Overview of The Rest is Politics — Question Time (511. Is Blair Undermining Starmer on Iran?)
Hosts Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart answer listener questions on the UK response to the Israel–Iran–US escalation. The discussion focuses on Tony Blair’s public comments that appeared to criticise Keir Starmer’s restraint, what Britain actually agreed (or didn’t) about letting US forces use UK bases, the chaotic domestic communications and cabinet leaks, the humanitarian and political situation inside Iran, wider geopolitical consequences (US dependence on allies, European unity, and NATO/defence capacity), and how Brexit-era rhetoric on “sovereignty” sits uneasily with alignment to the United States.
Key topics discussed
- Tony Blair’s remarks at a Jewish News event and whether they undercut Keir Starmer’s position.
- Blair reportedly implied he’d have supported US/Israeli action more strongly than Starmer; Blair disputes some headlines but gave an impression damaging to Starmer.
- The UK’s handling of US requests to use British bases.
- Conflicting briefings, leaks from or about National Security Council discussions, and unclear timelines about what was requested and when.
- Reporting suggested significant US military presence already at some UK-linked bases (e.g., Prestwick: reports of 10 F‑35s, 2 A‑10s, 2 C‑17s).
- Political communications failures.
- Calls for discipline during crises; comparisons with past expulsions of ministers for briefing (e.g., Gavin Williamson).
- Norms, law and strategy:
- The hosts argue the US/Israeli military campaign against Iran looks illegal and strategically self‑defeating (creates repression, regional destabilisation, economic shock).
- On-the-ground situation in Iran:
- Internet/phone disruptions hamper reporting; civilians suffer because military/government infrastructure is interwoven with urban life.
- Public antipathy toward the Iranian regime is high, but there’s no viable local alternative; strikes risk uniting populations against foreign intervention.
- Leadership reshuffle (Khamenei’s son discussed among figures) likely to preserve regime continuity rather than liberalise it.
- Wider geopolitical effects:
- Trump’s impulsive messaging shapes markets and public narratives; allies have leverage by denying basing/use.
- Europe, UK and other middle powers need a coherent narrative and greater strategic independence (defence, AI, tech).
- Israel’s domestic politics: Netanyahu likely politically strengthened; Israeli public strongly supportive.
- UK capabilities and politics:
- UK armed forces reduced significantly since the Cold War (from ~321,000 to ~125,680 across services), limiting operational options.
- Accusations of hypocrisy from Brexit-era sovereignty rhetoric: critics urging UK to follow US despite earlier claims of wanting independence from EU influence.
Main takeaways and conclusions
- Blair’s comments were politically tone-deaf and gave an impression of undermining Starmer at a sensitive moment; even if not verbatim, a former PM must expect words to be public.
- Starmer’s cautious position is broadly aligned with British public opinion and international law; the political mess stems more from poor comms and cabinet leaks than from clear policy failure.
- The short‑term military actions will have long‑term consequences: they risk strengthening hardliners in Iran, fragmenting the region, raising global oil/fertiliser prices, and feeding far‑right politics in Europe via economic pain.
- Allies have more leverage than they often admit (e.g., basing denials) and should coordinate to craft a joint European/like‑minded response that reasserts rules, norms and selective independence from Washington when necessary.
- The UK lacks the current defence capacity to project or sustain major operations independently; realistic strategy will require rebuilding capability and long‑term planning.
Notable quotes / insights
- “If you are any former prime minister, but I would argue particularly Tony Blair… there is no such thing as off the record.”
- “This is an illegal, immoral war… and as Talleyrand would say, it's not just a crime, it's stupidity.”
- “We need some way of respectfully saying to the US: we're distancing ourselves. We're not going to be your lackeys anymore.”
- On domestic politics: “You have to have an agreed approach and then you stick to it. It's completely shocking” (on leaks and multiple ministers briefing).
On-the-ground view of Iran (summary)
- Communications blackouts limit information; civilians report strikes hitting government sites embedded in urban areas with heavy civilian exposure.
- Majority antipathy toward the clerical regime exists, but no credible domestic replacement; foreign strikes risk pushing civilians and nationalists together against outside intervention.
- Fears of escalation: arming ethnic groups (e.g., Kurdish militias) or provoking civil conflict would be highly dangerous.
- Leadership reshuffles and new hardline appointments suggest continuity rather than reform; regime may harden and double down on resistance narratives (martyrdom framing).
UK political implications (Blair, Starmer, comms, sovereignty)
- Blair’s appearance and remarks were a PR headache for Starmer, amplifying media attacks and Trump narratives that Starmer is “weak.”
- Starmer’s position—refusing British assets in initial attacks but allowing defensive cooperation—was complex, leaked and confused in media accounts, generating perceptions of chaos.
- Brexit-era claims of “sovereignty” are being tested: some Brexit-supporting figures who demanded independence from the EU are now pushing alignment with US/Israeli actions, revealing a political contradiction.
- Immediate priorities for UK government: stricter control of crisis communications, clearer public narrative, and rebuild bilateral relations with key allies while asserting British priorities.
International implications and recommendations suggested in the episode
- Allies should coordinate joint statements and scenario planning (Europe + UK + Canada + others) to avoid divide‑and‑rule and offer a consistent alternative to unilateral US moves.
- Develop a medium‑term plan to reduce strategic dependencies (defence, AI, quantum, key technologies), acknowledging difficulty but making clear five‑ to ten‑year steps.
- Lead on revival or redefinition of international norms: human rights, limits to extra‑territorial strikes, clearer legal frameworks for intervention.
- Prepare for economic fallout: plan for oil/fertiliser price shocks, support measures to mitigate recession risk, and guard against far‑right electoral gains due to economic pain.
Practical action items highlighted (for policymakers)
- Restore disciplined centralised communications during crises; clamp down on damaging leaks from security meetings.
- Coordinate a European/like‑minded country diplomatic response and narrative (joint statements, contingency planning).
- Assess and publicly articulate what “defensive” cooperation means in practice (sovereignty and legal clarity).
- Begin a long‑term defence-capability rebuilding plan aligned with realistic strategic goals.
- Support humanitarian channels and track civilian impact inside Iran; avoid policies that conflate diaspora/innocent Iranians with regime actors.
Final note
Campbell and Stewart see the immediate crisis in legal, moral and practical terms: interventions risk long-lasting damage to the region and to European economies, and the UK’s current military posture and politics make coherent, independent action difficult. They call for disciplined government communications, coordinated allied responses, a values-based international narrative, and a realistic long-term plan to reduce strategic dependencies on the US.