The Iran war exposed what the UK never wanted to admit about the US

The United Kingdom has followed the United States into nearly every major war since World War II. So when it hesitated on Iran, President Donald Trump didn't just express his disappointment. Instead, he publicly questioned whether the United Kingdom was a worthy ally at all. 

Winston Churchill coined the term “special relationship†in 1946 to describe the bond between the U.S. and U.K., based on shared language, history, and values. For decades, this relationship has been the foundation of British foreign policy, though not a formal treaty. The U.K. followed the U.S. into Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan, shared intelligence, and offered military bases, all while recognizing that the relationship was never between equals in terms of military or economic capability. 

The Iran war changed that. When the U.S. launched strikes on Iran in early 2026, the U.K. initially refused to allow the use of its military bases, citing legal concerns and its national interest. Trump responded by publicly criticizing U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, repeatedly comparing him negatively to Churchill. Eventually, the U.K. allowed limited defensive use of its bases, but even that did not satisfy Trump, who continued to attack Starmer. 

Things got worse when the British ambassador was caught on leaked audio completely dismissing the idea of a special relationship with the U.S.. 

“I think there is probably one country that has a special relationship with the United States, and that is probably Israel,†Ambassador Sir Christian Turner said.

Nearly 70% of British people no longer believe the special relationship exists. At this point, the only people still defending it are the ones whose careers depend on it.

Most Americans, including students at UW, are barely aware this dynamic exists. The U.S.-U.K. relationship is taught as a model of allied partnership, a friendship forged in war and strengthened by shared values. What is often missing is how one-sided it has been, and how much the U.K. has sacrificed for a relationship that has never truly been reciprocated. 

The deeper question is why the U.K. keeps showing up. After losing its empire in the mid-20th century, the U.K. needed a new identity on the world stage. The special relationship offered one: not as a superpower, but as the trusted partner of one. 

The tie runs deep. Some 58.6 million Americans, roughly 18% of the population, claim British ancestry. For decades, the U.K. leaned on that cultural bond to prove that the relationship was different, more personal than political. It was also the U.S.' closest ally within NATO. That, too, has changed. The problem is that the U.S. has never signed up for the same agreement, and the U.K. is only now starting to realize it. 

And yet, even after all of this, the U.K. sent its king. On April 28, King Charles III addressed a joint session of Congress, only the second British monarch in history to do so. The visit was widely seen as an effort to mend the relationship after months of public humiliation. The U.K. sent its most powerful symbol of history and continuity, hoping pageantry could achieve what diplomacy had failed to do. 

Trump greeted Charles warmly, and Congress gave the king standing ovations. But a warm reception in a ceremonial hall does not fix a fractured relationship. The tensions that brought Charles to Washington in the first place did not disappear when he left.

The special relationship is not dead. But it is no longer what the U.K. pretends it to be. If the Iran war taught the U.K. anything, it is that loyalty without reciprocity is not a partnership worth maintaining. 

Reach contributing writer Aava Shah at opinion@dailyuw.com. X: @dailywithaava. Bluesky: @aavashh.bsky.social.

Like what you're reading? Support high-quality student journalism by donating here.