Andy Burnham is poised to become Britain’s next prime minister on Monday, following his selection by the Labour Party to succeed Sir Keir Starmer. Before returning to Parliament earlier this year, Burnham spent nine years serving as mayor of Greater Manchester. He also previously held senior cabinet roles — including health secretary — under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Burnham steps into Downing Street with a deep well of domestic governing experience but a comparatively thin record on international affairs. His most clearly defined foreign policy positions center on Israel, the Palestinians, and the conflict in Gaza. On issues such as Iran, the Gulf states, and the broader Middle East, he has said considerably less.
How Burnham Got to Downing Street
Burnham secured his path back to Parliament by winning a by-election in Makerfield, giving him the Commons seat required to pursue the Labour leadership. He was formally elected party leader on July 17, earning the backing of 379 Labour MPs and 23 affiliated organizations.
Because Labour already commands a strong parliamentary majority, Burnham can assume the role of prime minister without triggering an immediate general election. He arrives with broad support within the Parliamentary Labour Party, though he does not carry a personal nationwide electoral mandate for his foreign policy agenda.
Gaza and the October 7 Attacks
The clearest window into Burnham’s likely Middle East approach comes from his public statements about the Hamas-led October 7 attack and the war that followed in Gaza.
Burnham has spoken out against the Hamas attack and has worked to reassure Britain’s Jewish community that his criticism of Israel will not soften Labour’s firm stance against antisemitism. At the same time, he has acknowledged that Labour’s early response to the war fell short, saying the party “didn’t get it right” and that Britain was too slow to push for a ceasefire.
“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government,” he said in July. “But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.”
This represents a departure from Starmer’s initial post-October 7 stance, which placed more weight on Israel’s right to self-defense and held back from early ceasefire calls.
Burnham has characterized the devastation in Gaza as appalling and stated there is “increasing evidence” that war crimes may have been committed. He has, however, stopped short of labeling Israel’s actions as genocide, arguing that such legal determinations should be left to international courts rather than politicians.
Israel, Palestine, and Settlements
Burnham’s views on Israel and the Palestinians go back well before the Gaza conflict. In 2012, he traveled to the West Bank as part of a parliamentary delegation. One of the trip’s organizers later recalled that Burnham was visibly troubled by the scale of settlements, checkpoints, barriers, and military infrastructure, and questioned whether a viable Palestinian state was still achievable.
During his 2015 Labour leadership bid, Burnham backed recognition of Palestinian statehood and labeled Israeli settlements both illegal and immoral. He also condemned Hamas terrorism and opposed the broad Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, instead favoring targeted measures aimed specifically at goods produced in settlements.
That same year, Burnham joined Labour Friends of Israel and pledged that Israel would be his first foreign destination if he became Labour leader. There is no clear public record indicating he followed through on that pledge.
His current position reflects a shift in emphasis rather than a full ideological reversal. Burnham still supports a two-state solution and does not advocate isolating Israel, but he has signaled that his government could pursue additional sanctions against those involved in violence and may consider banning trade in goods produced in Israeli settlements.
Israel and Antisemitism
Burnham has maintained that forceful criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government can coexist with an unwavering opposition to antisemitism.
“There is no contradiction between a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism and holding the Netanyahu government to account,” he said.
That balance will carry significant political weight. Labour spent years rebuilding its relationship with British Jewish communities following the antisemitism crisis under former party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Burnham will face pressure from pro-Palestinian members within Labour calling for stronger action against Israel, while also being expected to ensure that criticism of Israeli policy does not slide into hostility toward Jewish people or institutions.
Military Intervention and Iraq
Burnham’s record does not fit neatly into the category of a politician who opposes military action in the Middle East. As a Labour MP, he voted in 2003 in favor of the motion authorizing Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. He later voted against several proposed inquiries into how that decision was made and how the war was conducted.
During the 2013 parliamentary debate over Syria’s use of chemical weapons, Burnham supported Labour’s more cautious approach, which required further review by the United Nations and an additional Commons vote before British forces could be deployed.
His record suggests neither automatic support for military intervention nor blanket opposition to it. As prime minister, he is likely to face pressing decisions involving the US-Iran conflict, the protection of British personnel and facilities, maritime security, and any international effort to safeguard shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran
Burnham has not yet put forward a detailed policy on Iran. He has referenced Iran and the deteriorating global security environment when making the case for stronger British armed forces and increased domestic defense production — but that establishes concern about preparedness rather than a clear strategy for dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program, sanctions, military confrontation, or diplomacy.
The ongoing US-Iran conflict may force Burnham to define those positions far sooner than anticipated. He will need to decide whether to offer diplomatic, logistical, or military support to Washington, and how to balance Britain’s alliance with the United States against pressure to avoid being drawn into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.
The Gulf and the Wider Region
There is little in the public record from which to piece together a distinct Burnham policy toward Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, or Kuwait. Britain’s ties with Gulf states span defense cooperation, intelligence sharing, trade, energy, and investment — relationships that are deeply embedded in British foreign policy and unlikely to be fundamentally altered simply because a new prime minister takes office.
A similar gap exists when it comes to Syria and Lebanon. Burnham has not laid out a developed position on Syria’s new government, Hezbollah’s weapons, Israeli operations in Lebanon, or the future of British engagement with Damascus.
His years as Greater Manchester mayor gave him exposure to diaspora communities and foreign representatives, but that kind of municipal engagement does not translate into a fully developed national foreign policy program.
The United States
Burnham has given no indication that he plans to weaken Britain’s strategic relationship with Washington. He may find himself at odds with President Donald Trump over specific Middle East decisions — particularly if the American president seeks British involvement in military operations against Iran. Even so, NATO commitments, intelligence cooperation, nuclear policy, and the broader US-UK security partnership are likely to constrain how far any such disagreements go.
Continuity With a Sharper Tone
Burnham’s probable approach to the Middle East can be described with more confidence on Gaza than on any other issue. He appears more willing than Starmer initially was to acknowledge Palestinian suffering, criticize Israeli conduct, consider trade restrictions tied to settlements, and use targeted sanctions as a tool of pressure. His history also reflects long-standing support for Palestinian statehood and concern about settlement expansion.
At the same time, Burnham has condemned Hamas, declined to treat genocide as a political determination, opposed a broad boycott of Israel, and emphasized zero tolerance for antisemitism. He has not called for severing Britain’s alliance with the United States or dismantling its strategic ties with Gulf governments.
The most likely outcome is not a foreign policy revolution, but rather a British government that speaks more critically about Israel, places greater public emphasis on Palestinian rights, and pursues targeted economic pressure — while proceeding carefully on Iran, the Gulf, Syria, and Lebanon. How well that approach holds up against the realities of war, alliance obligations, and the day-to-day demands of governing will only become clear once Burnham is inside Downing Street.
