Sir Keir Starmer should be Britain’s Foreign Secretary. His handling of foreign policy is first-class.
Unfortunately, for a country’s foreign policy to be effective, it needs a strong economic and political base and Sir Keir — as Prime Minister — has failed to produce that.
But the world economic crisis created by Trump’s attack on Iran and Iran’s closure of the Straits of Hormuz means that the British Prime Minister now must focus on world affairs.
He has decided that he — along with French President Emmanuel Macron — should take the lead in trying to find a diplomatic solution that would re-open the Straits of Hormuz.
This is right. Britain and France are — after the United States — the two biggest Western powers in the Gulf Region. But it is difficult to see how they can achieve their goal.
For a start there is a war and Trump could escalate or declare victory and suddenly pull out. It is almost impossible to predict what this mercurial Sir Keir Starmer should be Britain’s Foreign Secretary. His handling of foreign policy is first-class.
Unfortunately, for a country’s foreign policy to be effective it needs a strong economic and political base and Sir Keir—as prime minister—has failed to produce that.
But the world economic crisis created by Trump’s attack on Iran and Iran’s closure of the Straits of Hormuz means that the British Prime Minister now must focus on world affairs.
He has decided that he—along with French President Emmanuel Macron—should take the lead in trying to find a diplomatic solution that would re-open the Straits of Hormuz.
This is right. Britain and France are—after the United States—the two biggest Western powers in the Gulf Region. But it is difficult to see how they can achieve their goal.
For a start there is a war and Trump could escalate or declare victory and suddenly pull out. It is almost impossible to predict what this mercurial President will do next.
Next, in the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, Iran has discovered a new political weapon with which to beat the West and at the same time create an attractive revenue stream. It has declared the 20-mile-wide maritime chokepoint Iranian waters and says it will close it at will and/or levy toll charges on the oil tankers that pass through every day.
To prevent such a move Sir Keir and President Macron are talking about sanctions and everything short of Trump’s insistence that other western powers despatch warships to replace the American Navy and take control of the Straits of Hormuz.
Birthright citizenship and tariffs were two of the main pillars of Donald Trump’s manifesto. The Supreme Court knocked out one pillar and this week it looked as if the other is on the way out.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution anyone born in the United States has the right to US citizenship. The amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War to enfranchise the freed slaves who had been disenfranchised by the pre-war Dred Scott decision.
In the post-World War Two era, American citizenship became a prized possession. This gave rise to what became known as “Birth Tourism” whereby heavily pregnant women would travel to the US so that their children were born in America and automatically gained American citizenship. Alongside this problem was the issue of illegal immigrants giving birth to American citizens. And, of course, you could not deprive young American children of their parents so they two stayed in America and eventually became naturalised citizens.
The end of birthright citizenship thus became a major plank in the conservative political platform. That is why Donald Trump signed an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship on his first day back in office.
The problem is that you cannot repeal a constitutional amendment by Presidential decree. That requires extensive debate, the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures, two-thirds of the US House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate before it can be signed off by the President.
That is why Trump’s decree was legally challenged, and this week came before the Supreme Court. Trump made a clear attempt to intimidate the Justices by attending the oral arguments and scowling from the front row of spectators. But the Justices ignored him and their responses made it clear that they would rule that the presidential repeal was unconstitutional. Their final ruling will come this summer.
Trump has lost the battle. But he is fighting a war for a bigger prize — increased power for the executive branch of the US Government. When the ruling is finally published, he will attack it and the Supreme Court just as he did over tariffs and seek a way to circumvent the court and in doing so consolidate more power in the White House.
Hungarians march to the polls in less than two weeks. And if the opinion polls are correct the “illiberal” populist Viktor Orban will be ousted as prime minister of Hungary.
If he is the ripple effects will be felt around the world. Orban is one of the lynch pins of far-right populist conservatism. His policies and tactics have been copied by conservatives in every corner of the globe. He has founded think tanks with instructions to establish links with their counterparts across Europe and America. He is described by Trump as a “great man” and has formed close relations with the US President, France’s Marine Le Pen, the Netherlands’ Geert Wilder, China’s Xi Jiping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
A Christian nationalist who is one of the leaders of the populist anti-immigration battle, Orban has used Hungary’s membership of the EU to fight a political war with Brussels. The result has been that EU aid to Hungary is frozen and Hungary has blocked a $100 billion EU aid package to Ukraine.
The expected winner of the elections is expected to be the Tisza party led by a charismatic 45-year-old Peter Magyar. The Tisza party leader used to be a key member of Orban’s Fidesz party but left because he could no longer stomach the corruption now in endemic in Hungary.
The latest opinion polls give Magyar an commanding lead of 56 percent of the popular vote compared to 37 percent for Orban’s Fidesz party. But some political observers believe that may not be enough.
After 16 years in power, Orban has managed to stack Hungary’s political cards so that it will be difficult to oust him. For a start, after his first victory in 2010, Orban gerrymandered constituency boundaries so that the larger ones were in opposition areas while the smaller and more numerous constituencies were Fidesz controlled.
He then ensured positive media coverage by withdrawing government advertising from opposition newspapers. As they sank towards bankruptcy the papers were bought up by pro-Fidesz figures. Government advertising was quickly restored.
Then Orban gave the postal vote to ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries and assigned their votes to the constituencies where the Fidesz candidate needed the most help. The ethnic Hungarian vote is believed to about 500,000-plus and 90 percent pro-Fidesz because of Orban’s policies in favour of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine. The opinion polls are limited to Hungary, so they do not include ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine.
Also difficult for the pollsters to reach are Hungary’s Roma community which make up about six percent of the population. Over the years, Orban has won their support with government hand-outs.
Finally, Orban has introduced what is called “voter tourism.” In Hungary you do not have to vote in the constituency in which you live. You can choose to have your vote counted in any constituency you choose. The result is that Fidesz has constructed an elaborate register of how to make each vote count and instructs its party members where to cast their ballots. This is illegal, but Fidesz — like so many right-wing populists — believes that holding on to power is more important than obeying the law.
The bottom line to all the above is: Do not celebrate until the last vote is counted. And even then, Orban might do a Trump and declare the vote fraudulent.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sammy Going South and the morality of employing child actors
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Matt Wardman
expats
Peter Martin
David Raw
15 Comments
Tom, I agree Starmer is playing the Iran war well but the Iran ambassador has raised a threat of strikes on British bases.
Seyed Ali Mousavi praised Sir Keir Starmer’s initial decision not to get involved in the war, but said allowing the US to use RAF Fairford could change matters
Tehran is considering whether British military bases are legitimate targets after they were used by American bombers for strikes on Iran, the Iranian ambassador to London has said.
In an interview with The Times and Times Radio, Seyed Ali Mousavi praised Sir Keir Starmer’s “initial position” not to get involved in the “criminal act of the American side and the Israeli regime” in striking Iran.
However, he said that the decision to allow American bombers to launch from RAF Fairford could change things. Starmer granted permission for the United States to use RAF Fairford and a base in Diego Garcia for “defensive strikes” against missile launchers aimed at allies in the Middle East or at shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tom’s articles have always been a valuable contribution to our understanding of world affairs, but this time he is completely wrong. Keir Starmer has presided over the the worst disaster in foreign affairs in living memory. His recent defiance of the US over the Iran War was forced on him by Trump and Netanyahu, whose illegal and utterly stupid resort to military force was impossible for anyone to support. The Genocide in Gaza could, and should, have led to withdrawal of British support, and a call from the UK for the world community to isolate israel. Instead, he went on supplying military aid, apart from the withdrawal of few few token export licences, and showed himself to be little more than a puppet of Netanyahu.
Andy Daer you say correctly: ‘Starmer showed himself to be little more than a puppet of Netanyahu.’ Is there any non-political reason for this?
The opening of this article is heavy with irony, presumably?
Keir Starmer has consistently toadied to Donald Trump, and turned a blind eye to Netanyahu’s war atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. His cowardly complicity in genocide and ethnic cleansing, while enabling the US to use British air bases in its murderous purposes, has helped to create and perpetuate the global crisis we’re now in.
Lib Dems should be at the forefront of calling out Trump and Netanyahu’s disastrous actions. A foreign affairs visionary and leader Starmer is not! His shortcomings should be the Lib Dems’ opportunity.
John Waller, it would be wrong for me to attribute motive to Starmer. My suspicion is that it was his lack of a political pedigree, coupled with a fear of doing anything radical; siding with Israel has been a tradition for British politicians for a long while.
I know there are those who think the huge numbers of MPs on all sides who have benefitted from Israeli largesse (free holidays etc) has been a factor, but I doubt that in his case. Another factor has been the way the undoubted horrors of October 7 were presented as an excuse for retaliation which can go beyond what is allowed by international law [of course, it can’t, and he, of all people, should have known that].
Except for giving away Chagos!
Andy Daer you say correctly: ‘siding with Israel has been a tradition for British politicians for a long while.’ I declare my interest.
In October 1917, my Irish father was a Captain in the ASC, delivering munitions from Rafah. He was given leave to recuperate in Durham but did not return to Palestine as he was concerned that in the Balfour Declaration his Arab drivers would not get the same treatment as the new settlers. Two years later Balfour, still British Foreign Minister, confirmed this. My father resigned as a Magistrate in his home country of Ireland.
In 2013, the tour guide on our trip from Haifa to Galilee claimed that there was no such thing as Palestine, nor any people that were Palestinian.
Traditions never die. Has Starmer a tradition?
The first thing to understand is that Iran is a theocracy where religious beliefs predominate. When people prefer martyrdom to compromise they hold a strong bargaining position as history has shown. If France and the UK are going to show some leadership in solving this issue they might start by understanding their foe and using language that shows love and respect for the Iranian people and a desire to negotiate with its leaders.
Andy, thank you for saying that I occasionally make valuable contributions to your understanding of world affairs.
Peter Hirst, what you say is absolutely right, and I agree there’s a theoretical possibility that Britain and France (not forgetting Spain and others, which already have) could demonstrate decency – and independence from the US which Trump represents. However, Yvette Cooper has already failed to do that, by vilifying Iran after the summit she chaired, apparently in order to show a level of agreement with the basic thinking of Israel and the US, if not total support for the war. Cooper always seems to feel she has to show how tough she is, as evidenced by her proscription of Palestine Action.
What Starmer is really trying to do is avoid a challenge to his leadership, and he must have been wondering ever since his ludicrous announcement that Israel was right to cut off water and electricity to Gaza, if the British people are behind him on the question of Israel. They are not, and his ‘brave’ attempt to stand up (a little bit) to Trump is probably what he thinks will get him out of trouble.
It would be nice to think British politicians could show love and respect for the Iranian people, as Peter Hurst rightly advocates, which is what they deserve after decades of punitive sanctions, and what many of us would like to see happen.
Starmer is in a bunker at number ten, wondering how he can survive the May elections, so I doubt if he’s thinking about anyone but himself. Sadly, I think that’s how our political system works, and anyone else in his position would be doing the same thing.
I have previously in these pages recommended Shakespeare’s take on conflict resolution, a position from which I won’t resile. His “two houses both alike in dignity” were guided away from “ancient grudge” by two innocents whose weapon was love. We should listen: he was a genius in understanding the human experience, Netanyahu and Trump are not.
Hirst
Peter Hirst you are right when you say: ‘France and the UK should show love and respect for the Iranian people and a desire to negotiate with its leaders.’
In 1962, I hitchhiked to India through Iran and was mobbed by a large group of men who thought I was an American. They remembered 1953 when the British, claiming Iranian oil was British, launched the coup Operation AJAX with CIA help. Details of the book and the play can be found on my website Freedom Books and Plays.
Sadly, the initial negotiation between the Foreign Minister of Iran and the USA were overtaken by the launch of the war. Let us hope the current negotiation are a success.
Starmer would have been a great foreign sec. I have been thinking for a while that the UK should adopt a system similar to French. Split the role of PM into two posts: Prime Minister focusing on foreign affairs, the military and European affairs and a new role (maybe called Chancellor of the State) appointed by the PM to oversee internal affairs.
In view of some of the comments, I’m curious to know what would disqualify Starmer from demotion to Foreign Secretary if presiding as PM over what the ICJ has said is probable genocide doesn’t.