The government faces yet another delicate balancing act – this time, with the British public

Editorial : The British are a resilient people, but should the government show any hint of backsliding over its promise not to enter the war against Iran, it won’t go well
T he US-Israel attack on Iran and Iran’s response have posed dilemmas for this country from the start.

Chief among them was, and remains, how far to support the US and how far to distance the UK from the war, while seeking to defend UK citizens and assets in the region.

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz brings the prospect of sharp all-round price rises, leaving the government with the additional dilemma of how far it can, or should, help consumers to cope with what could be substantial increases in the cost of living.

The drone strike that damaged a runway at RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus was an early warning about the absence of UK military capacity in the vicinity, compared with what France and some other allies had deployed.

It prompted not only the urgent dispatch of the destroyer, HMS Dragon , but some very public soul-searching about the strength of the Royal Navy, or the lack of it.

After a difficult start, Sir Keir Starmer’s efforts to tread these difficult lines have generally been more successful than not, and have chimed with public sentiment.

They have nonetheless entailed some complicated political and verbal gymnastics, especially on what counts as offensive and defensive, and how to deal with the periodic insults being lobbed across the Atlantic by Donald Trump.

Coinciding with President Trump’s threat to destroy all of Iran’s power plants, should Tehran not unblock the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, however, the UK’s appeals for de-escalation seemed unpromising, even allowing for the many mixed messages put out by the Trump White House since the start of hostilities.

In the meantime, forecasts not just of spiralling prices, but of shortages – and not just of energy, but of fertiliser and even food – were also entering the conversation in the UK, punctuated on occasion by the dread word “rationing” and presenting the government with a new dilemma.

How far should it prepare people for the worst, and how, if the worst means a realistic Iranian threat to UK cities, soaring prices and perhaps rationing, can it at the same time fend off potential panic of the sort that could make shortages worse?

For all that this government has warned of the threat from Russia, which was primarily in the military domain.

The new threat calls for warnings that are more carefully calibrated, and where precautionary words are matched by preparations in deeds.

With Mr Trump’s Iran deadline at hand, the war stands at a perilous pivot point, which may be one reason why Sir Keir has called Monday’s emergency Cobra meeting.

With the disclosure that it will also be attended by the governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, however, it is clear that it will also focus on the implications of the war for the government’s economic priorities, and for the cost of living, and possible means of reducing the inevitable pain.

Most governments, at one time or another, face balancing the need to warn of unpleasant possibilities against the need to minimise the risk of panic, and any UK government is fortunate in the generally high level of public resilience.

Whatever measures may be announced, however, must be carefully judged, with the overriding condition that the government holds hard to its pledge not to be drawn into the wider war.

The slightest hint of backsliding here would only compromise any reassurances it had hoped to give.

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies