World-shaking events in Iran are further evidence of a weak transatlantic alliance

The UK and Europe have been sidelined during America’s latest adventure in the Middle East, perhaps to the relief of all parties.

via Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

Donald Trump’s unilateral bunker bomb attack on Iran and Iran’s calculated no-casualties retaliation have left Sir Keir Starmer in an awkward straddle. In the aftermath of what is technically a unilateral declaration of war by the United States, the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues say they approve the - hoped for - ends of a denuclearised Islamic Republic but have repeatedly ducked invitations to endorse the violent means of achieving it.

Neither the US nor Iran paid any heed to Britain, France and Germany’s before-and-after appeals not to escalate the conflict. Instead, Trump is making the best of being manoeuvred into doing something he did not want to do by the Israeli Prime Minister.

The president was preparing for negotiations with Iran, which he dreamed might earn him the Nobel Peace Prize. Netanyahu pre-empted that by taking on Iran’s nuclear might with the same ruthless determination already shown towards Hamas and Hezbollah.

Now the US President believes he has secured both his objectives – disarming Iran and moving Israel and Iran into a ceasefire and potential negotiations. His ceasefire announcement surprised even his own officials but it was soon endorsed by Israel and the Iranian regime. It is to be hoped that Tuesday mornings missile attack on Haifa and Israel’s promised retaliation are the last stutterings of a dying hot war.

All of which has severe and pressing geo-strategic implications for a second or third tier power like Great Britain. All this has been done without us. Never mind all the talk of “the special relationship”, in practice the United States is now an unreliable best friend. In reality, the US has probably not been as close to us as we like to think for decades. Trump is merely making the detachment explicit.

The President is claiming victory as the commander-in-chief of the most powerful fighting force in the world, regardless of international law or the squeamishness of his allies. The events of the past few days have further confirmed his strongman world view. Other strongmen, ranging from Putin to Netanyahu, have already inferred that this Uncle Sam is not bothered what they do in their own backyards.

Being so publicly irrelevant to world-shaking events is awkward for Sir Keir Starmer, who has been enjoying praise for his international statesmanship.

Trump declared that he likes the Prime Minister and, in a unique “deal”, is proposing walloping the UK slightly less hard with Tariffs than anyone else. Elsewhere the rewards for Starmer’s spectacular obsequiousness towards “Donald” are limited. Last week at the G7 in Canada, the Prime Minster assured journalists in his travelling party that there was “nothing the President said that suggests he’s about to get involved in this conflict”.

In his Pooterish way, Sir Keir boasted that he had “sat next to Donald” during the summit, in spite of the common practice of going by alphabetical order of nation at such events. This usually places the leaders of the United Kingdom and United States side by side. Whatever sweet nothings the two men may have whispered to each other at Kananaskis, they amounted to just that: nothing.

Trump ordered the strikes on Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz without requesting any special assistance from Starmer, probably to the relief of both of them. We are told that Downing Street was informed of the imminent attacks in advance, if so officials were surprisingly bleary eyed when contacted for reaction early on Sunday morning.

Allegations have not been substantiated either that the UK signalled it would not agree if a request for help had been made or, as Kemi Badenoch insinuated, that the US no longer trusts the UK with intelligence.

If not totally blindsided, the UK and its European allies were sidelined. Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s shuttle diplomacy from Washington DC to Geneva achieved little.

The absence of Transatlantic co-operation is starkly different from what happened at the beginning of this century after the 9/11 attacks on the US mainland. The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation. The Blair government insisted on paying the blood price in the coalition of the willing who went into Afghanistan even though, with characteristic brusqueness, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had described Britain’s potential military contribution as “a workaround”.

This conflict in the Middle East is unlikely to escalate into a war demanding war troops on the ground from America or its allies – something the conflict-averse Trump appears to have worked out in advance. The Israelis effectively set up the US Airforce for a free hit.

Iran’s response, targeting the massive Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with a precisely calculated number of missiles, has been widely interpreted as a symbolic gesture. The US was warned where the attack was coming and had time to put its allies in the region on alert. Air space in the Gulf was closed and all the incoming missiles were taken out before impact by Qatari defences. Except one which ploughed into the desert sand. Trump thanked Iran on the record for the advance notice and the weak response to the US bombing operation.

Further escalation by the United States seems unlikely. So does any move by Tehran to use its biggest club by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, as advocated for by Iran’s puppet parliament. The market price of crude oil dipped when it became clear that Iran was directing its anger elsewhere.

Iran has few friends in the region as it is. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia condemned the missile attacks on the base. Disrupting the free movement of oil and gas would alienate friends and foes alike, and lead to a large military response by the US in concert with allies, possibly terminal for the Ayatollahs’ regime.

Trump’s reaction to Iran’s measured counterattack was mild. It was “a very weak response”, he wrote on social media, but “most importantly they have got it all out of their system”. Of the two options he offered after America wielded “Midnight Hammer”, it now seems as if “peace” on his and Israel’s terms is more likely than “tragedy far greater than we have witnessed over the past eight days”.

President Trump seems to be coming well out of America’s latest adventure in the Middle East. He has done it on his own terms, without the help or the good wishes of his European allies.

As NATO leaders gather in the Hague this week, Trump’s America is placing less value on its traditional allies, including the UK. The Americans are reviewing the AUKUS programme, which was hailed as the seal on the Anglosphere’s undying commitment to exert power together globally together and for ever. His demands that NATO members spend more on their own defence in Europe are embarrassing the Treasury.

For all Sir Keir Starmer’s forced smiles and Trump’s patronising bonhomie, the UK and the US have not been aligned ideologically or practically for at least a decade. When the dust settles and the hostilities finally grind to a halt in Gaza, Israel and Iran, will we have come closer together or moved further apart?