No Vote, No Mandate: Starmer's Reckless Support for Israel's Conflict!

Right, so Keir Starmer to nobody’s surprise whatsoever is running to Israel’s rescue as Iran continues to make them pay dearly for instigating a strike on their nuclear facilities and targeting their military leaders and scientists. Of course Starmer is saying we need more military gear out there to protect our assets, he’s not committed one way to saying whether or not he’s going out there to defend Israel, which means even he’s not prepared to lie about this one, but the mere fact he’s still saying Israel has a right to defend itself even as they instigate strikes on another state which evidently doesn’t in his mind, though Iran as a sovereign state very much does, just raises the suspicions surrounding Starmer’s motivations here.
Of course if he is planning on engaging in a military strike, he’s forgotten something, the small matter of parliamentary scrutiny for the basis of such action and sign off of it. He can take this action if there is urgency, but there is no urgency regarding UK assets, simply an urgency for Israel, who are no doubt wailing for help right now as their air defences, for all of their claims, have proven to be utterly useless in the fact of the Iranian retaliation. Starmer is going out there to aid Israel, surely this is not a point anyone is contesting given all of his prior pro Israeli actions and given the warning from Iran that should the UK, US or France interfere and side with Israel militarily against them that this will put targets on those UK military assets, Starmer is not de-escalating matters as he is calling for, he is very much escalating, and not protecting UK interests, but risking them for a genocidal apartheid state that has bitten off more than it can chew.
Right, so that was a couple of clips there, Sky News, Al Jazeera and Rachel Reeves on Trevor Phillips show this morning, showing a host of contradictory assessments regarding the reasoning the UK is sending more military assets to the Middle East after Israel launched that unprovoked strike on Iran and Iran have responded to a degree Israel simply has not been prepared for. Is it a contingency or back up to protect UK interests? How is this a defence of British interests when we already have large assets out there? Is it wise given the threats Iran have made regarding their involvement in protecting Israel? Is it defence of our allies, which frankly reads as code for Israel, who else would we move more assets out there for? How does this marry up with claims of wanting more dialogue? Why if you want to de-escalate do you need to reinforce UK air bases? Oh but then Rachel Reeves let the cat out of the bag, by bringing up supporting our allies. So it is all about Israel then?
The UK has moved RAF jets and military transport assets to the Middle East, with this stated aim of "contingency" support, that word contingency doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the reality is almost certainly that Starmer is dragging Britain into a conflict in which it has no justifiable strategic interest whatsoever, that violates constitutional norms in doing so, and is endangering British lives and assets to support a foreign government embroiled in an aggressive military campaign that it started, all whilst hypocritically bleating about their right to self defence.
According to multiple reports now, the UK has recently deployed RAF fighter jets to the Middle East. Amongst these, according to Matt Kennard of Declassified UK, the support includes an A400M military transport aircraft and a Voyager KC3 air-to-air refuelling plane having dispatched from RAF Brize Norton to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. This action was taken in the wake of Iranian threats and amidst heightened tensions following Israel’s strikes on Iranian facilities—strikes that have drawn widespread criticism for targeting civilian nuclear infrastructure, which is itself a war crime, an act prohibited under Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, which states that:
‘Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.’
Ahh but Israel has the right to defend itself doesn’t it? Is this another case of Israel does have that right Keir Starmer? They can cut off food and power to Gaza, you’ve never apologised for saying that live on the radio, now by your actions, given what Israel has already done in its strikes on Iran, and given the contents of Article 56, are we to presume Israel has the right to strike nuclear facilities now? What don’t they have the right to? I’d be fascinated to hear you answer that question.
Anyway, despite these moves, Starmer and his government continue to maintain a public posture of "de-escalation." In an official statement, Starmer said the UK is “calling for calm on all sides" while also refusing to rule out the defence of Israel at the same time, thereby in my view completely contradicting himself and after it has been alleged that RAF assets have already been used to intercept Iranian drones—an act that places the UK squarely in the conflict already and very much having picked a side.
Perhaps most troubling is the manner in which these military decisions have been made, a point expertly made in a tweet by ICJP Director and Head of International Law at legal firm Bindmans, Tayab Ali, a message he put out for the attention of all British MPs:
‘To all UK MPs: Keir Starmer is violating a clear constitutional convention by engaging troops in support of Israel. As set out in the UK’s Cabinet Manual (2011), (para 5.38) there is a well-established expectation that Parliament should be consulted before committing UK armed forces to military action, except in cases of urgency. There is no such urgency now - only silence. The British public overwhelmingly opposes Israel’s actions in Gaza, according to YouGov polling. Yet Starmer would have our armed forces risk their lives in support of a state accused of genocide by the International Court of Justice and their leaders indicted at the ICC for war crimes without a single vote in Parliament. This is a breach of constitutional convention, democratic duty, and moral integrity. You were elected to represent the people. If the government won’t respect Parliament, Parliament must hold the government to account. Demand a vote before British lives are put on the line for a foreign war the public does not support.’
The UK’s Cabinet Manual (2011), paragraph 5.38, sets out a clear expectation: Parliament should be consulted before committing UK armed forces to military action, except in cases of exceptional urgency. In this case, there is no immediate threat to UK territory or citizens that would justify bypassing this convention, so parliament needs to intervene and hold Starmer’s feet to the fire for this. The threat is to Israel, not the UK. Starmer’s unilateral action in sending military reinforcements to the Middle East without a vote in Parliament is therefore a serious breach of established democratic procedure.
Starmer has not offered any compelling justification for this breach, but then nobody has asked him either, our mainstream media failing again. There has been no urgent humanitarian need, no attack on UK soil or assets as yet, and no direct appeal from the United Nations for intervention. There is only the thin rationale of protecting “UK assets,” which, upon closer examination, is surely just a veiled reference to defending Israeli interests?
The government’s claim that its military deployments are for the protection of UK assets does not withstand scrutiny. The deployment of air-to-air refuelling tankers and advanced fighter jets are not standard defensive measures; they are tools for offensive operations and extended combat support. Rachel Reeves, confirmed in that interview that assets have been moved to “assist allies,” a term that almost certainly refers to Israel doesn’t it?
The Al Jazeera report on Britain’s so-called “contingency support” further reveals the dissonance in the government’s messaging. If the UK truly sought de-escalation, as Starmer claims, then sending additional military resources to a highly volatile region makes no sense, it is a total contradiction. Instead, this signals a deliberate tilt toward Israel, making the UK complicit in its military actions and provocations yet again.
Iran has issued explicit warnings to any nation that aids Israel militarily. Tehran has stated unequivocally that countries involved in Israel’s defence—particularly the US, UK, and France—risk retaliatory attacks on their assets in the region. This is not an idle threat; Iran has demonstrated both the capability and the will to act on such warnings both in the past and now as Israel was warned. By moving UK military assets into Iran’s line of fire and siding with Israel, Starmer is recklessly endangering British lives and property for reasons not in our national interest at all.
Further aggravating the situation is the ambiguity surrounding UK involvement in recent drone interceptions. According to multiple sources, UK and US jets allegedly participated in intercepting Iranian drones targeting Israel. If true, this amounts to a direct act of war against Iran despite the threats, a nation that—unlike Israel—has not attacked the UK and has only retaliated in response to an unprovoked Israeli strike.
What makes the UK’s involvement particularly egregious is the doublethink at play. While Starmer assures the public that the UK seeks de-escalation, he calls Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to express unqualified support for Israel’s right to self-defence. This was made public via an official government communication published on the government’s website just two days ago.
Starmer cannot have it both ways. He cannot speak the language of peace while enabling war. He cannot claim neutrality while deploying military force on one side of the conflict. What he is doing yet again undermines public trust and sends dangerous mixed signals to allies and adversaries alike.
Rachel Reeves echoed this contradictory stance by stating that Israel has a right to defend itself as well—even as the evidence points to Israel having initiated the hostilities with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, violating international law. By standing with Israel in this context, Starmer is effectively endorsing their illegal actions and, by extension, making the UK complicit in them.
Starmer has justified the UK’s support for Israel in part by citing “long-standing concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program. Yet, time and again, Israel has claimed that Iran is on the brink of nuclear armament—claims that have never been substantiated. Iran has been months from producing a nuclear weapon since the 1980’s according to Israel and its been a line Netanyahu himself has been repeating for the last 30 years. What is different now? Only that Israel in Netanyahu’s desperation to cling onto power has decided to strike Iran, the reasoning as baseless as it ever has been. These allegations have historically been used as pretexts for aggressive policy and pre-emptive strikes.
If the UK is now basing its foreign policy on such contested assertions, then we are not only risking British lives but undermining the credibility of international law and diplomacy. Starmer’s decision to support Israel’s actions is not rooted in verified intelligence or imminent threat, but in a politically convenient narrative that serves one side of the conflict.
Moreover, such alignment exposes the UK to retaliatory strikes, destabilizes the region, and increases the risk of a broader conflagration. The cost of this alignment may not be measured only in diplomatic capital, but in the blood of British soldiers.
Keir Starmer has led Britain into a dangerously ambiguous and unmandated military posture in the Middle East. His government’s duplicity, which has become its defining trait across all areas of policy, not just defence—saying one thing and doing another—has eroded public trust, breached constitutional convention, and now imperils British military personnel and interests. The decision to move additional assets to the region, to potentially support a foreign power engaged in illegal military action, cannot be allowed to proceed without parliamentary scrutiny and MPs must act.
This is not just a foreign policy issue; it is a test of the UK’s democratic integrity now. The British people deserve transparency, accountability, and a foreign policy that prioritises peace, legality, and national interest—not allegiance to a foreign military agenda being adhered to on a whim by Starmer, bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby as all those donations to him seemingly bear out. It is time for Parliament to demand answers, for the public to ask critical questions, and for Keir Starmer to be held to account for this, because there is zero justification.
The United Kingdom should not sleepwalk into yet another war, for the sake of Israel who Starmer is loyal too and which gives him the excuse to raid the dressing up box for his military gear yet again. Our national interests are not directly at stake here, but Starmer seems to love war and here, his love of Israel means he gets to combine the two, but he doesn’t have a right under parliamentary convention to do that. If we truly believe in de-escalation, we need to start with de-escalating Starmer.
For more on why Israel’s attack on Iran is a fatal mistake that Starmer is now dragging us into, check out this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.