Commodities March 3, 2026

Trump Says U.S.-UK Ties ‘Not What It Was’ After Starmer Withholds Initial Military Support

President criticises British response to strikes on Iran as London later authorises use of bases for defensive actions

By Nina Shah
Trump Says U.S.-UK Ties ‘Not What It Was’ After Starmer Withholds Initial Military Support

U.S. President Donald Trump told a British newspaper he was "sad to see" the U.S.-UK relationship had weakened after Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially refrained from offering military support for strikes against Iran. Starmer later permitted the United States to use British military bases for defensive strikes, while senior British ministers stressed lessons learned from past conflicts and defended the government's decision as in the national interest.

Key Points

  • President Trump said it was "sad to see" the U.S.-UK relationship was "not what it was" after Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially declined to back strikes on Iran.
  • Starmer subsequently authorised U.S. use of British military bases for defensive strikes after they were not used in the initial attack on Iran.
  • Senior British minister Darren Jones stressed the importance of alignment with international partners and a clear legal basis, citing lessons learned from the 2003 Iraq involvement - sectors potentially affected include defence and government security policy.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he was "sad to see" that the relationship between Washington and London "is obviously not what it was" following an episode in which Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially declined to provide military backing for strikes against Iran.

Speaking to the Sun newspaper, Mr. Trump criticised the British leader and contrasted Britain's stance with that of other European partners. "I mean, France has been great. They’ve all been great. The UK has been much different from others," he said, adding he had not expected the once "most solid of all" relationships to shift in this way.

Mr. Trump framed his comments as a personal disappointment rather than a strategic limitation, saying the United States did not require Britain to conduct operations in the Middle East. At the same time, he argued that Britain "should have helped… he should have." He also noted: "It’s not going to matter, but (Starmer) should have helped… he should have."

The remarks came after Mr. Starmer initially held back from supporting the strikes. Late on Sunday the prime minister authorised the United States to use British military bases for defensive strikes, a decision that followed the initial absence of British facilities in the first wave of action against Iran.

In London, senior minister Darren Jones responded to Mr. Trump's criticism on Times Radio by emphasising the continuing importance of the U.S.-UK relationship while underlining lessons Britain says it has drawn from previous military interventions. "One of the lessons of Iraq was that it’s better to be involved in these situations when you are aligned with international partners, and as I say, with a clear legal basis in the plan," he said.

Mr. Starmer addressed the matter in parliament on Monday, repeating his rationale for the initial decision and defending it as an exercise in national judgment. "President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it," Mr. Starmer said.

The exchange of comments between the U.S. president and British officials highlights a moment of friction in a relationship that both sides continue to describe as important. British permission for the use of military bases for defensive measures came after the initial action, and government officials have sought to balance alliance obligations with lessons learned from past military engagements.


Contextual notes: The public statements cited above reflect the positions expressed by the individuals named regarding the strikes against Iran and the timing of Britain's decision to allow use of its bases for defensive purposes. Officials in both countries emphasised the broader significance of the bilateral relationship while expressing differing views on the appropriate degree and timing of military support.

Risks

  • Public diplomatic friction between the U.S. and UK could complicate coordination on future military operations - impacts defence planning and international security cooperation.
  • Divergent decisions over participation in strikes create uncertainty over timing and use of allied facilities - affecting military logistics and readiness.
  • Political disagreement between leaders may increase scrutiny of defence commitments and legal justifications for intervention - influencing government policy and parliamentary oversight.

More from Commodities

Israel Moves Additional Troops into Southern Lebanon, Citing Defensive Needs Mar 3, 2026 Israeli Military Plans Weeks-Long Campaign Against Iran; Ground Invasion Deemed Unlikely Mar 3, 2026 Dollar Strengthens, but Largely as a Byproduct of Energy Market Shocks Mar 3, 2026 Saudi non-oil private sector growth eases in February, PMI shows Mar 2, 2026 Oil Climbs Further as Middle East Tensions and Strait of Hormuz Threats Weigh on Supply Mar 2, 2026