UK Must Resist Trump's Iran War Push Amid Unpopular Conflict
A police headquarters building in Tehran, Iran, lies in ruins following devastating airstrikes on March 4, 2026. The destruction, captured in a photograph by Sobhan Farajvan of Pacific Press/Shutterstock, symbolizes the escalating military aggression that has drawn global condemnation. Simon Jenkins, in a powerful commentary, urges Britain to avoid being dragged into what he describes as an unwinnable and deeply unpopular war initiated by Donald Trump.
Starmer's Initial Prudence and Subsequent Weakening
Keir Starmer's initial response to the joint Israeli-US attack on Iran was both sensible and correct, according to Jenkins. Donald Trump had falsely claimed an imminent US threat and presented no coherent justification for military action. Even after Starmer reluctantly allowed the US to utilize British bases—despite their lack of necessity—Trump responded with fury, accusing the Labour leader of lacking Churchillian resolve. Jenkins suggests Starmer should have retorted that Trump is no Franklin Roosevelt, but rather reminiscent of George W. Bush.
Britain now faces the challenge of dealing with an unreliable, mendacious, and warmongering ally across the Atlantic. At this deeply uncertain time, maintaining consistency and principle is paramount. However, Tory opposition leader Kemi Badenoch appears to disagree. Ahead of her spring party conference, she hurled abuse at Starmer in parliament, supporting Trump on the dubious assertion that "We're in this war, whether they like it or not." This stance, Jenkins argues, reveals a troubling confession of weakness, suggesting that other nations can compel Britons into conflict.
Overwhelming Public Opposition to the Conflict
The war in Iran shows no signs of gaining popularity. A recent British YouGov poll indicates that 49% of respondents oppose the US action, with only 28% in support. Half of those polled also objected to the decision to permit the US to use British bases. In the United States, enthusiasm is even lower, with just one in four Americans backing Trump's bombing campaign. Many of his usual cheerleaders, including prominent fan Tucker Carlson, have distanced themselves, accusing Trump of being under Benjamin Netanyahu's influence.
When Trump declares, "Maga is me. Maga loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too," his supporters cringe, highlighting what Jenkins describes as a dangerous narcissistic disorder. Even far-right influencers like Nick Fuentes have expressed concern, stating in a March 2 podcast that "something has gone horribly wrong." Jenkins questions whether Badenoch and Reform's Nigel Farage truly align with positions to the right of Fuentes and Carlson.
Trump's Contradictory Justifications and Escalation
Iran represents precisely the sort of open-ended military intervention that Trump was elected to halt. His fumbling justifications suggest, as Carlson and reports from Israel indicate, that the initiative and timing were entirely Netanyahu's. At the time of the attack, Trump's team was negotiating a potential deal, making the aggression appear opportunistic. The strike mirrored Israel's 2024 killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, with Mossad sources in Tel Aviv openly mocking CIA claims of authorship.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio effectively admitted to Congress that the attack was Israel's idea, not America's. Trump joined under the dubious pretext of fearing an Iranian response against American bases, though it seemed he merely seized a moment for personal glory. What could have been a limited, Venezuela-style decapitation of the Iranian regime escalated into mass bombing, the most unproductive form of military aggression.
Trump had to concede that his boasted destruction of Iran's nuclear capability in June was less effective than initially claimed, raising questions about how a nuclear-armed Iran could now pose an imminent threat to American citizens. This echoes the false claims made by George W. Bush regarding Saddam Hussein in Iraq, underscoring Jenkins' point that every modern war often begins with a lie.
Historical Parallels and Britain's Imperial Legacy
Bush and his acolyte Tony Blair at least had the courage to invade Iraq directly, whereas Trump's reliance on aerial bombardment recalls Lyndon Johnson's promise to "bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age." When Johnson requested support from Britain's Harold Wilson—even a token "platoon of bagpipes"—he was met with absolute refusal, yet the special relationship endured.
Trump's actions, including the apparent bombing of an Iranian girls' school reminiscent of the Vietnam My Lai massacre, raise ethical concerns. After My Lai, responsible soldiers faced trial, but US bombers often plead collateral damage without accountability. Jenkins wonders if Trump will kill as many Iranian civilians as Ali Khamenei did during recent protests, likely jeopardizing any claims to a Board of Peace.
A Call for British Distance and Principled Stance
It is difficult to imagine a war from which Britain's political leaders across all parties should more urgently distance themselves. This conflict has nothing to do with the nation's defence. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Suez fiasco, after which British governments agreed with President Eisenhower that imperial outreach should end, pledging to withdraw forces east of Suez.
However, successive governments struggled to achieve this, repeatedly itching to intervene in unwinnable wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, and maintaining bases in places like the Chagos Islands and the Gulf merely to project strength. The defence lobby often spouted nonsense about "punching above our weight" and "keeping Britons safe on their streets," when focusing on a truly North Atlantic NATO would suffice.
Currently, the world's two most heavily armed powers, Russia and the US, are led by egotists wielding vast arsenals to secure their regimes and boost their standing. Both leaders are engaged in wars of personal choice. Though Trump once opposed "forever wars," he befriended an Israeli leader with nothing to lose from sadistic aggression against neighbors. Jenkins concludes that this was a terrible mistake, and Britain must have no part in it.
