Trump “Very Disappointed” in Starmer Over Iran
Donald Trump has said he is “very disappointed” in Sir Keir Starmer for blocking him from using Diego Garcia to carry out strikes on Iran. The Telegraph has the story.
In an exclusive interview, the US President said that the Prime Minister’s initial refusal to let US forces use the Chagos Islands base was unlike anything that had “happened between our countries before”.
Britain had denied the US permission to conduct strikes from bases such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, citing international law. However, the Prime Minister relented on Sunday night and said he would allow the US access to Diego Garcia for “specific and limited defensive purposes”.
Trump said Sir Keir “took far too long” to change his mind.
“That’s probably never happened between our countries before,” he told the Telegraph, adding: “It sounds like he was worried about the legality.”
The row over Diego Garcia led the President to withdraw his support for the Prime Minister’s controversial Chagos deal to hand over ownership of the Indian Ocean territory to Mauritius and instead lease back the military base.
Trump told the Telegraph: “All of a sudden [Mauritius] was claiming ownership. He should have fought it out and owned it or make him take it, if you want to know the truth. But no, we were very disappointed in Keir.”
Two days into the US strikes on Iran, the President said the operation was “well ahead of schedule”.
Trump suggested Sir Keir should have always approved American use of Diego Garcia, because Iran was responsible for killing “a lot of people from your country”.
“[There are] people without arms and legs and faces that have been blown up. Iran is 95% of those. Those horrible events were caused by Iran,” Trump said, without referring to specific cases.
Trump told the Telegraph the Chagos deal was “a very woke thing”.
“It would have been much better on the legal front if he just kept the ownership of the land and not given it to people that weren’t the rightful owners,” he said.
Referring to Sir Keir’s U-turn on Diego Garcia, he added: “It is useful. It took far too much time. Far too much time.”
Worth reading in full.
Is anyone else getting worried that Trump seems to speak about the Chagos deal as though it’s done and dusted? “It would have been much better on the legal front if he just kept the ownership of the land and not given it to people that weren’t the rightful owners.” Makes me concerned he’s not actually planning to stop it. Bracing for disappointment of my own…
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I think it’s just one of Trump’s figures of speech.
Edit: I hope it is….
Starmer? Disappointing? Dysfunctional.
And Qatar has just suspended production of natural gas.
Fracking, anyone?
No, no. A few more solar panels from China and we’ll be fine.
Except at night.
Oh and unless it’s cloudy.
Maybe an alternative supplier of LNG is the USA, as long as one is prepared to pay.
You’re disappointed, Mr Trump? Try being British. Then you’ll know what disappointment in Starmer feels like (and that’s putting it mildly).
For sure, he’s an utter wet lettuce and the fact he’s bent over for Islam and his preoccupation with appeasing that particular demographic has been plain as day since forever. Jim nails it. An excerpt; ”When the United States launched strikes on Iran, Britain’s response was one of the most embarrassing performances by a Western government in living memory. John Healy refused six times to say whether Britain supported the action. Keir Starmer hedged, equivocated, and retreated into legal language while every comparable ally, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, stated their position clearly and without apology. It took Iranian missiles hitting a British base in Cyprus and a second day of bombardment before Starmer would even grant the US permission to use British overseas bases. That is not caution. That is paralysis. The official explanation is international law. Lord Hermer’s legal opinion concluded the strikes had no clear basis in law. That explanation does not hold. The same legal framework did not stop Canada or Australia. It did not stop successive British governments acting alongside the United States in circumstances where legality was equally contested. And it does not explain why Starmer refused to even characterise the Iranian threat, despite sitting on… Read more »
Chagos deal definitely dead now.
I and many others hope you’re right.
Will Jones wrote: “Is anyone else getting worried that Trump seems to speak about the Chagos deal as though it’s done and dusted?”
Yes! But what can be the motive? Was Trump so easily taken in by Starmer’s weasel words about “international law”? Did Starmer’s Gang of Three Profiteers offer Trump a cut of all the £millions involved? Hard to believe, since Trump is already a billionaire, and the richest American President of all time.
And didn’t Trump’s military advisers warn him about Starmer’s insane, treasonous gifting of that British Territory to China, that will severely damage the military resources and security of both the US & the UK? Did they not tell him about the 66-year-old US-UK treaty requiring US permission for this bizarre giveaway? I don’t understand it at all. Maybe Trump really does have dementia, as some claim…
Mauritius should be worried. If they end up owning Diego Garcia can you imaging the US just sitting back and saying ‘Oh what a shame, we’ll have to pack up and leave‘?
A facet of Trump’s foreign policy approach is being impossible to read and that’s no bad thing.
Maybe you’re right.
We are disappointed (but not surprises) in Starmer over everything he touches.
I am still not convinced that the recent US action in Iran was wise or will serve anyone’s interests.
But Starmer should have the balls to say so if that’s what he thinks, and not hide behind “international law” which is so obviously a crock of crap.
Sometimes you just have to get in Rentokill even if it means tearing the house apart. A choice of evils.
Starmer has accepted America’s request… Does that mean the UK has granted it or dare the PM not utter this word? Weasel.
Sir Kier Woodentop showing his true colour…..grey
What irritates me (to put it mildly) is this nonsense about a special relationship. It has always been one way: the USA barks and the UK is expected to jump to order. Trump is disappointed with anyone who does not agree with what he wants. If the USA (and not just Trump, previous presidents also) really does value this special relationship, especially when they want this country to back their military adventures, then why are we lumped in with everyone else in the world when tariffs are imposed? Why can the USA not show some degree of appreciation of our cooperation by agreeing a completely free trade deal, for example, and impose no tariffs?
Answer: Freedom of Speech, or rather the Communist Violation of it, as shown by the ludicrous prison sentences handed down by British Judges merely for expressing opinions on social media posts, after an Ethnic African Rwandan stabbed 13 White People in Southport: 11 children and the 2 adults who tried to protect them.
My point has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I don’t know where you got that from. A special relationship suggests a mutual respect. Trump did not even have the courtesy to inform Starmer that he was going to attack Iran and yet demands that we step up and help him out. And when we don’t jump immeduately to attention he becomes abusive.
I would imagine Two-Tier is absolutely terrified that some of the Iranian Sleeper Cells he’s been importing across the channel as fast as he possibly can may decide to activate themselves ……
As ever, it’s all about appeasing the oh-so-peaceful Muslims.