer by saying we should have backed America from the very beginning in Iran. The Independent (independent.co.uk) 8 March 2026
September 17,1787: A republic - if you can keep it. Independence National Historical Park, National Parks Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-september17.htm
When Charles goes west he'll see real imperialism. Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times 1 March 2026. This article included the quotation from historian Sir David Cannadine
