UK's Keir Starmer on Israel-Iran Conflict, UK-US Trade, NATO

Prime Minister, just as you're about to leave for the G7, Israel's carried out what it describes as a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear targets, 200 fighter jets, more than 300 bombs, the site struck, including homes. Would you say Israel is justified in the action it's taken? Well, I'm very concerned about the situation that is developing, and it's obvious that for a long time we've had great concerns about the nuclear programme that Iran is putting together, and we absolutely recognise Israel's right to self-defence. We, the UK, were not involved in this attack, and we're urging all sides to de-escalate and negotiate as the way forward here, and obviously we're talking to allies about that. We have been this week, we are intensively talking to allies today. In March, US National Intelligence made it public that they did not believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons, so has something changed in the assessment since then? Well, I won't go into the intelligence assessments, but we are gravely concerned. I've just had a call with President Macron and Chancellor Mertz to discuss the situation, and we are all on the same page in the sense of saying, look, the nuclear programme is a real cause for concern. We're all saying de-escalate in relation to this incident, but none of us were involved in the actual attack. Does that mean you're also gravely concerned about the fact that Israel has taken this very, made this very big move, pre-emptive military action? I mean, you're concerned about Iran's nuclear programme, are you also concerned about Israel's choice of action? Well, I'm concerned about escalation, of course, and I'm going to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly after this interview, so obviously that'll be a topic of discussion. Look, I do recognise Israel's right to self-defence, there's no doubt about that, but I am very concerned about the escalation of this situation, which is why, along with Germany and France, we're really clear that de-escalation is what is needed here. Would the UK therefore help defend Israel from Iranian attack, as it has done before? Well, this is happening in real time as we speak, and I'm not going to go into operational matters if you'll forgive me for that, but as I say, the principle of Israel's right to self-defence is absolutely clear and we stand by that, but this is a fast-moving situation, as you will understand. At the same time, we have the ongoing situation in Gaza, the suffering there, something that you have called intolerable and appalling. Three weeks ago, you made this very strong statement with Canada and France, which called for three things, for Hamas to release the hostages, for Israel's military operations in Gaza to cease, and for Israel to let aid into Gaza in accordance with the UN, engage with the UN in delivering it. None of those things have happened. What action will you take now? Well, you'll have seen that we've taken action in relation to sanctions three weeks ago, but also more recently, and it is important that we consider what other options that we have. I always think in these situations it's better to act with allies, which is why we're coordinating what we're doing, but the situation in Gaza is absolutely intolerable. The aid arrangements are not adequate, nor are they going to be adequate, and so that's why we've been consistently calling for a return to the ceasefire. Of course, the release of the hostages, the remaining hostages, have been there for a very long time in awful circumstances, but we must get that aid in at speed, at volume, and the current arrangements are not going to deliver that. And that's why we've been very clear in our messaging on this and our coordination on this, and our willingness to take action such as sanctioning. Which you've already done, and as I said, there's been no change to the situation. An action you could take is recognising a Palestinian state, and President Macron is leading on a conference at the UN next week on that very subject. Well, we've got long-standing policy as a Labour party, as a Labour government, that recognition should be part of a process, and so that's our approach. Precisely what's going to happen in the conference next week, I think, is unclear, and obviously now the immediate issue is the Israeli attack overnight, and so there are a lot of moving parts at the moment, but the principle we've always held is that the only long-term solution in relation to Palestine and the Middle East is a two-state solution, and although it seems further off now than perhaps it seemed for some time, we have to be clear that that is the only path through, and that recognition at the right part of the process has always been our long-standing policy. But why would this not be the moment? Because the action you've taken so far has not resulted in a change on the ground, and in the West Bank there's an expansion of settlements, and there are Palestinians being expelled from their homes, and there are the extremist actions of Israeli settlers. Britain has a historic responsibility, doesn't it, and recognising a Palestinian state was in your manifesto. Do you want to be the British Prime Minister who delivers that? Well, we do have a special responsibility, you're absolutely right about that, and I'm clear and our manifesto was clear about our position on recognition, but it must be the appropriate part of the process that will alleviate the situation and bring about meaningful Which doesn't exist at the moment, there is no peace process. Well, that's why it must be part of the process. Obviously, as you would expect, we are talking to allies, like-minded countries about this very issue, but it must be, in accordance with the manifesto, part of a process that leads to a two-state solution. It's the outcome that matters in this, hugely, given the intolerable situation. But can you see the moment where you might have to do things independently of any process, because there isn't one, and indeed the Israeli government is saying openly that it's trying to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state through settlement expansion. That's why we're talking to international partners about what can be done, what should be done, what's the appropriate path, and we'll continue to do that. I strongly believe that we are better, more effective when we're acting with allies, with others at the same time. That's why we took the approach we did on sanctions, and it's the same mindset that I bring to this. Speaking of sanctions, let's turn to Russia, and you've worked very, very hard to help the US administration see Ukraine slightly differently, to push them further towards greater action on Russia, and you'll be seeing President Trump at the G7 summit. Do you understand what he is trying to do on Russia? I'm clear in my own mind that President Trump wants to bring that and end the conflict. I have no doubt about that, and we are moving closer, I hope, to some sort of ceasefire, some sort of deal. Ukraine, President Zelensky has been absolutely clear that he wants that unconditional ceasefire. Putin, in my view, is dragging his heels, which is why I think it is important for us, together with others, to say there will be consequences if Russia doesn't come forward to an unconditional ceasefire. And it did seem that you thought you had persuaded President Trump on that. When you went to Kyiv, when you and the other European leaders called him, you said, working with President Trump, we're going to ramp up sanctions. And then nothing came of it. President Trump talked tough for a while about flooding with Putin and then stopped. So is he going to pressure Mr Putin? Well, there are discussions going on the whole time, and we're working with the Ukrainians, working with the US, as you would expect. We're a trusted ally in this. The path to peace is rarely straightforward in any conflict. But I do believe that that is what President Trump wants. That is absolutely what the Ukrainians want, peace. This is a conflict, a war that's been waged on them by the aggressor, which is Russia. And so we are doing everything we can to bring about that outcome. As I say, the path from conflict to peace is rarely straightforward, but I'm absolutely determined that the UK will play a leading part. And I'm very pleased that the UK has seemed to be able to play that leading part in resolving the conflict. And I remind myself always that not only is this about the sovereignty of Ukraine, which of course it is, but it is also about our values in Europe. And it's also about the direct impact it has back here at home in the United Kingdom, because whether it's energy or the cost of living, families, communities, individuals in the UK have been impacted by what's happening in Ukraine. And therefore, we need to redouble our efforts to bring about a lasting peace, not a temporary peace, but a lasting peace. Are you saying that you do believe that President Trump will bring in sanctions on Russia, new sanctions, the kind of measure that might pressure Putin to come to the negotiations? Well, he said on a number of occasions, that's what he will do. We're obviously closely aligning and talking to him. He also said he'd end the war in 24 hours. Well, as I say, if you look at any conflict, historically, the path to peace has never been straightforward. But the determination is there, the intent is there. And I do believe we're making progress. But it must be a lasting peace. You have led on this idea of the coalition of the willing and a reassurance force for post-war Ukraine. Have you got a commitment from the US that it would provide air cover for that future force to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine in the future? Well, President Trump has clearly said he'll have our back. And I've always been clear that there must be a US element to this. But on the other hand, I do think that Europe needs to step up in its own right, in its own collective security and self-defense. And that's why, along with President Macron, we have led, as it were, on the coalition of the willing, which is to go, if you like, at the pace of those that want to go furthest, rather than at the pace of those who are the most cautious, and to start some of the planning that is going to be needed. And the further we get into the planning of what's actually going to be needed in the air, in the sea, and possibly on land, the more convinced I am, this is the military planning, that that is planning that needs to go on now. It's planning that can't go on after the event, so that we're ready for whatever happens. Obviously, there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of questions that aren't answered yet, but the military planning is getting to quite an advanced stage now. Having your back, as President Trump has said, is not the same as saying, I will provide US air cover. Bloomberg's been told that the US is refusing to commit to air cover for a post-war force. Well, look, I'm not going to get into the private discussions that we are having, but what I would say is this, that there are no two countries that act as closely together on defence, security, and on intelligence sharing as the US and the UK. And that aspect of our relationship is as strong today as it's ever been, and my commitment to it is there, President Trump's commitment to it is there. We've discussed it between ourselves, so that is an unshakable link between our two countries. It does make it difficult though, doesn't it, for you to, and would you be prepared to put British troops on the ground as part of a post-war force in Ukraine, if there wasn't US air cover to protect them? Well, I've always said there needs to be US protection. I have said we would be willing to put our troops on the ground, but that has to be that US backstop, if you like. So, if it's not there, what happens to the We are discussing this, but I have no reason to believe that the US and the UK wouldn't act together as we've done historically for many, many years, as we are doing every single day of the week. Our teams are in constant touch with each other. As I say, we must never lose sight of the fact that the US and the UK are as close as any two countries on defence, security, and and the intelligence that we share with each other. There's another live bilateral issue, which is the state of your trade agreement and the hope that you will implement it, and the time frame you yourself set was two weeks, which would take us to next Wednesday. So, will it be implemented in that time frame? We're in the final stages of implementing it now. I'm very pleased that we reached that agreement. It was a huge relief to car manufacturing, those working in the sector, particularly JLR workers that I went to see before we started the negotiations, and I went to see immediately after the negotiations, and so this is measured in jobs protected, jobs created by this deal. We are at the implementation stage, but we're at the end of that process, and I hope that we can complete it pretty soon now. Is that the same as within the two weeks by next Wednesday? Oh, I'm hoping that we will complete it pretty soon. I mean, it's important that we do, but we're making good progress. There's nothing unexpected in the implementation, and so we haven't got any hiccups or obstacles. Why hasn't it done yet? Because both sides agreed what they would do in order to implement, and so we're working through what we, the UK, have to do, what the US is going to do, so that we can implement it. That was as we envisaged. Not long after the G7 summit, you'll have the NATO summit coming up, and there, there is a very specific new ask, which is that, and the US administration says this, NATO itself says this, to spend 5% of GDP on defence, understood to be by the year 2032, 3.5% on core defence spending. Will you be committing to that? Well, let me go through what we've already committed to, which is obviously 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence by 2027-28. I think that's earlier than most people thought we would commit to, and that's the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, with an ambition then to go to 3% in the next Parliament, to set that all out, alongside our strategic defence review. I accept the proposition, I've advanced the proposition, about the importance of NATO. Our strategic defence review is very much NATO first, and that all European countries need to step up. There's been a sort of criticism that Europe hasn't carried its fair share of the burden. I think that's right. So I've said to European allies, we need to do more on spend, on capability and cooperation. Obviously, the precise wording that will be agreed that NATO is still a matter of some negotiation. What I'm really clear about is NATO has been a cornerstone of our defence for 80 plus years. It's the most important, successful military alliance there's ever been. And I think it's important for that summit in just over a week's time, to be a real show of unity and to show our responsibility, not just to reflect on the last 80 years of NATO, but to play our part in ensuring that we continue peace in Europe because of NATO. And that's the broad picture, but there is now this very specific ask, and your current commitment, your current ambition is for 3% of GDP spent on defence by the year 2034 in the next Parliament. So could it be your ambition by the time of this summit to raise that to 3.5%? Because if you don't, you can't really claim to be the leading European nation in NATO. Well, I had Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO here in this room on Monday to discuss how together we would go into this summit. And there's still discussions going on as to precisely what the wording and what the commitment will be. But I mean, he was very clear to me that he welcomed our uplift to 2.5%. He was very pleased that we had done that. He was very pleased for strategic defence. It's all good. It's just a long way from what he wants now. And the US says everyone's going to agree to this within weeks. So if you don't, it's going to be a very difficult summit. We commit hugely to NATO, not just in our troops, but also our nuclear commitment to NATO. We're the only country that commits our nuclear capability to NATO. And so I think he would recognise, NATO recognises, that the UK makes a huge contribution to NATO. And I am absolutely determined that that summit in just over a week will be a huge success and an opportunity to show the strength together that we have as NATO allies, but also to send a very clear message to our adversaries, which is equally important in what is a more unstable world than I think we've seen for many, many years. Finally, let's return to the UK and the plans that you've just set out for national renewal, for a new phase of your government. There are some concerns that the growth picture is not necessarily going to, with the forecast, going to support your spending plans. And there is a group of people that Bloomberg have looked into company filings, and they've seen that thousands of company directors have left the country, relocating out of the UK in the last year. Is this a group of people that you can really afford to use? Don't you need to have those people here to look at the opportunities for investment? Might you consider an investor visa? Well, let me put this in the context, because obviously, and I won't go over this in great detail, but we inherited a complete mess at the election. Almost everything was broken, the economy, public services, you name it. Which is why you raised taxes. And we had to take difficult but right decisions in the budget. And that, if you like, was year one of this Labour government, which was clear up the mess, take the difficult but necessary decisions. We're now very clearly moving into sort of phase two, which is what the spending review ushers in, which is being clear, what's the benefit from this? What's the yield? Where are you putting your money? And I'm really proud that we're rolling out a programme of real Labour values in terms of investment, whether that's things like Sizewell. So might an investor visa be part of it? Is it something you're considering? I want more investors to come into the country. I want top talent to come into the country. But I would just push back a little because we've had record investment into the UK since the last election. We've just had London Tech Week, where we had some of the most forward-leaning investors and tech companies absolutely singing the praises of the UK and why now is the right time to invest in the UK. The economy's also lost about a quarter of a million jobs since the autumn. So it's not all as rosy as you suggest. We've actually, I mean, 500,000 more people in work than at the date of the last election. Since you raised taxes in the autumn, this is the Bloomberg analysis that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost. If you look at the number of people in work, it is 500,000 more than it was. If you look at the commitment and spending defence strategic review, there's 30,000 jobs in nuclear submarines. But at Sizewell, that we announced earlier this week, there's 10,000 jobs. And my job is to make sure that good, well-paid, secure jobs are there and to attract that investment. For international investment, I do think this is a really important point. And Bloomberg will understand this almost better than anyone. Those global investors have a choice as to which country they put their money in. They chose not to put their money into the UK for many years before the election. Now we've had record inward investment. That is because they've got confidence in what we're doing. They're putting their money in. And that, to me, speaks volumes. Final thought, is President Trump coming in September for his state visit? Oh, he'll be coming. And obviously, the palace will organise the dates. But President Trump will come in for his state visit. In the autumn? And that is really... Well, the palace will deal with the dates. Is it this year? Well, I hope so, yes. But as I say, I'll leave it... I don't want to take over the job of the palace. It's their job to set out exactly the dates of the invitation. But I'm really pleased that we will be able to showcase the close relationship we have between the UK and the US. That's historically a close relationship. And this will be a historic second visit of President Trump. And we're all looking forward to welcoming him.