The British Government’s Iran Dilemma

Everyone should read Andrew’s insightful post on the British Labour government’s meanderings about “international law” (which, outside the context of ratified treaty arrangements, is just politics — usually progressive activism — gussied up as “law”).

I’m especially interested in Andrew’s concluding paragraphs, which get to the heart of the hapless Keir Starmer’s problem: The outsized influence of Muslim voters on Labour’s coalition.

As Andrew points out, Labour is hemorrhaging support in Muslim communities to the radical Greens. The Guardian estimates that there are about 4 million Muslims living in Britain — probably a low estimate, since it’s based on the 2021 census. In the past, they’ve voted overwhelmingly for Labour. It’s impossible to imagine the party winning elections and keeping control of the government without massive support from Britain’s urban, densely packed Islamic communities and the Islamist activist organizations (many tied to the Muslim Brotherhood) that influence them.

Yet, the Greens have made headway by arguing that Labour, which is plenty hostile to Israel and is open-borders oriented, comes up short nonetheless on both scores. Starmer, moreover, has been such a disaster that he is a stunning 49 points underwater in approval polls: 15 to 64. There may not be much lower that he can, go but his unpopularity and Labour’s are an opportunity for the Greens. And they are capitalizing: persuading Muslims that they, not Labour, are the Islamist/Leftist alliance’s best chance of forefending a right-leaning government potentially run by Reform UK.

There is no realistic chance of a no confidence vote against Starmer and Labour that could force an early election and perhaps a government more sympathetic to the Trump administration and Israel. Even though the popular vote was fairly close in the 2024 election, quirks in the representative scheme have given Labour a working majority of around 170 votes in Parliament.

To maintain even his tenuous standing, Starmer and his party are feeling the pressure to intensify their support for Islamist priorities, even though these are not broadly popular in the country. That, not international law, is why Starmer denied President Trump the use of British platforms for the aerial invasion of Iran.

It’s been fashionable for years among Western intelligence services to stress the Shiite/Sunni divide when questions about Iran come up. This has always been wrongheaded.

The United States, Israel, and the wider West are lightning rods for Islamists. When American and Israeli action is at issue, the internecine Shiite/Sunni conflicts are put aside. Shiite Iran, long the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism, has been a lifeline for Sunni jihadist groups — including al Qaeda (before and after 9/11), Hamas and other Palestinian jihadists, and the Sunni elements of jihadist networks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although they were on opposite sides in the Syrian civil war, Iran has long worked cooperatively with the Muslim Brotherhood (in which Hamas has its roots), and Tehran has good relations with the Taliban in its neighboring Afghanistan.

Sunnis make up the vast majority of British Muslims (as they do the vast majority of Muslims globally), but they will be supportive of Shiite Iran in a conflict against the United States and Israel.

I deeply admire our British allies and have always believed the alliance is essential to American interests and security. When we were attacked on 9/11, the Brits stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us. I am not convinced, as some commentators seem to be, that the “special relationship” is a dead letter.

Alas, in the current political dynamic, I do not see how we will have a reliable British partner against Iran — and sharia supremacism generally — as long as London is run by a Labour government that is so dependent on Islamist support for its survival.