Is Keir Starmer about to make the same mistake in Iran that Tony Blair made with Iraq?

Martin Shipton

It’s nearly a quarter of a century since Prime Minister Tony Blair swallowed the propaganda line that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and committed Britain to join a US-led invasion of Iraq.

The result was catastrophic, with the Middle East plunged into chaos from which it hasn’t recovered and huge numbers of lives lost.

In the intervening period, it seems that no lessons have been learnt. The current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has put the RAF on standby to assist in another misconceived mission - this time bombing Iran as a punishment for possessing equally non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

On both occasions, 22 years apart, most mainstream news coverage has been woefully inadequate in explaining the illegality of what is going on.

[mid-content-banner]

Dubious information

In 2003 the narrative that gained most exposure was based on highly dubious information provided by an Iraqi dissident who turned out to be a spy with a vested interest. The material was “sexed up” by Blair’s spin doctor-in-chief Alastair Campbell and used to convince the majority of the population that Saddam really did possess WMD that could be used against British troops in Cyprus.

There was, it’s important to say, some serious blowback which did get reported at the time. Together with a number of human rights lawyers, Adam Price argued that Blair should be impeached for getting Britain involved in an illegal war.

Unlike in the United States, impeachment hadn’t been pursued in the UK as a way of holding erring politicians to account at any time in the democratic era. Ultimately the attempt got nowhere, although Price and his colleagues did raise doubts in the public mind about the wisdom of invading Iraq, which later proved to be well-founded.

In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, however, the predominant narrative was supportive of military action. This had a tangible political impact in Wales, where the “Baghdad bounce” was seen by Rhodri Morgan as a major factor in Labour’s good showing at the second Assembly election, as a result of which the Lib Dems were dumped as coalition partners and Labour governed alone.

Scroll forward to 2025 and the coverage of the unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel by most media outlets has, arguably, been worse than the previous low point in 2003.

[lower-mid-content-banner]

Israel lobby

Largely, this is because the Israel lobby has been ruthlessly effective in intimidating outlets that dare to condemn their state’s murderous assault on Gaza. Anyone who criticises the Israeli government or the IDF can expect to be branded instantly as an anti-semite and a supporter of Hamas.

Remarkably, despite the relentless footage and eyewitness accounts depicting the slaughter of civilians, the obstruction of aid and the openly genocidal comments of Israeli extremists including government ministers, Israel continues to get sympathetic media coverage.

More insidious is the way in which the United States’ support for Israel’s attacks on Iran is portrayed as part of the natural order of things, without any explanation that such unprovoked action is in breach of international law.

Equally, the targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were reported uncritically, without a hint that in killing civilian non-combatants the Israelis were committing war crimes.

This extends to the speculation about whether Trump will order US forces to attack Iran, and to the further speculation about whether Keir Starmer will offer up the RAF in some supportive capacity, or whether the US Air Force will be allowed by Britain to use the island of Diego Garcia as part of its bombing mission.

What we know is that Starmer has arranged for RAF aircraft to relocate to the Middle East.

Aggressor

Much of the coverage of the Israel/Iran conflict is framed as if Iran is the aggressor rather than the victim who, under international law, is allowed to take retaliatory action when attacked.

It seems that the Attorney General, Lord (Richard) Hermer, has a better understanding of the law than Starmer, both of whom were at one time practising barristers in the same legal chambers in London.

Born to a Welsh Jewish family, and a former pupil at Cardiff High School, Hermer had criticised Israel’s treatment of Palestinians before entering government after last year’s general election.

It’s been reported that he is cautioning Starmer about supporting any Israeli or US attack on Iran. Under international law, force can only be used in very specific circumstances, none of which apply in current circumstances.

There is no UN Security Council authorisation, and neither Britain nor Israel were attacked by Iran.

Israel mounted a surprise attack on Iran the day before talks about Iran’s nuclear capability were due to resume. Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, had previously stated that Iran did not have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

The third justification for taking military action - backed by the UK but not by most other countries - entails circumstances where there is “extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”.

While this wouldn’t justify taking military action against Iran, it might plausibly be argued that it would constitute grounds for attacking Israel because of its evident policy of depriving Palestinians of food.

Chaos

The chaos and instability created by Trump’s return to power in the US has emboldened Israel into attacking Iran.

Instead of seeking to calm the situation through diplomacy, Trump has inflamed the situation in his inimitable fashion by thinking aloud about whether or not the US and/or Israel will kill Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

The British government shouldn’t be anywhere near this dangerous nonsense, but it’s been suggested that Starmer may be pulled into it out of fear of negative consequences for our economy if it falls out with Trump.

Of course being out of the EU has made life more difficult for us, but only bad could come out of becoming a US lapdog and joining another illegal war.

Israel has vastly overplayed its sense of victimhood to justify the most barbarous inhumanity - killing babies and shooting traumatised people as they desperately try to get food to feed their families.

Massacres

Of course the Hamas massacre on October 7 2023 was horrendous and requires condemnation, but to get a full picture we need to go back further, to the massacres of Palestinians and theft of Arab land perpetrated by the nascent Israeli state and its paramilitary insurgents in the late 1940s.

Despite what some Israelis would have us believe, no one has a “God-given right” to steal someone else’s land. Such behaviour began in the 1940s and it is still going on today, with Settler thugs terrorising and killing Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and eyeing up Gaza once the ethnic cleansing is complete. The only status such people deserve is that of pariah.

If Trump wants to swing behind the Israelis and help them commit further atrocities, there’s little we can do to stop him. But there’s no way Britain should follow him down such a repugnant path.