A newspaper opinion column accuses Prime Minister Keir Starmer of betraying key allies by refusing to fully support military action against Iran following missile attacks on Israel. The writer contrasts Starmer’s earlier pledge to stand firmly with Israel and confront Iranian aggression with the government’s recent legal position, which limits British involvement to narrowly defined defensive measures and excludes direct support for Israel and the United States.

According to the article, Starmer initially resisted allowing the United States to use British bases for strikes before eventually permitting limited assistance. However, the government has declined to deploy the Royal Air Force to defend Israel or directly back United States forces, a decision the columnist portrays as a retreat from Britain’s longstanding alliances. The piece argues that this approach leaves American forces shouldering risks that Britain is unwilling to share.

The columnist suggests several reasons for the government’s stance, including heavy reliance on legal advice and political calculation. Particular criticism is directed at the Attorney General’s influence and at what is described as slow and hesitant military planning, including delays in deploying naval assets to the region.

Ultimately, the article contends that Starmer’s shift reflects domestic political considerations, especially efforts to appeal to certain voter groups, rather than strategic necessity. The writer concludes that by distancing Britain from Israel and the United States during a time of crisis, the Prime Minister has undermined the country’s credibility as a dependable ally.