The presidency of Donald Trump has, thus far, been defined by his failure to fulfil his election promise to de-escalate global conflicts.
Most recently, Trump has flirted with the idea of the US entering into the Israel-Iran conflict, commenting, “I may do it, I may not do it” when questioned. To put it simply, this is not the language of de-escalation.
But the next logical question after “Will the US get involved?” can only be “Will it call on the UK to join?”. This decision will come down to Keir Starmer, who will either have the choice of authorising the UK’s involvement or putting the decision to a parliamentary vote, the latter being the route taken by former Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War.
There is, however, a third option: the Wilson approach.
Former Prime Minister Harold Wilson decided to withhold the UK military’s involvement in the Vietnam War, a decision echoed by his successor, Edward Heath. While both provided support through materials and rhetorical encouragement, neither leader engaged directly.
Keir Starmer will likely face this choice in the coming weeks and months. Either he will have the UK join Trump in engaging in war, or he will withhold British military support. It is his moment to show whether Wilson or Blair inspires his leadership.
I hope that he chooses the former, for all our sakes.
* Jack Meredith is a Welsh Liberal Democrat member. He is the spokesperson for Centre Think Tank on Social Security.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Reform UK councillor was 'pen pal' of top Al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded 9/11
Peter Hirst
David Evans
Brenda Will
12 Comments
“Will it call on the UK to join?” may be deemed less significant by Trump than it was for Bush. The latter sought UK backing with international cover in mind. This is unlikely to be a consideration for Trump, who doesn’t see the same value in international co-operation with democracies.
It seems, in the ‘new’ war, hospitals are ‘out of bounds’..
The main issue ought to be timing of the Israeli focus on Iran, which was obviously designed to turn attention away from the continued slaughter of civilians in Gaza, and has been highly successful.
What they want us to forget about is that the completely unnecessary daily civilian death toll in Gaza is only continuing (Hamas having been neutralised months ago) because the belligerent protagonists in Israel think stopping now would look like an admission that killing civilians is wrong. To add to that tragedy, they also deem it necessary for the IDF to shoot a few unarmed people in the food queues every day, including children, because they are “suspects”, a curious use of language given that Israeli spokespeople haven’t bothered to tell us what they are suspected of – being hungry, perhaps ? There are reports that in some cases tank shells are aimed at the crowds, which if true would be extraordinary even by the standards set by the IDF over the last year and a half. Israeli authorities are “investigating” those claims, and haven’t denied them.
Another thing which has escaped world politicians, but not Channel Four News last night, where it was discussed, is how ludicrous is the assertion by Israel that if Iran joined the nuclear club, they would use nuclear bombs to annihilate Israel.
Iran undoubtedly has ambitions in the Middle East, perhaps due to resentment of the power of Saudi Arabia and other largely Sunni countries, given the ancient and largely noble history of the Persian empire, and Saudi Arabia’s only very recent appearance on the world scene.
Belligerent rhetoric aimed at Israel from Tehran also makes sense, given Israel’s repression of Palestinians, who are fellow Muslims, and perhaps non-Arab Iran’s wish to outdo weak support of the Palestinians by neighbouring Arab countries, but if Iran ever used nuclear bombs on Israel, the power and influence it seeks in the Middle East would be gone in an instant. Either it would literally disappear under nuclear retaliation, or the world community would ensure that no nuclear power ever followed its example, and would completely dismantle the Iranian state, and put its people under foreign control and supervision.
It’s convenient for Israel to gloss over this starkly fact if its main aim is to annex Gaza and the West Bank while the world is looking elsewhere, but that doesn’t explain why only Matt Frei and Secundar Kermani have mentioned it public.
Andy Daer 20th Jun ’25 – 8:07am…”The main issue ought to be timing of the Israeli focus on Iran, which was obviously designed to turn attention away from the continued slaughter of civilians in Gaza, and has been highly successful……”
Exactly; why now? After all, Israel has been claiming that “Iran is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power” for the last 30+ years..
If you imagine yourself into the position of an Iranian politician considering their country’s security, you might well conclude that with:
Nuclear armed Russia to the North (an ally for now, but things change)
ditto Israel to the West
ditto China to the East
ditto Pakistan and India to the South East
and ditto USA nuclear capable forces to the South (Diego Garcia eg)
that a nuclear weapon of one’s own was quite important.
You might also consider what happened to Ukraine and Libya when they gave up their nuclear weapons, and what hasn’t happened to N. Korea when it doesn’t.
I think Jenny is correct that the Iranian regime probably regards nuclear weapons as essential to deter others from attacking it. The trouble is Iran has a long history of stoking terrorism, finding ways to use proxies to attack others, and makes no secret that it wants Israel utterly annihilated. So it almost certainly sees having nuclear weapons as a cover that would allow it to escalate attacks on Israel and other countries while deterring anyone from responding. Iran does not play by the normal rules, and I can well imagine that if Iran was able to make an atomic bomb, that bomb would quickly get passed to some proxy group like Hezbollah, on the understanding they can use it to wipe out an Israeli city or two while Iran denies involvement.
Israel is also geographically a LOT smaller than Iran. I can well imagine militants in the Iranian Government thinking that, once they have nuclear weapons, they will be able to reduce the entirety of Israel to a pile or radioactive ash, and if a part of Iran gets nuked in retaliation, that’s a price worth paying for wiping out Israel.
For those kinds of reasons, while I abhor much of what Netanyahu has caused, I think it probably is essential that we don’t let Iran build nuclear weapons – even if stopping Iran from doing so leads to more (non-nuclear) conflict.
Simon R 20th Jun ’25 – 10:51am…..Israel is also geographically a LOT smaller than Iran. I can well imagine militants in the Iranian Government thinking that, once they have nuclear weapons, they will be able to reduce the entirety of Israel to a pile or radioactive ash, and if a part of Iran gets nuked in retaliation, that’s a price worth paying for wiping out Israel…..
Simon, you are forgetting the USA. Any such attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the USA; Iran would cease to exist.. No president could allow such an attack to go ‘unpunished’..
Israel is currently ‘going for broke’ in it’s expansionist aims and a strong Iran is the only obstacle… A defeated or vastly weakened Iran, especially with US involvement, will see the final nail in the coffin of Palestinian hopes and Israel’s long term goal of ‘From the River to the Sea’ achieved..
I still regard it as crucial for western leaders to ask themselves whether Benjamin Netanyahu really believes Iran would drop an atomic bomb on Israel if they had one, or is simply using that extremely improbable scenario as an excuse for his wider regional aims, which include trying to kill off the idea of Palestinian statehood.
I’m afraid I have to say to @Simon R that if anyone believes Iran might use a nuclear bomb, and think it worth sacrificing “a part of Iran” to an Israeli retaliation, they might need to have another look at the way Israel does retaliation.
@Andy: That’s probably true about Israeli retaliation. But it’s not me you’d have to convince – it’s the militants in the Iranian Government and their allies. They have quite a long record of attacking Israel, provoking a response from Israel that seems out of all proportion to the initial attack, and apparently never learning that that is always the outcome. I think we have to assume that, if they managed to get hold of nuclear weapons, there is a strong likelihood that they would use them in the same (militarily idiotic) way.
I really wouldn’t underestimate how irrational people can be when they are motivated by hatred. And we really would not want a group that is largely motivated by hatred of Israel to have a nuclear weapon in their possession.
@Simon R, I was a bit unfair in my earlier response, for which I apologise. I agree it is remotely conceivable that Iran would do something stupid, as you say, but all the Iranians I’ve met seem remarkably similar to normal people.
Ever since the revolution and the seizure of American embassy staff, there has been the suggestion that Iranians are not quite human, and are the embodiment of evil, much as Americans are sometimes portrayed to them.
In the UK we have no need to get embroiled in such absurd ideas, which I see as unconscious projections of people’s own imperfections onto the ‘Oriental other’, to mix Edward Said and psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, and we ought to be using our detached viewpoint to urge restraint and reason on people like Starmer and Trump.
For the record, I think Starmer may be reachable, however unlikely it seems, Trump, less so.
expats & Andy Daer ”The main issue ought to be timing of the Israeli focus on Iran, …
Exactly; why now? “
It deflects away from the genocide Israel is committing in Gaza, and clearly wanting to accelerate as it pursues its version of “from the river to the sea”, which with Gaza cleared ( will seem to have been achieved; until Israel decides it needs more land from its neighbours…
Also Netanyahu needs to maintain some level of disinformation within Israel, to ensure there isn’t room for the questions about his fitness to be prime minister…
Bottom line, the UK would be daft to support in any form a US attack on Iran; particularly as we are currently effectively at war with Russia (given our support for Ukraine and the level of cyber attack originating from Russia and its allies on UK infrastructure and businesses).