����ֱ��

The UK’s Labour government was probably thankful that Donald Trump found a way to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without using British bases. After the June 22 attacks occurred, London was quick to emphasize that, though it had been informed in advance, the UK played no role.

In the run-up, British officials were concerned that any American request to use the UK base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would put Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a difficult position. While Britain would feel obliged to aid its most important ally, there were questions over the legality of Washington’s strikes. Immediately afterward, David Lammy, the UK’s foreign secretary, declined to comment on the legal concerns, stating they were “for the Americans to discuss.”

But the question of international law and the UK’s approach to the Middle East is not insignificant. As a lawyer and former head of Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service, many expected Starmer to place considerable emphasis on upholding international law and the so-called rules-based order when he came to office. Indeed, Starmer’s attorney general, the UK government’s chief legal adviser, told the BBC recently that international law “goes absolutely to the heart” of London’s foreign policy.

Lammy, another lawyer, stated when he came to power that Labour would pursue “progressive realism” in office — using realist means to pursue progressive ends. But the Middle East, especially Israel’s actions, have at times appeared a blind spot for this supposedly progressive foreign policy. For all its rhetoric, is Starmer’s government ultimately more realist than principled in the region?

During its year in office so far, Starmer’s Labour government has been keen to emphasize its principles when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike some states like Hungary, which withdrew from the International Criminal Court to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to visit, Starmer’s government has stated that, were the Israeli premier to enter the UK, he would be arrested in accordance with the court’s warrant.

Similarly, in recent months, London has stepped up its criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza and initiated legal measures. These have included canceling free trade talks with Israel and 30 arms licenses, as well as sanctioning two Israeli ministers. In May, Lammy stated that Israel’s recent actions in Gaza were “an affront to the values of the British people,” and that ministers’ calls to expel Palestinians were “monstrous” and “extremist.”

During Israel’s recent war with Iran, London similarly stuck to its principles of promoting a diplomatic not an armed solution — in contrast to its allies in Israel and the US. As Israel launched its attacks on Iran, Starmer’s office released a statement emphasizing “the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region.”

However, critics complain that the Labour government’s principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. While calling for Israel to de-escalate, Starmer also emphasized Israel’s right to “self-defense,” offering a degree of legitimacy to the attacks — “self-defense” being the criteria needed under the UN Charter to legally justify military action.

Critics complain that the Labour government’s principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. 

Christopher Phillips

Similarly, while London has become increasingly critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, for a long time it was more supportive. As leader of the opposition, Starmer caused waves by saying Israel had “the right” to cut off water and power to Gaza, despite this being considered illegal collective punishment by many international lawyers. And lawyers supporting the Palestinians have repeatedly challenged the legality of the UK continuing to supply Israel with arms — with the 320 continuing licenses far greater than the 30 that were suspended.

Though there is always legal ambiguity with these issues, London’s apparent unwillingness to seriously reduce arms supplies, despite its foreign secretary calling Israel’s actions in Gaza “monstrous,” suggests its commitment to principles in the region can be selective.

Yet the government’s supporters would offer a more nuanced take. In his interview with the BBC, Attorney General Richard Hermer, a long-term friend of Starmer, said that international law was “important in and of itself, but it’s also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we’re trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.” The suggestion is that the latter point, making life better for Britons, is the ultimate priority. Principles like upholding and promoting international law are important, but not at any expense.

Labour must balance these principles with other concerns. At home, the Middle East is a hugely divisive issue. In 2024’s general election, Labour lost five parliamentary seats to candidates overtly criticizing Starmer’s Gaza policy, while the issue has repeatedly caused ruptures within the party itself. A significant number of MPs on the left wing of the party were vocally against the UK playing any role in the US strikes on Iran.

Internationally, the UK is in a relatively weak position. Its primary concern is facing down Russia and pursuing rearmament alongside European allies in response to an apparent American reluctance to come to their aid. He is also determined to keep US President Donald Trump onside and to position the UK as a reliable friend to the White House. Grandstanding on international law to either Israel or the US risks damaging that relationship. The Middle East is low down the UK’s list of core interests, perhaps explaining why London is often selective about when it wants to push international law — only doing so when it does not clash with core interests.

Perhaps this selectiveness is what Lammy regards as progressive realism, but it is not clear whether this is having any effect in the Middle East or whether the US and Israel are more likely to adhere to progressive principles because of Britain’s actions. A more cynical read is that Labour are being realist progressives: led by principle when they can but ultimately falling back on realpolitik when it comes to the crunch.

The risk, of course, is that key actors not standing up for international laws and rules at these crucial moments means they wither away, making the world more dangerous. In such cases, there are fewer progressive opportunities and realism becomes the only option.

• Christopher Phillips is professor of international relations at Queen Mary University of London and author of “Battleground: Ten Conflicts that Explain the New Middle East.” X: @cjophillips