“The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes.”
Reportedly relayed to the Mail on Sunday while he was leader of the opposition in 1994, many will now wonder why Tony Blair did not rely on his own words when deciding whether to join the US in the invasion of Iraq nearly a decade later.
The spectre of a second Gulf War hangs over all talk of UK foreign intervention, but it is felt most acutely on the Labour benches.
When Sir Keir Starmer announced on Sunday that he had given permission for US warplanes to fly defensive missions into Iran from UK bases, he pointedly referred to events two decades ago saying, “we all remember the mistakes of Iraq”.
He now finds himself with the polar opposite problem to Tony Blair – an apparently fraying relationship with the US borne out of his decision to initially say no to facilitating attacks on Iran.
Add into that, allies in the region sounding off about the apparent lack of a sufficient military response from the UK to help repel Iranian reprisals.
The prime minister’s first press conference since this war began was an attempt to answer these criticisms.
Diesel at 16-month high in UK as Iran war drives oil prices up further
Defence secretary twice declines to rule out Britain joining strikes on Iran
What satellite images reveal about war in Iran
On our military presence, he pointed to British fighter jets that had been deployed in the run-up to the conflict – and announced that more were on the way to the region.
There was also a defence of the UK government’s relatively critical tone towards the US-led operation.
The decision not to join the strikes was “deliberate” and “I stand by it”, Sir Keir said.
At this point, it’s worth playing a counterfactual mental exercise and asking how the last six days would have played out if the UK had allowed its bases to be initially used – even for defensive strikes – from the start of this conflict.
I would hazard an almighty row within government and Labour about international law, the apparent imbalance in the ‘special relationship’ and, yes, probably a lot of discussion about Iraq too.
In other words, for this prime minister, you can see the logic behind his critical approach.
With the outcome of this conflict so uncertain, the jury must still also be out over the wisdom of striking a warmer tone and then potentially being forced to defend that decision if and when the war goes south.
Read more from Sky News:
Kirsti Noem sacked as US homeland security secretary
Defence secretary refuses to rule out Britain joining strikes on Iran
All the more intriguing then are reports in the Spectator magazine that Sir Keir had actually been open to granting pre-emptive permission to the US but was essentially blocked from doing it by his cabinet.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Asked about this in his briefing, he chose his words carefully: “No request from the US came in the specific terms we acceded until Saturday afternoon.”
It all – once again – leads us to questions about where power lies in this government and the prime minister’s ability to stamp his will across Whitehall.
But would an earlier acceptance of the use of UK air bases really led to a markedly different response from Donald Trump? Perhaps, as it often is in politics, this is – in part – a question of presentation.
To return to Tony Blair, in a recent documentary, the former New Labour foreign secretary Jack Straw described his former boss’s – at times valuable, at times dangerous – ability to lead people to “[draw] from what he was saying, what they wanted to hear”.
If Sir Keir Starmer was looking for lessons from his predecessor, perhaps this one could prove more useful when dealing with politicians both at home and abroad.
Having the courage to say no, but the canniness to make people hear yes.
