Former prime minister Sir Tony Blair has criticised Sir Keir Starmer for not backing Donald Trump’s initial strikes on Iran, arguing the UK should have supported Washington “from the very beginning” and allowed the United States to use British airbases.
Blair’s intervention, reported on Sunday, has opened up a fresh split over Labour’s foreign policy as the government faces mounting pressure over its stance on the escalating conflict, and amid renewed strain in the UK-US relationship under Trump’s second presidency.
According to reports, Blair made the remarks at a private Jewish News event on Friday 6 March, saying the UK should have backed the US and permitted the use of British bases at the outset of the campaign. He was quoted as warning that if the US is “an indispensable cornerstone for your security … you had better show up when they want you to”.
The comments were met with a swift public rebuttal from Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who distanced the government from Blair’s position and said Britain must “learn the lessons” from the Iraq war. Cooper’s response underlined the sensitivity of Blair’s intervention, given his central role in taking the UK into Iraq alongside the US in 2003, an episode that remains politically toxic for Labour.
Starmer has said the UK would not join offensive military action against Iran, arguing that Britain should not enter a war without a clear plan and without meeting tests around legality, proportionality and strategy. While Downing Street has insisted the UK will stand by allies in defensive operations and to protect British interests, Starmer initially refused permission for the offensive use of UK bases in the early days of the strikes.
That position has caused friction with the White House. Trump has publicly criticised Starmer’s initial refusal, with reports quoting him as saying the prime minister was “not helpful” and deriding him as “no Winston Churchill” amid the dispute over access to facilities including RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands.
The row over basing rights has become one of the sharpest public ruptures in the “special relationship” since Trump returned to office in January 2025, coming as the two governments also face wider points of contention, including discussions around trade and the politically sensitive Chagos arrangements.
In the days after the first strikes, Starmer reiterated that the UK would not participate in offensive operations. However, as the conflict widened and Iranian retaliation intensified, the government later authorised defensive co-operation and limited use of UK facilities for defensive missions, according to reports, while maintaining that British forces were not joining the campaign of strikes.
The dispute has also sharpened attention on Britain’s military footprint in the region. The UK has long operated from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, and has used the base in recent years for operations in the Middle East. Reports circulating during the early phase of the conflict also described increased British preparedness at regional bases as tensions rose, and there have been claims that Akrotiri was targeted by an Iranian drone attack shortly after the initial strikes, with no casualties reported. The government has not provided a full public operational account of any damage assessments, but has repeatedly framed UK activity as defensive.
Blair’s intervention immediately prompted renewed debate about whether the government has been too cautious in confronting Iran, or whether it is right to keep distance from a US-led offensive campaign without an explicit international mandate or clearly stated end-state.
In government, Cooper has defended Starmer’s approach as a deliberate break with the “automatic alignment” that critics associate with the Iraq era. Her public remarks signalling disagreement with Blair were also seen at Westminster as an attempt to demonstrate cabinet unity behind the prime minister’s line, and to head off accusations that Labour is being pulled back towards interventionism by one of its most prominent former leaders.
Opposition parties have sought to exploit the divisions. Conservatives have accused Starmer of dithering and undermining the credibility of the UK-US alliance at a moment of conflict, arguing that British caution risks diminishing the UK’s influence with Washington. Figures on the right have also argued that denying or delaying base access weakens deterrence and signals hesitation to adversaries.
At the same time, Labour has faced pressure from within its own broad coalition, with some MPs and activists warning against repeating what they see as the errors of Iraq: entering a US-led conflict without clear objectives, robust legal justification and a strategy for preventing escalation. Blair’s high-profile comments have reignited that internal argument, with critics pointing to his 2003 decisions as a cautionary lesson.
Starmer has sought to frame his approach as one of conditional support: backing allies and protecting regional partners, while avoiding what he has portrayed as open-ended participation in offensive military action. Reports have said UK aircraft have been involved in defensive operations in the region, but ministers have insisted that Britain is not part of the US-led strike campaign.
Beyond domestic politics, the dispute comes as the UK continues to raise concerns about Iranian-linked threats at home. In recent months Starmer has cited a series of Iran-related security cases as part of the rationale for maintaining strong defensive readiness, though ministers have been careful to separate domestic security policy from decisions on overseas military action.
The immediate political impact of Blair’s remarks is likely to be felt in two directions at once: intensifying US pressure on Starmer to demonstrate greater solidarity, while also hardening resistance among those in Labour who believe the party must show it has absorbed the lessons of Iraq.
No 10 has not indicated any change to its position on offensive operations, and ministers have continued to stress that any UK military activity is guided by national interest, legal constraints and the need to prevent further escalation. However, with the conflict still developing and Parliament facing growing calls for transparency over basing and operational decisions, the government is expected to face fresh demands in the coming days to set out more detail on what forms of support have been agreed and under what conditions.