Donald Trump has threatened to rip up his trade deal with Britain after Rachel Reeves said she was “very frustrated and angry” with the US President over the war in Iran. The Telegraph has more.
The US President suggested that he could change the agreement he reached with Sir Keir Starmer last year, because of Britain’s lack of support in the Middle East.
In May 2025, Britain became the first nation to agree a trade deal with the Trump administration in what was hailed as a show of the strength of UK-US ties.
However, in a thinly veiled threat to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on Wednesday, Trump said: “We gave them a good trade deal – better than I had to, which can always be changed.”
The Chancellor attacked the White House on Tuesday, saying she was “very frustrated and angry” with the US President’s “folly” in going to war without an exit plan. She blamed the conflict for an expected rise in the cost of living in the coming months.
Reeves will attend a crunch meeting to discuss the crisis in the Gulf with Scott Bessent, her American counterpart, at the International Monetary Fund in Washington on Wednesday.
Relations between the UK and US have soured after Sir Keir refused to join Trump’s war against Tehran, which began in late February. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that “this is not our war”.
Sir Keir delayed giving permission for British military bases to be used for defensive purposes. He declined to send British warships to help the US navy enforce its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route in the region.
Britain’s 2025 deal with the US, which included a baseline tariff of 10%, was lauded as a victory compared with the 15% facing EU goods. Steel and aluminium imports from Britain were taxed at 25%, half the rate of most other nations.
However, on Wednesday Trump issued his first direct threat about the future of the agreement when asked about the state of the special relationship with the UK.
He told Sky News: “It’s the relationship where when we asked them for help, they were not there. When we needed them, they were not there. When we didn’t need them, they were not there, and they still aren’t there.”
It was then put to Trump that the state of the special relationship sounded “very bad”.
He responded: “Well, it’s been better but it’s sad and we gave them a good trade deal – better than I had to, which can always be changed.”
In an interview on Tuesday, Reeves said Trump’s actions in the Middle East amounted to “a war that we did not start” and “a war that we did not want”.
She told the Mirror: “I feel very frustrated and angry that the US went into this war without a clear exit plan, without a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve. And as a result, the Strait of Hormuz is now blocked.”
Reeves added that “to start a conflict without being clear what the objectives are and not being clear about how you are going to get out of it… I do think that is a folly”.
The US has remained the UK’s largest single-country trading partner and in 2024 accounted for 17% of all trade, as well as 24% of exports.
Some elements of the deal have already come into force. However, the White House warned of “glitches” in the agreement in January following a rift over the deal to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
While Trump initially supported the deal to give away the territory, which contains a joint UK-US military base, he later rejected it as an “act of stupidity”.
Worth reading in full.
Why isn’t Reeves “frustrated and angry” at Iran for engaging in piracy, closing the strait and holding the world to ransom? Directing anger at a key ally instead of the rogue state that has actually blown up civilian ships to make the waterway unusable – while refusing to get involved in America’s efforts to reopen it – reflects a poor grasp of what is really going on here.
While it appears to be true that Trump didn’t properly anticipate Iran shutting the strait, thereby preventing him making a clean withdrawal from Iran when the bombing campaign was over, his administration does now have a plan to reopen it: pressure Iran by threatening it with extreme damage and, more recently (and palatably), blockading the strait itself.
What it really comes down to is whether the world should stand up to Iran and take action that will actually curtail its genocidal ambitions, or whether merely symbolic gestures should be made while Iran advances towards its goals regardless. Reeves and Starmer, like most European leaders, seem to be in the latter camp, hence not supporting the war and just wanting another round of ineffective talks. They didn’t want the bombing, even though diplomacy over decades had manifestly failed, and now Iran has shut the strait they don’t want any coercive action taken against it to pressure it to reopen, apparently agreeing with Macron that reopening it by force is “unrealistic”. Instead their plan seems to boil down to asking very nicely if Iran will simply start letting ships (with military escorts) through again. If there is a plan B for the (very likely) scenario where Iran simply says no, there’s no sign of it yet, though Macron has said that America along with Israel and Iran will be excluded from the arrangements as “belligerent” nations, which hardly seems conducive to an effective settlement.
Like the small boats crisis, when the ‘proper’, ‘legal’, ‘nice’ ways of trying to solve the problem fail (as they predictably will), the closure of the Strait of Hormuz – or ‘reopening’ entirely on Iran’s terms – will just become another of those problems that Western states can’t solve because doing so might involve standing up to bad people and ‘breaking international law’.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
It seems reasonable to remember that the recent Director for the US’s National Counterterrorism Center stated that the US had no evidence of Israel’s (annual) claim that Iran was on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons capability. He’s a former 75th Regiment Green Beret with 11 combat tours fighting Iranian proxies who’s wife was killed by on, so there’s no reason to suppose he has any affection for them or is mis-speaking.
And while I have no affection for Rachel from Accounts either, there is no reason why she cannot legitimately be frustrated and angry with Trump for allowing America to be controlled and directed by Israel to carry out an operation that has enormously harmed British interests. Yes it’s a smokescreen for her own incompetence and failure, but no – it’s not a reason to support American misadventure in the Strait of Hormuz.
It is hard to believe that DS is making the apology of an unprovoked war by the Israel/USA vs Iran. Unbelievable. They/we are not Sceptics anymore? All the evidence shows that this war is a Israel war, Israel pulled the US into it (Rubio) and there were no objectives apart from destruction for the sake of it. Nobody talks about the confirmed massacre of above 160 school girls in the first days of the conflict; collateral, tough luck, they will say! It is unbelievable how Jones can come peddling the Fox narrative in support of the conflict. The evidence available shows this war is purely a Bibi one, helped by Trump’s crazy and dangerous narcissism. For once Europe/UK showed some good judgement and, in our name, not supporting this murderous war. It’s not because I am not on Reeves political colour that I’m not able to see her sensible position; like most other leaders in the EU. There is NO evidence of any previous threat by Iran – recognised by the US secret agencies. The nuclear argument is like Covid or the CO2; Bibi is talking about it for 40 years! Hello. There is a lot of evidence of Israel… Read more »
I don’t know a single person who supports this war or Donald Trump. So from that point of view Starmer may have a point. Starting one without warning and then demanding your allies join in is probably not your smartest strategy. The problem is you have the most evil regime on the planet verses the World’s most obnoxious man. The British simply do not take to the crass Donald Trump. If Obama for example had done this it might have received better support from the British public. But now, with no exit plan and especially with the financial fallout looming, no chance whatsoever.
I suggest we send our single toy boat to frighten him.
Given she hasnt the ability to make a plan to do anything but ruin the UK economy, she’s the last one to talk about “plans”, clearly she thinks thes situations are just like an X box game, for everyone’s sake, get these imbeciles out of power!
Is there a vacancy for someone who understands geopolitics in the Labour cabinet?
whaddya mean? We’ve got David Lammy already 😉
Given the obvious lack of planning by this government – growth was Reeves’ mantra, economic growth is the last thing she’ll cause – it’s a bit rich her accusing anyone of not having a plan.
Spot on. “Growth”, in Rachel-from-Accounts’ vocabulary, means “someone else will sort that”. Us. Presumably by working harder, or more smart, or something. It’s still our problem, even after her Government has tied dozens of regulatory and tax ropes round every limb and finger of each “growth-potential-entity”. Come on guys! Rachel told you to Make Growth! Get on with it!
Another interpretation of “growth”, given the fun activities elsewhere in this ‘government’, is “open the door even wider for multinationals to come and bleed us dry, and hope that the UK can pick up a few 50p pieces which have fallen out of their pockets as they sweep through like a plague of locusts”.
I completely agree with the summary. Our leaders are making a deadly mistake with breathtaking arrogance and no leverage. This is a chance to change the Middle East for good but Starmer and Reeves and their EU cronies just want more of the same. What a wasted opportunity.
Watch for moves from the North and the East for a plan which cuts USA out of the Gulf for good.
Absolutely 👆
The North and Eastern element as you call them are s**t scared of President Trump. They play checkers, he plays 4D chess.
(Note – click “read more” to restore proper paragraph formatting)
I have no brief for Rachel from accounts, but Trump, who I’ve supported to the hilt, has gone rogue.
First kidnapping a country’s President (and thereby taking control of their oil), then bullying Denmark for a piece of Greenland, next bullying Cuba, who does no harm to anyone, and now “regime change” (remember how successful all the others have been? NOT) on behalf of the Christian & Jewish Zioinsts (including Hegseth & Witkoff) who surround him.
a) The JCPOA
b) The no-nukes for Iran fatwah issued by Ayatollah Khameini (yes, the guy US/Israel recently blew to pieces). He forbade Iran to have nuclear weapons on the grounds that it is forbidden by Islam. Now Israel has wiped him out (and his family).
JCPOA: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran nuclear deal, a 2015 agreement with Iran, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council permanent members plus Germany:
It limits Iran’s nuclear program, specifically restricting uranium enrichment and centrifuges, in exchange for lifting international sanctions, ensuring a peaceful nuclear program. All monitored by the IAEA.
Trump unilaterally terminated the JCPOA, back in 2018. He then went on to “obliterate”… Read more »
Thanks for that. I seems to be an unwelcome summary to at least one person, but strikes me as pretty accurate give the cross references you make. You might find a podcast on The Duran of interest where it talks about the alternative approach to a Gulf settlement (and ongoing security) by China, Russia and Turkey that commenced yesterday
Another Duran user here. I listen to Alex Mercouris every day, and his armfuls of reports from key sources both East & West can be very informative, although he can be long winded of course!
Top of the Islamic pop charts.. Koran; Koran
Absolutely!
I hate Starmer, Covid Clown World, Wokeism, Net Zero, CBDC, Ukraine etc. but when it comes to Isrl/Iran, (copied from X/TCW).-
If they did even a fraction of what we’ve done to them in the 20th century we would also be saying “Death to Iran”
1951: Iran democratically elects Mohammad Mosaddegh, who wins overwhelmingly on his promise to nationalize Iranian oil that had been given away to the British before Iran formed as a modern country.
1953: CIA and MI6 develop a plan to overthrow Mosaddegh and install a Western friendly puppet. The operation, dubbed Operation Ajax, was the first successful Colour Revolution in intelligence history. They installed the Western-friendly Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah (dictator) of Iran.
1954: The US drafts a Consortium Agreement guaranteeing 50% of Iran’s oil profits to American-friendly corporations, for 25 years.
1957: The CIA and Mossad train up a secret police in Iran called the SAVAK, who operated like a KGB who would round up dissidents and torture and kill them. Eventually thousands of Iranians would be killed this way.
1960-1978: The Shah, at the US’s request, would purchase as many arms as possible from American defense contractors – this is why they… Read more »
Well said.
Very well said!! I also share all the ‘hates’ (covid, woke, net zero, ukraine with its US led colour revolution) …and I was in support of Trump in the beginning. That’s why I say in my comment that I would expect more openness and neutrality from DS. Are we Sceptics or not?? We need to put virtually everything in question.
I don’t have your certainty but I do have serious doubts.
However I also have doubts about this: “b) The no-nukes for Iran fatwah issued by Ayatollah Khameini ” – I expect he said it, but I don’t see why we’d believe him.
Somehow I thought Alsitair Crooke link has fallen off the edge of the flat Earth :), now it’s reappeared & I can’t delete this post so here it is again anyway:
Also excuse the Americanised spelling in places; I copied it from a Disqus post to Breitbart & Americansised it for them. Did no good, there was a blizzard of downvotes! LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL8rXeNkXsQ
Excellent evidence based summary. And going into a war without objectives they (Bibi and Trump) managed to destabilise, once again, the world economy. It seems that the war supporters like to pay petrol 40% more expensive!!
‘… going to war without an exit plan …’.
Trump’s plan is brilliant.
He has effectively defanged Iran military.
He is now strangling it economically, whilst taking control of its oil in $, boosting US oil exports, boosting the US economy and marginalising China’s grip on the global economy.
This has been achieved in full intelligence and military partnership with Israel, as they crush the Iranian nuclear, ballistic missile and terror proxy threat, making both UK and EU safer.
Meanwhile, Starmer has criticised, obstructed and refused to aid our US and Israeli friends.
Shame on Labour.
Consequences will follow for both NATO and UK.
and to add to Starmer and Co’s utter idiocy, when he calls up the Muslim Council of Great Britain for his orders, the bloke is too busy chatting to looney tunes Jack, to talk to him.
The NATO is still a mutual defense pact. When the USA and Israel jointly go to war somewhere in the world, no NATO member state is obliged to do anything and that Trump has been unable to win any support for his war among traditional allies of the USA is – insofar such support had been helpful – simply a failure of Trump’s approach to foreign policy. When Bush went to war against Iraq and later, Afghanistan, he was able to secure such support despite the official pretexts were serioulsy thin.
Could it be that Trump’s “foreign policy method” which alternates between mocking and belittleling traditional US allies, often without regards for actual facts, and threatening them isn’t exactly the pinnacle of effective diplomacy?
And looking on the bright side, there is a deadline for Trump by the end of his term as US president, but Reeves might be elected again at the next general election.
He hasn’t belittled the UK or the EU; he told the truth. I can’t remember exactly what UN Resolutions Bush got, but it was a mess and now that’s used as a reason not to deal with Iran. All cases should be judged on the here and now and the Middle East needs to be rid of the festering problem that is the Islamic Revolution.
A truth is, for instance, that the present-day USA has an army that’s smaller than the army of the Federal Republic of Germany during cold war times and that the the number of US soldiers in Europe is insignificant compared to the number of European soldiers. And that’s certainly not what Trump has been “telling” (his own electorate, mostly).
Surely land armies are outmoded in these days of weapons technology? It’s like saying their cavalry is smaller than Prussia’s.
This claim is outmoded because it dates back to the 1920.
It’s possible to terrorize a government into submission by continued aerial bombing. But historically, this has been the exception and not the rule. Without a ground campaign, that is, without soldiers actually capable of occupying and holding territory, there’s no way to force anyone to do anything.
Most-recent examples of this are the war in eastern Ukraine and the civil war in Syria. The former keeps dragging on because Russian troops haven’t managed to force their way into Ukraine itself. The latter ended not because of the Western bombing campaign against Isis or the Russian bombing campaign in support of Assad but because Assad’s opponents conquered enough of the country that his government ceased to be.
What is different now is that jumped up politicians can no longer spout self serving babble without consequences in the real world. That was the Old World Order which is now falling apart.
Quite refreshing really even though the incoming New World Order may be a lumpy ride.
Imagine this silly little Office Clerk who pretended to be an economist having the audacity to attack the Government of the USA. What a smirking little twerp this woman is.
Is Donald really that bothered about what the office temp has to say as she struggles to shift the blame from her own incompetence and economic illiteracy. In today’s Mail Lord Bamford’s son talks about his father considering moving JCB out of the UK ahead of Dumb Rachel’s family business inheritance tax raid. This follows Dyson’s criticism of her policy.
“The Chancellor attacked the White House on Tuesday, saying she was “very frustrated and angry” with the US President’s “folly” in going to war without an exit plan.”
Like Labour who took Office without any plan to govern?
The exit strategy is to remove any possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons and long range missile systems by bringing about regime change – what’s left of it.
What Rachel-no-brain is “frustrated and angry” about is it has exposed just how bad Labour has made the UK economy – bad as it was when the Tories were ousted, they have made it much, much worse.
It has exposed how a fossil fuel rich Country has made itself completely dependent on imported energy, moving from in 2005 a net exporter of energy to a large importer. How this is being made much worse by a psychopathic maniac in charge of energy policy over whom, we are told, Starmer has no control.
How does Rachel know about the plan? Was she consulted? Is she a geopolitical guru whose opinions carry any weight?
No she’s a diversity hire place keeper, whose actions are destroying this country, and who lacks even the basic common sense to couch her imbecilifies in mildly diplomatic language.
It is so humiliating to be ostensibly represented on the international stage by such a blatant twit.
Humiliating is most definitely the word. She and Starmer are an embarrassment to the country they govern. Not that they care.
This is what is so mad about all these critics, who complain about no plan, as if anyone is going to tell them what the plans are, yet still they shout, no plan, no plan, as if that fact was some how bad…..I’d be more worried if the likes of her were told. !!!!!
What on earth do these idiots think they are doing…they are so far out of the depth, …have we ever had such utter cretins running us.
Scott Bessant’s family went broke, left him with nothing, he then became a self made Billionaire on Wall st……he must look at her with utter contempt…..
Idiots as they are, they’ve managed to get themselves into very highly paid positions, with a financial future that’s secure no matter what damage they wreak on the UK’s economy. Their abilities when it comes to serving their own self-interest are indisputable.
So more fool us.
Bet Scott Bessant hasnt worked in customer services/complaints.