Have you heard enough panicked whining about Britain’s “reputation” this week? Honestly, I don’t think any of us can bear the social embarrassment of not immediately jumping into an obviously disastrous war in the Middle East. The awkwardness of it all. How will good old Britannia hold her head high if she isn’t instantly ready to be a ride-or-die ally for a US administration described by a former senior NATO commander as “gung-ho nutters” with “no clear understanding of how this thing is going to end”? You should be simply unable to stand it. You should have a fear of missing out on a Middle East catastrophe.
Opposition party leaders and politicians seem genuinely mortified by the fact that the world’s pettiest man, Donald Trump, sniffed earlier this week about Keir Starmer: “This is not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with.” Boo-hoo for you, pal. We’re having to deal with the Cheeto-dusted version of FDR, so everyone’s making sacrifices.
It’s often said that most things in Britain are about class, so maybe the Westminster meltdown over initially declining our Paperless Post invitation to war is the geopolitical version of worrying you’re not keeping up with the Joneses. The Joneses in this case being a career vulgarian who addresses his nation in a baseball cap and whose defense secretary talks like a third-string mafia capo in an AI-generated GIF and is tattooed like a prison school desk.
Either way, it’s interesting to find politicians pushing so hard on the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” rhetoric. This is very much not the view of the public, with polls showing UK citizens opposed to US-Israeli attacks on Iran by 49% to 28%. Pressed on this data indicating that being wedged halfway up Trump’s colon is not actually where the British public wants to be, Nigel Farage told reporters curtly: “I don’t follow public opinion.” Weird, because the Reform UK leader has spent his entire career blaring that politicians should listen to public opinion. And indeed, has spent the past year explicitly making a case for him sweeping to power on the precise basis that he listens to ordinary people. Maybe we are entering a new “the voters are stupid” period, only instead of being in favor of Nigel’s Brexit getting you called stupid, it’s not being in favor of his American friend’s dumb war.
Incidentally, the aforementioned “gung-ho nutters” diatribe came courtesy of former general and NATO commander Richard Shirreff, whose operational experience of wars (Middle Eastern and otherwise) should arguably carry greater weight than the posturing of 20th-century commodities trader Nigel Farage—a man who would undoubtedly let down his country just to avoid getting disinvited from his scheduled dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago tonight. A burnt steak, a burnt steak! His kingdom for a burnt steak.
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch’s entire demeanor since the war was launched has been that of a teenager who discovered from social media that some of her friends got together without her over the weekend and vaporized an ayatollah. Thursday found the Conservative party leader really drilling down on the nation’s most sensitive nerve, declaring: “It’s extraordinary that Bahrain and Kuwait … are publicly criticising us.” Criticized by Bahrain? Oh, the shame. This feeling we’re having must be the same sort of awkwardness Bahrain feels when people remember they arbitrarily lock up dissidents and torture their own people. And it is not a democracy.
Badenoch seems worried that in the rooms where it happens, all British politicians are somehow tainted by association with what she is hellbent on everyone seeing as Starmer’s shame. But Kemi should, of course, be assured that the occupants of these rooms have never even heard of her, and that she will be out of a job long before that changes.They reach the point where their protocol aides have to decide how to correctly pronounce her surname.
As for the various definitions of weakness this week… the following comparison adds nuance and depth to the attacks on the UK that they haven’t yet achieved, but they’re essentially the equivalent of your child coming home from school and explaining they got into some stupid and dangerous trouble because another kid told them to. Instead of applying basic parenting and saying, “Oh my God, would you jump off a cliff if he told you to?!”, a significant number of Britain’s politicians and pundits are now suggesting that the parent in this scenario should have said: “Good boy—nothing is more important than your reputation in the playground. And if he tells you to jump off a cliff, you go for it.”
That said, I understand why some of our politicians thought there was a lapdog role available. You always need one lapdog in a wildly destabilizing Middle East war, and historically it’s been us. But this time it’s Trump, whose secretary of state, Marco Rubio, let slip this week that the U.S. joined the bombing because Israel said they were doing it anyway. Rubio’s on-camera slip was just another absurd wartime moment in a week that hasn’t been short of them.
Take Thursday in the Oval Office. If you haven’t seen the pictures, take a moment to notice Lionel Messi’s distant stare as he realizes he and the rest of the Inter Miami squad are just the backdrop for a war update. Or take Trump’s suggestion that he should be involved in picking Iran’s next supreme leader, dismissing the proposed nepo-ayatollah as “a lightweight.” So… he’d prefer a really heavyweight ayatollah instead? Don’t try to make sense of the president’s constantly shifting war aims—just let them wash over you like an extremely volatile liquid and hope no one brings a match.
Finally, Trump is demanding that Israel grant an immediate pardon for his ally, Benjamin Netanyahu, which hints that there might have been a far more elegant and less bloody solution to all this. Sadly, none of us has a time machine to go back a few weeks, but perhaps using every bit of leverage to secure Bibi a pardon before he felt the need to launch this war would have been the more reasonable move. Not to jump to conclusions, but at this stage in the Israeli prime minister’s military ventures, many observers suspect Netanyahu will keep finding wars he has to fight, just to delay the day he’s thrown out of office and has to face trial for his alleged corruption.
Could we all just chip in and buy him a $200 million house, with a $1 billion check inside, and promise to guard it forever as long as he gives up his absolute favorite hobby? At this rate, it would be unbelievably cheap.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the sentiment that Britains prowar voices are furious that Keir Starmer isnt personally flying a missile straight to Tehran framed in a natural tone
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does this headline even mean
Its a sarcastic and exaggerated way of saying that some commentators and politicians who advocate for a strong military response to Iran are criticizing UK Labour leader Keir Starmer for not being aggressive or hawkish enough in his foreign policy stance
2 Who are Britains prowar voices
This refers to a range of commentators politicians and thinktank figuresoften from the rightwing of the political spectrumwho frequently advocate for military action or a very hardline confrontational approach in international conflicts particularly regarding states like Iran or Russia
3 Why would they be angry at Keir Starmer
Because they perceive his approach to international crises as too cautious diplomatic and focused on multilateral institutions rather than on demonstrating unilateral military strength or making bold threats
4 Is Keir Starmer actually supposed to fly a missile
No thats the joke The phrase personally flying a missile is hyperbolic satire It highlights the critics desire for a leader who performs dramatic symbolic acts of military resolve contrasting it with Starmers more legalistic and measured persona
Advanced Contextual Questions
5 What specific events is this criticism about
It typically relates to Irans regional activities and incidents targeting Western interests Critics get angry when Starmers response emphasizes diplomacy sanctions and working with allies instead of openly threatening or endorsing military strikes
6 Isnt the Prime Minister responsible for foreign policy not the Opposition Leader
Yes officially However as the likely next Prime Minister Starmers stated foreign policy is scrutinized as a preview of future government action Prowar voices want to shape that policy now by pressuring him to adopt a more militant stance
7 What is Keir Starmers actual foreign policy towards Iran
Starmers Labour Party generally supports a dualtrack approach upholding the UKs security commitments through strength while prioritizing diplomatic efforts rebuilding international alliances and adhering to international law He avoids reckless rhetoric but insists
