The Story of the United Kingdoms Betrayal in

Does being an European “ally” of America even imply something anymore? That’s a legitimate query after a number of NATO nations not only initially denied the use of their army bases during Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing assault on Iran, but also provided tacit help for the Islamic regime. 

Perhaps the most public betrayal got here from Spain, whose left-wing prime minister claimed the United States was violating “international law.”

🇪🇸 Spain’s far-left Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on the US and Israel army operation in Iran:

“Today more than ever, it is essential to remember that one can be against a hateful regime and at the same time be against an unjustified, dangerous military intervention outside… https://t.co/SbqKaWVxNQ pic.twitter.com/jpRs7whfht

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 2, 2026

Given Spain’s history over the last century or so, it wasn’t exactly surprising that they’d take the side of Islamic fascists over the country that pays for their defense. The Western European country once again fell woefully short of its NATO spending requirements in 2025 while continuing to expand its welfare state, a dynamic that has been allowed to exist for far too long. 

You’d expect better from the United Kingdom, though. Well, at least up until fairly recently. After all, the Brits are supposedly America’s closest, most reliable ally. Yet, in a stunning move, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer denied the use of his country’s military bases for logistical support. Further, he refused to mobilize any forces for defensive operations in the weeks before Iran’s missile and drone barrages began. 

Related: Gulf States Draw Lines, More Countries Now Ready to Combat Iran Directly

That proved disastrous, with a number of Gulf allies lambasting Starmer for hanging them out to dry, even as a whole bunch of hundreds of British nationals had been coming under assault.

This time the NSC agreed that the basing request be granted. Downing Street’s official line is that the scenario modified when Iran started firing missiles at resorts and other civilian websites in Dubai and Bahrain. An assault on the Bahraini capital Manama narrowly missed killing British army personnel stationed there. But it’s also the case that Starmer and his ministers had been shocked by the undiluted fury of their Middle East allies that more had not been performed to shield them. Jordan was “fucking furious,” a former minister with pals in Amman says. “The Emiratis, Kuwaitis, and even the Canadians are all asking, ‘What the fuck are you doing? Whose side are you on?’” The Emiratis identified that Britain was failing to help shield the 240,000 British residents dwelling in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

As the above excerpt notes, the British NSC did ultimately reverse its determination, though it all seems to be too little, too late. Iran’s missile and drone launches have already been lowered to a trickle by American and Israeli airpower. It’s what occurred before that, though, that is really disturbing. 

According to newly revealed particulars about the British NSC’s deliberations, the initial requests for base usage and the deployment of defensive property (two destroyers, in this case) had been denied for political causes. Even when Starmer finally obtained in line, his fellow Labour members had been more involved with spiting Trump than stopping Iranian ballistic missiles. 

Starmer was supported by John Healey, the Defense Secretary, but “Reeves and Miliband made it quite difficult for the Prime Minister.” The dialogue got here down to the legality and whether or not “a positive relationship with the United States of America was a good thing right now for the party. And many people concluded that it was not.” When requested what function the Labour defeat in the Gorton and Denton by-election performed, because the Green get together mobilized Muslim voters, a close aide of Starmer says: “Zero.”

But security sources are clear that Miliband, in specific, took a “petulant, pacifist, legalistic and very political” strategy, questioning why the UK ought to help the US. “He fundamentally doesn’t like Trump, and he doesn’t like this Iran thing,” one says. As Labour chief in 2013, Miliband thwarted makes an attempt by David Cameron to bomb Syria after the Assad regime used chemical weapons; many in Westminster regard this as a shameful episode. “He probably thinks it was a success,” the source provides.

At the middle of the UK’s obsession with “international law” over defending its own people and serving to its long-time allies is Richard Hermer, the nation’s far-left attorney common. 

Ministers, officers and army officers all regard Hermer as an obstacle to Britain’s national security – both because of his doctrinaire strategy to worldwide law and because he reinforces Starmer’s legalistic instincts. “Bring back Suella!” says a member of the National Security Secretariat – a reference to the former attorney common Suella Braverman, who asserted parliamentary sovereignty over worldwide treaties.

“Every senior minister receives legal advice,” says the former protection secretary Ben Wallace. “It is advice, it is not direction. However, under this government, Lord Hermer has become the power in the land where his advice becomes the rule.” A former mandarin provides: “There’s a lot of frustration in the professional national security gang because they feel that Hermer is essentially running the entire policy.” 

I’m going to be frank. The United States cannot have a “closest ally” that cannot even be counted on to present defensive help from ballistic missiles because they’re too busy arguing over the finer factors of one thing as irrelevant as “international law.” At no level did the Trump administration ask Starmer to take part in the offensive assaults on Iran. All that was requested was help in suppressing the Islamic regime’s assaults on civilians. That the UK did not immediately oblige and instead spent days taking part in politics, even as the missiles fell, is a damning indictment of a once particular relationship. 

Never thoughts that the Brits have allowed their once world-leading navy to waste away into a principally dry-docked, ineffectual fleet. To the extent that they might even launch defensive property, such as destroyers with anti-ballistic missile systems, that capability stays severely restricted. 

This is not difficult, in my view. If you are a NATO nation that suckles at the teat of the American taxpayer for your protection wants while you blow all your money on social packages, there needs to be an expectation that you do the naked minimal when we ask for help. If that’s not going to occur, then it is time to start reassessing some of these alliances. 

Editor’s Note: For many years, former presidents have been all discuss and no motion. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the risk from Iran once and for all.

Help us report the fact about the Trump administration’s decisive actions to keep Americans protected and deliver peace to the world. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.