When the United States and Israel launched coordinated offensive airstrikes on Iran in February 2026, the Trump administration requested the use of UK military bases including Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford. Starmer refused. The UK provided defensive support — RAF jets intercepted Iranian drones over Jordan and Iraq — but took no part in offensive operations. This was the most significant foreign policy decision of the Starmer government and a deliberate departure from the Blair doctrine of following the US into conflict.
In February 2026 the US and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, coordinated strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The Trump administration asked to use British sovereign territory as a launchpad. Starmer said no.
His statement was deliberate and measured: 'This government does not believe in regime change from the skies.' Trump publicly criticised him — 'This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with' — and Starmer held the line.
The context matters enormously. In 2003 Tony Blair took Britain into Iraq on the basis of intelligence that was wrong, advice that was contested, and a parliamentary vote that split the Labour Party. The Iraq War cost 4,500 British service personnel their lives, left 100,000 Iraqis dead in the first year alone, and destabilised the Middle East for a generation.
Starmer has been accused of being weak. The charge should be examined carefully. Joining an offensive strike on Iran would have:
- Placed British service personnel in direct harm's way in a conflict with no clear legal mandate
- Drawn the UK into a war with a nation three times the size of Iraq with substantial missile capabilities
- Made UK cities and British-flagged shipping potential targets for Iranian retaliation
- Committed Britain to an adventure with no defined exit, at a moment when the NHS waiting list is 7 million and public services are already strained
Starmer's refusal was not weakness. It was the correct application of the post-Iraq doctrine: do not follow America into every war it chooses to start.
The RAF's defensive actions — intercepting Iranian drones threatening British personnel at Akrotiri — were proportionate and appropriate. The refusal to go further was statecraft.
Reform UK and the Conservatives both signalled they would have joined the US strikes on Iran Imminent
In the weeks before and after Operation Epic Fury, Reform UK's Nigel Farage and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch both publicly stated that Britain should stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States. Farage described Starmer's refusal to commit UK bases as "embarrassing" and said Britain had abandoned its most important ally. Badenoch called the decision "weak" and said a Conservative government would have responded differently. Senior Conservatives suggested the UK should have joined the coalition from the outset.
This is precisely the "shoulder to shoulder" logic that took the UK into Iraq in 2003. Tony Blair used identical language in the days after 9/11, a framing that ultimately committed Britain to two decades of costly military engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Conservative and Reform positions in 2026 are a direct repeat of that pattern: reflexive solidarity with Washington regardless of legality, proportionality, or British strategic interest. The consequences of Iraq — 4,500 British service personnel killed, 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in year one, the rise of ISIS, and the collapse of the Middle East security architecture — demonstrate where this logic leads. A Reform or Conservative government in 2026 would likely have put British pilots over Iranian airspace and British troops in harm's way.
Time — Starmer Stands By Decision to Not Join Initial Iran Strikes