Sir Michael Ellis has launched a scathing attack on Sir Keir Starmer’s handling of US and Israeli military operations against Iran, describing the Prime Minister’s stance as “pathetic weakness”.
Speaking to GB News, the former Attorney General accused Sir Keir of “appeasement” and characterised his response as marked by “vacillation, equivocation, hedging, indecision, paralysis”.
Sir Michael suggested any apparent shift in the Government’s position amounted to little more than a “breakdown in the middle of the road”, obstructing progress rather than offering meaningful support to Western allies.
The former Attorney General argued Britain ought to be standing alongside the United States and Israel, whom he described as “fighting for Western civilisation” as well as for the Iranian people themselves.
He said: “I’m afraid it’s pathetic weakness from Keir Starmer. If it is a U-turn, they’ve sort of broken down in the middle of the road, blocking other traffic, because what the United Kingdom should be doing is helping the United States and Israel, who are fighting for Western civilisation and also fighting for the Persian people, who have been subjugated and murdered by their theocratic regime for decades.
“We’re seeing our British allies around the region and British territory in the region being attacked, both in Bahrain, where there’s a naval base and British military personnel, and on the island of Cyprus, which since 1960 has been independent, but which has maintained British sovereign bases in the RAF base there in Akrotiri and Dhekelia.”
Sir Michael rejected the Government’s reliance on international law as justification for its cautious approach, arguing such legal frameworks were never intended to shield tyrants and dictators from accountability.
He argued: “They’ve been blaming international law – it’s not international law that’s to blame here, it’s the United Kingdom’s position.
Sir Michael Ellis has hit out at Keir Starmer’s ‘pathetic weakness’ amid Middle Eastern conflict
|
GB NEWS / PA
“Which, frankly, is refusing to support allied interests and refusing to allow, even now, even with this partial U-turn, not allowing anything other than defensive action when missiles are presumably being fired towards British or Allied bases, rather than attempting to help remove the regime.”
The former Attorney General accused Sir Keir of allowing a “left-wing ideology” to diminish Britain’s standing on the world stage.
He explained: “I’m afraid the British position is embarrassingly weak, and appeasement does not work. History tells us that it’s no good simply sitting back and watching others fight your battles for you. After all, the Director General of MI5 has openly said in recent months that Iran and its proxies have been planning attacks in the United Kingdom.
“So here we have a situation where difficult decisions have to be made. But it’s wrong, in my view, to say that it’s international law that prevents one from doing anything. International law isn’t there to protect tyrants and dictators.”
Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer has denied Sir Keir Starmer is ‘sitting on the fence’ on Iran
|
GB NEWSSir Michael suggested: “Part of it is the Prime Minister’s own ideology, I think a left wing ideology, which is infantilising the United Kingdom to some ideological concept of a master’s law.
“Master international law, which, if you like, positions the people of this country as its servants. I see the law as the servant of the people, not its master.”
He contended the Labour Government’s stance was motivated by a combination of ideological conviction and electoral calculation.
“I don’t think the United Kingdom Government, as it’s presently constituted, feels that way. It’s partly ideology, but I think it’s also partly demography, and it’s a concern by the Labour Government about votes, it’s as simple as that”, he said.
Sir Michael Elllis told GB News international law is ‘not to blame’ for Keir Starmer’s stance
|
GB NEWS
The former Attorney General observed Sir Keir appeared most anxious when making his initial statements following Saturday morning’s military action.
According to Sir Michael, the Prime Minister’s foremost concern was to make clear that neither he nor the United Kingdom had backed the American operation.
He concluded: “The most anxious he seemed to be, the Prime Minister, was when he first made his statements about the attack on Saturday morning.
“Most anxious he was to indicate that he hadn’t and the United Kingdom had not supported the United States, that was his top priority.”