Out prevaricating Prime Minister has once again leaned into international law and infuriated our closest ally. Over the weekend, as the US and Israel attacked Iran, Keir Starmer and his lawyer buddy, Attorney General Lord Hermer, decided against supporting the aerial campaign or allowing UK bases to be used by American assets. Once metal started flying in the opposite direction, however – targeting British military facilities and expats in the Gulf, as well as our allies across the region – the PM soon changed tack, confirming on Monday that our bases could now be utilised by the US for strikes against Iranian missile sites.

Sir Keir’s tortuous explanation, that “defensive operations” targeting the Iranian missile sites threatening us could be allowed, came over as weasel-words. In fact, the whole tenor of the PM’s statement to Parliament appeared aimed at placating his left-wing backbenchers by referencing previous attempts at regime change – especially Tony Blair’s ill-fated Iraq campaign – rather than doing what was best for the UK.

And whatever the PM’s backbenchers think, his latest U-turn may be another case of too little, too late to soothe Donald Trump. Nothing gets past Trump, and he expressed his fury in several interviews, suggesting even the French (infamously once condemned by US media as ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’) had been more helpful than Britain. “I never thought I’d see that,” Trump told one newspaper. “I never thought I’d see that from the UK.”

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was no less scathing. He praised Israel for being a true ally, “Unlike so many traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force”. He didn’t need to mention the UK for us to know who he was referring to. With that humiliating put-down, it seems the so-called ‘special relationship’ really is over.

And all because Starmer values international law way above our own national interests and concerns. To be fair, he has long been engaged in this skewed view of the world. As Prime Minister, Starmer has allowed Lord Hermer to pursue his own anti-British, anti-empire agenda from day one, by giving away the Chagos Islands at huge cost to UK taxpayers. It was Starmer’s dithering over allowing US war planes to use this Indian Ocean base that enraged Trump, who called the deal “a very woke thing”.

Trump then made the point that Iran, through its proxies, had been responsible for killing and wounding many British servicemen in the Middle East. But Starmer is a human rights lawyer right down to his polished shoes. He told Parliament: “I firmly believe that, ultimately, the only way forward is a negotiated outcome.”

But did international law stop Russia invading Ukraine? Did it stop Hamas from massacring Israeli civilians on October 7? Did it stop Iran’s Ayatollah from killing up to 30,000 of his own people when they rose up against him? The answer, of course, is no. International law is a moveable feast depending on who is influencing it and has no supremacy in the UK. America’s overwhelming military force ended Maduro’s corrupt rule in Venezuela and finished Iran’s Supreme Leader.

On both occasions, the PM distanced himself from the US. Which must make America wonder what is the purpose of the UK? Under Sir Keir, can it ever be trusted again to support its historic military partner?

It would be one thing if it was Starmer’s high-mindedness that explained his devotion to international law, but who can doubt in reality that his human rights fixation has been used to turbocharge his rise within the Labour Party?

And is now being deployed to defend his position as party leader against radical left-wingers and prostrate himself before Muslim voters. By using international law to avoid doing the right thing, favouring hand-wringing to actual action, the PM is giving succour to every tyrant around the globe.

At a stroke, Starmer has reduced Britain’s status in the world. No leader will pay much attention to a man who lets down his most important ally in order to rally support among his own back-benchers. A weakened politician has only demonstrated how truly weak he is. What a small man Starmer has proved himself to be.