The Churchillian role

Trump’s derogatory comment is not the first time a US statesman has made unfavourable comparisons between Britain’s past and present.  

Former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously remarked that Britain ‘had lost an Empire, and failed to find a role’. Britain’s postwar foreign policy has since been obsessed with finding global purpose.

Britain settled upon positioning itself as vanguard of liberalism. In so doing, it repackaged the Churchillian mythology, and placed London on the frontline in defence of liberal freedoms against authoritarian aggression. Subsequent leaders, from Anthony Eden, to Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron, have cast themselves as vanguards against new Hitleresque threats.

Most recently, British leaders have revived their country's vanguard role in opposition to Russian aggression. Boris Johnson positioned the UK as a leading defender of Ukraine, a role Keir Starmer has continued. This vanguard role for the UK is also recognised by Russia, which has cast London as its eternal enemy.

Iran

Iran is an important supporting actor in this script. Regarded as a key Moscow ally, over the past decade the Islamic Republic has posed an ever greater threat to the UK. The British Ministry of Defence’s 2025 Review drew attention to the deepening alignment between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Chief Reviewer Lord Robertson insisted Britain must prepare itself for war with this ‘deadly quartet’.

A 2025 review of Britain's defence capabilities warned that Britain must do more to prepare itself for war with the 'deadly quartet' of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran

Nevertheless, when the US and Israel launched their recent strikes on Iran, Stamer was keen to stress that Britain played no role. Indeed, in a move that infuriated Trump, Starmer refused the US the use of UK RAF air bases.

Starmer claimed his refusal was because of the questionable legality of Trump's attacks. Starmer was also concerned about the Labour Party's reputation, and keen to avoid the legacy of Blair and Iraq. He was also no doubt worried about Muslim votes migrating from Labour to the Greens.

Nevertheless, in attempting to avoid being Blair domestically, Starmer has torpedoed the role of Churchill internationally.

The transatlantic alliance

Fulfilment of roles requires international recognition. For the UK, this is, most importantly, a recognition of partnership with Washington.

The 'special relationship' was a key aspect of the international role Churchill shaped for Britain. It framed the UK-US axis as the key bulwark against authoritarian aggression. This was a relational role that both Thatcher and Blair reenacted.

It is, however, a role the Trump administration has frequently mocked, dismissing it as a ‘cosplay’.

When seeking Washington’s support against Putin, Trump even challenged Starmer to prove the UK could really ‘take Russia’ by itself. Starmer could only reply with an awkward laugh.

Britain’s lack of support for the Iran war will only confirm to Washington that Britain seeks to cosplay as Churchill, and that it is unwilling and unable to back the US up.

Defending Cyprus

Britain’s slow response to the Shahed-type drone attack on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus only substantiates Washington's assessment.

Following the 1 March attack, Britain despatched HMS Dragon, a Type 45 air-defence destroyer, to provide an air defence umbrella. The ship did not, however, set sail until 10 March. Dockworkers' union Prospect claimed the delay was the result of cost-cutting. But the bigger issue this delay reveals is the lack of current resources available to the Royal Navy – a revelation of its shrinking size.

In the Royal Navy's defence, getting HMS Dragon operationally ready in seven days – a job that would usually take six weeks – was a considerable achievement.

Subsequent debate over the HMS Prince of Wales, one of Britain’s two flagship aircraft carriers, reinforced this perception of weakness. Deployment of the carrier, argued Vice Admiral (Ret’d) Duncan Potts, would be only symbolic, given Britain lacked the necessary support ships. This led to reports in the British media that Prince of Wales might require escort from French vessels. That, of course, would be a scenario of national humiliation.

At a time of American unpredicatbility, France's President Macron is offering a nuclear umbrella to the continent of Europe

In the meantime, and in sharp contrast, France's President Macron pledged solidarity with Cyprus, dispatching the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle with a functioning naval escort. The British press looked on with envy.  

Macron's move occurred against the backdrop of his announcing the first increase in French nuclear warheads in decades. At a time of American unpredictability, Macron's announcement offers a nuclear umbrella to Europe. Some have even speculated that France could station nuclear-armed jets on British soil.

France outshone Britain in its swiftness to respond to the current crisis. In so doing, France positions itself as guarantor of European liberties. Being upstaged by its old European rival has only deepened Britain's humiliation and increased its anxiety over its role in the modern world. 

Ontological insecurity  

The British narrative on Iran appears contradictory. On the one hand, it declares itself at the forefront of the fight against Russian authoritarianism. On the other, it appears unwilling to support the US in toppling a key Moscow ally. Trump could have provided warning to London of his intention to attack Iran. His decision not to only reinforces the international perception of Britain as irrelevant bystander rather than vanguard power.

Following the US-Israel attacks on Iran, rather than being first to draw the sword, Britain found itself without a servicable weapon

Britain's response to the Cyprus attack, meanwhile, raises questions about the UK’s ability to perform any such vanguard role. Rather than being first to draw the sword, Britain found itself without a serviceable weapon.

This strikes a major blow to Britain’s ontological security, the continuity in narratives and events which gives a nation its identity. It has undermined the Churchillian mythos which has underpinned Britain’s sense of self and international role in the postwar era.

And when ontological security is threatened, states often take reckless and aggressive action to overcompensate.

Britain has not ruled out joining strikes on Iran. Nevertheless, Trump’s derisory judgment that Britain had joined a war only after the conflict was ‘already won’ would merely add further humiliation.

A more likely – and more dangerous – action the UK may take to reaffirm its vanguard credentials is to adopt an even more confrontational stance towards Moscow. This, however, would risk a conflict for which Britain is even less prepared.

The post The Iran crisis is deepening Britain’s anxiety over its international role appeared first on The Loop.