By Christian Edwards, CNN
London (CNN) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer – buttoned-up, lawyerly, reserved – is not a man prone to effusiveness. But when he sat next to US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last February, he began to speak like his host.
“This is really special,” said Starmer, as he brandished a letter from King Charles III inviting Trump for a second state visit to Britain. “This has never happened before. This is unprecedented… This is truly historic – an unprecedented second state visit.”
Starmer’s uncharacteristic gushing showed how his government planned to handle the US president in his second term: play to his penchant for flattery and royalty, and hope to reap rewards – from a lower tariff rate than that slapped on the European Union, to continued US support for Ukraine.
For some time, that strategy has proven rather effective. But now it appears to have faltered. Although Trump has berated all America’s allies for their reluctance to assist the United States militarily in its war with Iran, he has singled out Starmer with vitriol. “This is not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with,” Trump said on March 3. On Monday, he suggested Britain was no longer “the Rolls-Royce of allies.”
Given the venom of Trump’s broadsides against Britain, a growing number of lawmakers are questioning whether it would be wise for Charles to visit the US this spring. Although the state visit has not been confirmed, the king has widely been expected to travel to Washington, DC, in April, to celebrate the 250th anniversary of US independence.
“The last thing that we want to do is have His Majesty… embarrassed,” Emily Thornberry, a Labour member of parliament, said Tuesday. “I think it needs to be thought through very carefully as to whether or not it’s appropriate to go ahead now.”
“I suspect it would be safer to delay it,” Thornberry said on the BBC’s flagship morning radio program.
Trump’s feud with Starmer began when Britain initially refused the president’s request to use its military bases in support of the war with Iran, which Starmer understood to be illegal.
Starmer did, however, join the defense against Iran’s retaliation after British military assets in the Middle East came under attack.
Since then, Trump has both mocked Starmer’s apparent offers to help and berated him for not doing more.
On March 7, when Trump claimed that Britain was “finally giving thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East,” he told Starmer not to bother. “We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”
On Monday, after Britain and others balked at Trump’s appeal to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said London’s reluctance to send warships to de-mine the waterway was “terrible.”
The US president claimed that when he asked Starmer to send assets to help reopen the strait, the prime minister said he would need to discuss the options with his team. Trump said he replied: “You don’t have to worry about a team… you’re the prime minister; you can make a decision… It’s very disappointing.”
Trump’s disparagement of Starmer has shown the limits of Britain’s strategy of flattery, according to Peter Westmacott, who served as the British ambassador to Washington from 2012 to 2016.
“Starmer has spent 18 months trying to manage the relationship by not rising to the bait and dealing in private,” Westmacott told CNN. “He doesn’t have a huge ego himself… He tries to use calm and reason and arguments that will appeal to Trump. But it clearly d