When Keir Starmer addressed the House of Commons on 2 March 2026, his tone was measured, sober, and uncomfortably familiar.

In a statement that he repeated throughout both his 28 February written address and his 2 March oral update, he sought to draw a clear operational and moral boundary for the United Kingdom’s (UK) role in the escalating conflict in the Middle East. However, many in the British political class and press have all but ignored it.

In his 2 March oral statement, Starmer told lawmakers bluntly that the United Kingdom “was not involved in the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran.”

“That decision was deliberate… President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to join the initial strikes. But it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest, and that is the judgment I made. I stand by it,” Starmer continued.

He made this point unambiguously: Britain did not participate in offensive military strikes on Iran, and will not do so now. This is a decision he tied directly to lessons from past wars. Starmer stated, “We have learned from the mistakes of the past. We were not involved in the initial strikes, and we will not join offensive US strikes.”

That historical reference, to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is meant to signal a break with a legacy of interventionism that has, in British politics, defined generations. Yet this principled line all too quickly becomes muddied in the reaction of much of the right-leaning political establishment and media.

Starmer’s statements carefully delineate what the UK will do:

“Our Armed Forces… have already successfully intercepted multiple threats… The United States requested permission to use British bases for that specific, limited defensive purpose… To be clear: the use of British bases is strictly limited to agreed defensive purposes. The UK has not joined US offensive operations.”

And in his 28 February address, he emphasised the same defensive posture:

“Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies — as Britain has done before, in line with international law.”

The UK position, as set out by the Prime Minister, is explicitly framed as defensive, protective of British civilians, allies’ territories, and strategic interests, rather than participating in offensive strikes inside Iran.

Yet that careful rhetorical fence has been all but ignored in some quarters. The debate in Westminster has revealed a striking paradox at the heart of British political life, where many right‑wing commentators, Conservative politicians, and sections of the press are clamouring for deeper UK involvement in the war against Iran.

They have seemingly rejected their own past criticisms of the Iraq War and their earlier embrace of the idea of a “No War” American presidency under Donald Trump.

The Warmongering Media Noise and Forgetting Iraq

Canvassing sections of the British media over the last week, I noticed one trend that is, sadly, unmistakable: their remarkable eagerness to frame Britain’s policy as somehow insufficient, timid, or even wrong.

Across several prominent outlets, commentary has blasted the Prime Minister for permitting the use of British bases by American forces without, in the same breath, recalling that the UK is not part of offensive strikes. Headlines and right-wing pundits suggest Britain is “bowing out”, “weakening the alliance,” or “not doing enough for Israel and the United States.”

Other commentators, including some on the right, have openly criticised Starmer for prioritising legal niceties over what they cast as Britain’s duty to back its allies — even in offensive military action. 

This is a striking inversion of past debates. I’m old enough to remember the period leading-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — a conflict now almost universally condemned by political leaders, including Trump, and journalists alike as unlawful and disastrous.

Guess what… The very same outlets that are now agitating for more hawkish British involvement vocally opposed military intervention. They drew battle lines around the principle of international law, parliamentary oversight, and the folly of open-ended missions.

And yet today, those very voices seem eager to lean into the drumbeat for escalation. They even appear to be laughing at international law.

Let us be clear, this contradiction is not just rhetorical. It is political incoherence that does not serve UK’s interests. Since it is the same group of people that brought us Brexit and Liz Truss, we should not be surprised.

Frankly, the level of this hypocrisy is criminal because the lives of thousands of civilians are at stake. Have a wild guess who will be bitching about the flood of new refugees pouring out as a direct result of this conflict? Yes, these very elements of our society.

As I discussed with Professor Scott Lucas on The CEO Retort podcast, we live in a world where political labels have become mere weapons. There is no longer a right versus left in modern politics. I certainly find myself questioning the very essence of what it means to be left or right. Is it even relevant anymore?

So, whether you like politics or not, we have reached a point in history where every person needs to understand the current political climate to make informed decisions in work, business, education, healthcare, sustainability, and their personal lives.

We need to redefine the meaning of right and left. Certainly, as of today and based on the UK’s lost decade thanks to Brexit-supporting politicians, leaders, and the far-right, the right-wing class should be remembered as those who have intentionally glossed over the long-term consequences of the 2003 Iraq invasion and the complexities surrounding the “no war” stance. Not to mention, misinforming and misleading the public. And for what?

Let’s be clear, again, the Iran war is a war of choice, entered without any clear legal mandate, transparent strategy, or legislative support, and is fully proped up by the British right. This war will yield long shadows of instability and cost. I lived in the Middle East for most of my childhood, and I cannot believe my own eyes when watching familiar locations in Dubai being bombed.

It is bewildering to see these elements of the British political class and press now agitating for something nearly indistinguishable from that old playbook. In fact, based on the data we are seeing, it might well become significantly worse than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.