As we fixed bayonets and prepared to go over the top, he’d deliver a morale-sapping lecture about respecting the enemy’s human rights, even while they’re mowing us down with machine guns. And remind us not to charge too quickly, just to give them a fair chance of hitting us.
So far, the Iran war has shown Starmer at his worst. Ill-prepared, dithering and obsessed with abstract international law even as the ayatollahs abandon basic morality by slaughtering their own people. Starmer has no passion, no instincts and no stomach for a fight. He insists Britain must comply with rules drawn up by international courts that have no sway over rogue states. Meanwhile Tehran arms its proxies, from Hezbollah to the Houthis, and sponsors attacks across the Middle East.
As Donald Trump noted, Winston Churchill he is not. Starmer won’t stand up to Iran and he won’t stand up to Washington either.
After initially deciding Britain wouldn’t join the strikes, he panicked under friendly fire and quietly allowed the US to use British bases anyway.
One Labour minister does seem to have the stomach for a fight though. His name? Ed Miliband. I wouldn’t want him in the trenches with me either. Especially since this time he’s fighting for the other side.
Miliband spearheaded cabinet resistance to American military action in Iran, marshalling senior colleagues to block British involvement. At a National Security Council meeting he rallied Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper to push back against any UK support for pre-emptive strikes, arguing they were legally indefensible.
Security sources described him as “petulant, pacifistic, legalistic and very political”. In other words, Miliband was his usual annoying self.
He isn’t doing this for the Iranian people. Mostly he’s worried about how the war will play with Labour’s anti-war voters, fearing the party could bleed more support to Zack Polanski’s hard-left Green Party. Plus he also has a personal grudge against US president Donald Trump.
This leaves him fighting the wrong war, against the wrong opponents, and with the wrong objectives. Which these days is a very Labour thing to do. No wonder the party loves him.
Given the damage Miliband’s net zero crusade has inflicted on Britain’s energy security and industrial base, I’ve often wondered whose side he’s on. If a hostile power had ravaged our economy like this, we’d declare war.
Yet for once, Miliband may be onto something. Just 28% of Britons support action against Iran. We’ve learned the hard way where America’s wars lead. Tony Blair marched us into Iraq to keep the Americans sweet, and a lot of good that did us. Donald Trump barely remembers we were there.
Another Labour PM, Harold Wilson, faced down the Yanks by refusing to send British troops to Vietnam. History suggests he was right.
Personally I wouldn’t want Trump with me in the trenches either. Not that he’d be there, having dodged the draft. Starmer is right to say the president has no plan. If petrol prices spike or American casualties mount, he could easily walk away, leaving chaos behind. And he won’t thank us if he wins.
And why should we step up, as Trump prepares to slap new tariffs on our exports? In any case, Britain’s criminally underfunded armed forces wouldn’t last a week. Labour would rather spend our money on benefits than bullets. What soldier would want to put their lives on the line for this rabble. So perhaps beaten-down Britain has found the war leader it deserves in Ed Miliband. Even if he is fighting all the wrong battles.