Keir Starmer at PMQs following the strikes - BBC
Our ‘allies’, the United States and Israel, have once again breached international law by initiating illegal strikes on Iran. Their actions, including the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, have pushed Iran to declare Jihad, escalating this from a political conflict to a holy war. This has severe consequences, as holy wars have no room for negotiation.
Despite the chaos, Keir Starmer has opted to only take defensive action against Iranian missiles heading towards overseas UK military bases until he is satisfied that there is a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. Yet his reluctance to repeat past mistakes and break international law has been met with anger from warmongers among the political right.
Donald Trump said that he was ‘not happy’ with the Prime Minister’s lack of support for the Iran war.
Likely sex offender Donald Trump rebuked Starmer for not initially allowing the United States to launch strikes on Iran from our military bases. This is despite Trump not alerting UK authorities that they were going to strike Iran in the first place. From this, it is clear that the ‘special relationship’ we have with America is not one of mutual respect and cooperation, but rather one of master and servant, with Britain forever trying to appease America's unappeasable nature.
Nigel Farage advocating for UK military bases to be used by the United States against Iran
Shortly after the initial strikes, Nigel Farage reminded us of Trump’s collar around his neck as he immediately jumped forward to advocate for allowing US soldiers to fight Iran using our bases. He has again shown the world that his true allegiances are with his American and Israeli masters instead of the British people.
Next, we have the Conservatives’ very own clown, Kemi Badenoch. Instead of understanding the sensitivity of the matter, she decided to play politics by arguing against a measured approach and advocating for deeper involvement in this conflict.
British citizen Mohammed Emwazi ‘Jihadi John’, and a group of sixty migrants - The Times
By taking offensive action in this conflict, we would be dragged into another foreign war that only serves the interests of America and Israel. Working with these two terror states would not only needlessly put British troops at risk but also put the British public at risk, as our previous involvement in Middle Eastern wars led to jihadist terror attacks at home and more refugees seeking asylum from their war-torn countries, leading to needless deaths and Islamophobia around the nation.
Perhaps this is the aim of the political right? With more chaos comes more tension; with more tension come voters more entrenched in their views. Terror and immigration are large issues among Conservative and Reform voters. However, Badenoch and Farage are advocating for actions that would bring more terror attacks and more refugees to our shores. Doing this works in their favour, as an increase in these issues would give their policies more relevance amongst their base, fanning the flames of war while also appearing as saviours who can put a stop to the negative consequences of it.