Share this post:

“I just punched my next-door neighbour in the face without warning because I have a right to defend myself, and I expect the police, the government and the law to back me up!”

That line wasn’t a confession.

It was a social media post.

And it was also a blistering piece of political satire, describing Israel’s latest military assault on Iran — and the disturbingly loyal response from the UK government.

It’s easy to laugh. But it’s not funny.

Because if the UK is serious about “de-escalation,” as Prime Minister Keir Starmer claims, then it’s got a strange way of showing it.

Sending jets to prevent war? Pull the other one

Let’s start with the facts.

RAF Typhoons and air-to-air refuelling aircraft are being deployed to the Middle East.

Why?

To quote Starmer: “for contingency support across the region.”

Sounds technical.

Vague.

Calm.

But look closer.

These jets aren’t bringing aid.

They aren’t evacuating civilians.

They’re flying into a region on the brink of war — a war triggered by Israel launching airstrikes deep into Tehran.

And let’s be blunt: there’s no such thing as a neutral deployment in a live conflict zone.

When one side’s planes are bombing and the other side’s missiles are launching back, sending more military hardware into the mix doesn’t “de-escalate” anything.

It fuels the fire — even if you pretend it’s just a safety net.

‘De-escalation’ is just the costume

Listen to how the UK government is framing this.

Starmer says everything is about “calming tensions.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves says it’s just “precautionary.”

Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride? He takes the mask off completely.

He supports Israel’s action — full stop. Because, quote: “We can’t allow Iran to become a nuclear power.”

Sound familiar?

It’s the same argument we heard in 2003.

And we all know how that ended.

Whose self-defence gets recognition?

You’ve probably heard this mantra over and over: “Israel has the right to defend itself.”

But here’s the inconvenient question:

Defend itself from what?

From Iran, whose missiles were fired after Israel bombed its capital?

From a nuclear programme that’s still under international oversight — unlike Israel’s own undeclared arsenal?

Or maybe “self-defence” just means doing what you want without consequences, and expecting your allies to spin it as justified.

If Iran had struck first, would we be calling that “self-defence”?

Would British jets be heading to help Tehran?

Didn’t think so.

Starmer’s foreign policy is just Sunak’s with a different tie

Keir Starmer likes to project calm authority.

He sells himself as a “safe pair of hands.”

But in foreign policy, that’s turning out to mean doing exactly what the Tories would do — just more quietly.

Let’s not forget: this isn’t new.

He refused to call for a ceasefire during the Gaza bombardment.

He defended Israel’s decision to cut off power and water to civilians.

He has said nothing meaningful about the thousands of Palestinians killed.

Now, with missiles flying between two powers – one nuclear but not declaring it, the other not yet nuclear but accused of it – he’s back in that familiar position:

He’s standing behind Israel, whispering “de-escalate” while sending in jets.

The UK could push for peace — but it won’t

There is a different path.

The UK could use its leverage to pressure for a real ceasefire.

It could suspend arms sales, demand an end to illegal strikes, and call out all sides for civilian casualties.

Instead, it’s choosing sides. Again.

And the consequences could be devastating — not just for the people of Iran or Israel, but for UK personnel stationed across the region.

Iran has already said British bases could become targets.

What are we risking lives for?

To send a message?

To look “strong”?

To keep in step with Washington?

When you hold someone’s coat while they throw punches, you’re not neutral

Let’s bring it back to that viral quote:

“I punched my neighbour because I felt threatened — and I expect the law to back me up.”

That’s where we are.

Israel escalated a conflict.

And the UK — under Keir Starmer — responded by lining up the RAF behind Israel, all while insisting this was to try to stop the violence.

You don’t de-escalate with warplanes.

You don’t protect peace by picking favourites.

And you don’t stand for international law by rewriting it for your allies.

So next time you hear a UK minister talk about “restraint” and “precaution,” ask yourself:

What are we really defending?

From where This writer is sitting, it doesn’t look like it’s peace.

It looks like power, dressed in a flight suit.

Share this post: