Will Starmer resist Trump or become Blair-lite? Can Labour survive?

The US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has become a déjà vu moment for Labour members, reminding them of Blair’s unforgivable decision to invade Iraq – while Starmer continues to hum and haw.

Tony Blair was eager to go to war, dismissing the warnings of anti-war voices within his party. Their opposition was drowned out as the invasion went ahead, killing one million people, and marking the opening chapter of America’s forever wars in the Middle East.

That’s not taking into account deaths caused indirectly due to the devastation inflicted across the territories, which is said to have led to the deaths of at least 3.6 million people. This brings the total death toll to approximately 4.5-4.7 million as a result of US military operations.

This time around, the Iran on war, and the UK’s role more specifically, risks splitting the Labour Party

UnHerd recently reported that far more MPs are speaking out against foreign military intervention now than in 2003, when Blair dragged the UK into the geopolitical punch-up over Iraq’s oil. Unlike Blair’s time, they argue that a party now exists to the left of Labour may prove an attractive option for anti-war, socialist MPs tired of Starmer’s duplicity.

‘While only two government MPs defected to the Lib Dems during the Blair years, Starmer could be facing an exodus.’

Will anti-war MPs flee Labour if Britain becomes involved in the Iran conflict? @peterfranklin_ 👇 https://t.co/4zwW6d7CcS

— UnHerd (@unherd) March 1, 2026

Starmer sitting on the fence

UnHerd points out that Starmer has not followed the same path as war-hungry Blair, who has built a dirty career on the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. At least for now, although the pendulum way soon swing, Starmer has sheepishly opted for the middle ground. The outlet raises several questions for which there are no immediate answers:

Did he choose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his fellow Anglosphere leaders or did he join Europe in sitting on the fence?

A statement from the leaders of the “E3” — Germany, France and the UK — made his position painfully clear. Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer agree that the Iranian regime is a terrible threat to our security. However, they’re keen to point out “we did not participate in these strikes”.

Starmer and his team have desperately clung to the middle ground — sometimes shimmying to the right, but mostly bending the knee to the party’s right-wing contingent, including allied foreign billionaires. Both actions reflect Starmer’s desperation to extend his political shelf-life and address the party’s legitimacy crisis.

However, as UnHerd points out, even in Blair’s time, there were multiple defections to the Lib Dems. Many found it hard to stomach the desecration of Labour, with Blair eagerly beating the drums of war as the party’s maestro. At the time, the Lib Dems were to the right of Labour, marking a significant ideological shift.

A move to the Green Party, especially after their Gorton and Denton by-election win, must be tempting for disillusioned Labour MPs. It’s already clear that Labour is losing the progressive vote to Polanski’s principled leadership.

Was it only the Labour Party that repeatedly, very belligerently insisted that this was excellent political strategy and that the public would love it? And this was so obviously correct, so clearly undeniable, that only stupid or crazy people would resist https://t.co/7a1618ovo6

— Flying_Rodent (@flying_rodent) March 10, 2026

Meanwhile, Your party MP, Zarah Sultana, has used her platform to oppose imperialism and challenge Starmer’s lapdog approach — kowtowing to Trump.

I asked the Prime Minister how much he enjoys being Donald Trump’s poodle.

He didn’t answer. pic.twitter.com/hzBjAJ1o84

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 2, 2026

UnHerd also wrote of Zack Polanski’s ‘unambiguous’ position:

“This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states.”

They also highlighted the cracks forming within the current Labour Party, with possible splintering towards socialist alternatives:

The most immediate concern will be over the 24 MPs of the Socialist Campaign Group. SCG members like Diane Abbott, Richard Burgon and Nadia Whittome have already issued statements that are closer to Polanski’s position than Starmer’s. Some Labour MPs take the polar opposite view. For instance, David Taylor has told certain colleagues to “shut up, Iranians don’t want to hear your hypocritical, idiotic opinions”.

Perhaps the biggest headache, though, is posed by MPs like Emily Thornberry who aren’t on the hard Left, but who believe that America’s actions are “illegal”. There’s now growing pressure on ministers to reveal whether or not Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, has taken the same line in his advice to the Prime Minister.

Only support will be right-wing support

UnHerd underscored the threat facing Keir Starmer and the risk of alienating those on the left by giving in to Trump’s demands. In turn, Starmer would have to turn to the Tories and far-right parties like Reform, Restore, and Advance to rally support for another disastrous war in the Middle East.

The nightmare scenario is that, like Blair before him, he’d have to turn to the Tories for support. Rather than put his colleagues to the test, he’ll keep playing for time. The longer the conflict goes on, the more likely it is he’ll face a crunch decision that could either break the Special Relationship or the Labour Party.

Nevertheless, jumping into war — whether eagerly or reluctantly — would be a death knell for the party’s original mission as a pro-people, working-class party. The rich would watch comfortably from their ivory towers while working people are hurled into combat and sent to die. They would reap the rewards from open access to Iranian oil, sending the country back into the dark ages.

For now, it’s too soon to tell if Starmer will turn his back on America or become Blair-lite.

Featured image via the Canary