Government advises against all travel to Israel amid Iran conflict

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office updated travel advice on Sunday to advise 'against all travel to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories'.
Israel and Iran continued to exchange fire overnight, after Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK was sending more RAF jets to the region amid the increasing hostilities.
The FCDO website warns that 'travel insurance could be invalidated' if people travel against the advice, and described the current status as a 'fast-moving situation that poses significant risks'.
Earlier on Sunday, Rachel Reeves said that sending more jets to the region 'does not mean' the UK is at war.
Additional refuelling aircraft have been deployed from UK bases and more fast Typhoon jets will be sent over, it is understood.
The Chancellor also indicated that the UK could 'potentially' support Israel, but declined to comment on 'what might happen in the future'.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves (Carl Court/PA)
Asked whether the announcement from the Prime Minister means the UK is at war, Ms Reeves told Sky News: 'No, it does not mean that we are at war.
'And we have not been involved in these strikes or this conflict, but we do have important assets in the region and it is right that we send jets to protect them and that's what we've done.
'It's a precautionary move.'
Oil prices surged surged on Friday after Israel's initial strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, sparking fears of increasing prices in the UK.
The Chancellor told the BBC that there is 'no complacency' from the Treasury on the issue and 'we're obviously, monitoring this very closely as a government'.
Sir Keir has declined to rule out the possibility of intervening in the conflict entirely, and the Chancellor indicated on Sunday that the UK could 'potentially' support Israel in the future.
Britain last announced it had deployed fighter jets in the region in last year, when the Government said British aircraft had played a part in efforts to prevent further escalation.
Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if asked, the Chancellor told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in.
'I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.'
Shadow chancellor of the Exchequer Mel Stride (James Manning/PA)
Pushed again on whether the UK would deploy assets in support of Israel if asked, she said: 'What we've done in the past (…) is help protect Israel from incoming strikes.
'So a defensive activity.'
She added: 'I'm not going to rule anything out at this stage (…) it's a fast moving situation, a very volatile situation.'
It comes after Iranian state media said Tehran had warned it would target US, UK and French bases in the region if the countries help Israel thwart Iran's strikes, according to reports on Saturday.
Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride has backed the Government's decision to send further RAF jets to the region, telling the BBC it is the 'right thing' to do.
He told the BBC: 'We've got assets out there in the UAE, Oman, Cyprus, they need to be protected given that Iran has suggested they may be under threat.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Statesman​

11 minutes ago

• New Statesman​

How Donald Trump plunged America into a blind war

Photo by Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images One minute after midnight on 21 June, a small group of US B-2 Spirit bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri heading west across the Pacific. They were picked up shortly afterwards by flight tracking accounts on social media, prompting breaking news alerts that multiple American bombers capable of carrying the type of heavy ordinance that would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear sites were airborne as journalists frantically traced their trajectory. In fact, this was a decoy. The real strike group was flying east across the Atlantic, with seven B-2 bombers joined by US fighter jets as they reached the Middle East, which escorted them into Iranian airspace. In the early hours of 22 June local time, they dropped a total of 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound guided bombs known as 'bunker busters', on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo and Natanz. A US Navy submarine fired more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles at a third site in Isfahan as part of what the Pentagon called 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. By now, most people will have seen Donald Trump's address to the nation in the hours that followed, flanked by his distinctly uncomfortable-looking vice-president JD Vance along with secretary-of-state-turned-national-security-adviser Marco Rubio and defence secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump, predictably, pronounced the whole operation a 'spectacular military success', declaring that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated', which he could not possibly have known at the time and has yet to be confirmed. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Trump intoned. 'If they do not, future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.' Appearing to veer from his script towards the end, he added, 'I want to just say, we love you, God.' In the best-case scenario for those who support these strikes, Trump has acted decisively, ordering the use of military force where successive previous presidents had equivocated, and setting back the Iranian nuclear programme for years, perhaps even for good. He has finally neutered a regime that has long been defined by its rallying cry, 'Death to America', and delivered Israel from the existential threat that would have been posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, which one former Iranian president is said to have described as a 'one-bomb country'. According to this rendering, Trump has taken advantage of a moment of profound weakness for Tehran, whose most notorious proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have been eviscerated by the Israeli military campaign over the last 18 months, and whose most senior military commanders and nuclear scientists have been assassinated. He has forced a reckoning for the Iranian regime – that will be quietly welcomed by many in the region and beyond – abandon your nuclear ambitions, or cease to exist. In the process, he has also proved the TACO theory (Trump Always Chickens Out) wrong. Perhaps some even see him delivering on his election campaign mantra that he would deliver 'peace through strength'. This is all, theoretically, possible. We should be clear, less than 24 hours at the time of writing from the US strikes, that nobody – not Trump, not the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and not Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei – knows for certain where this will lead, or how this war will end. (Trump has already called it a 'war' on social media.) But the history of recent US military campaigns in the region does not bode well. The exception often noted is the first Gulf War in 1991, where the coalition military effort known as Operation Desert Storm lasted than two months and succeeded in forcing Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait, although the Iraqi dictator was permitted to remain in power. The problem with the optimistic case this time is, to quote the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the 'known unknowns', and the 'unknown unknowns'. In the short term, the known unknowns include what capabilities Iran retains to retaliate, both in terms of its proxies abroad (including the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq), the remaining stockpiles of missiles and drones in Iran, which Israel has repeatedly targeted in recent days, and its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where almost a third of the world's seaborne oil transits. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Ayatollah Khamenei, who is 86 and said to be in faltering health, is reportedly sheltering in a bunker, according to the New York Times, avoiding electronic devices for fear of revealing his location and communicating only through a trusted aide, where he has listed several clerics who could replace him if he is killed, along with substitutes for the military chain of command. We do not yet know how Khamenei will respond to these attacks and whether he will assess – as many commentators have insisted – that he must now retaliate in some meaningful form if he hopes to restore Iran's deterrence and remain in power. We do not know whether Tehran can be induced to resume negotiations on a nuclear deal with Washington, as many European leaders have now urged. We do know, however, that Iran had previously negotiated a nuclear deal – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, and the EU in 2015, which Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. It is not clear that any Iranian government would entrust its future to a new deal that could be similarly torn up by the next US administration. (Trump has also launched trade wars against Canada, Mexico and China since returning to power despite signing much-hyped trade deals with them during his previous term.) Meanwhile, the example of the Kim dynasty in North Korea, which has pursued nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them despite the significant costs, and is not currently being bombed by the US, might well suggest to the Iranian regime that the surer course for survival would have been to race for a bomb while it still could, and, if it has the opportunity, to try again. We also know that despite the repeated messaging via US backchannels in the hours after the strike that this was a 'one-and-done' operation – a limited campaign to target the nuclear facilities and nothing more, certainly not the prelude to regime change – Trump and Netanyahu have delivered starkly contradictory signals. Netanyahu openly urged the Iranian people to 'stand up' against the regime after launching the Israeli military campaign on 13 June. Trump has demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' from Iran on social media and threatened to kill Khamenei. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on the evening of 22 June. 'MIGA!!!' Given these statements, it is not hard to see why the Iranian government might conclude that the US and Israel have, in fact, launched a war that aims to overthrow them, and, therefore, that this is not merely a negotiating ploy that could yet end in a new nuclear deal, but an existential fight that justifies any means. Then there are the unknown unknowns. We do not know, for instance, whether there could be other Iranian nuclear facilities that had not yet been identified, and what steps the regime might have taken to ensure the survival of key personnel, equipment and material. We do not know how secure the regime's grip on power is and whether Khamenei could yet be sidelined, or simply replaced, by hardliners from within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or former high-ranking officials. 'Tehran is now full of such plots,' one anonymous source, who claimed to be part of a plan to replace the ageing supreme leader, told The Atlantic after the strikes. 'Everybody knows Khamenei's days are numbered.' If the regime does fall, it is far from clear what type of government would take its place, and what that would mean for the region, and well beyond. Recent examples – such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria – suggest liberal democracy is an unlikely outcome. 'The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon,' taunted Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chair of the country's security council, who is now probably best known for his bellicose social media threats. He then claimed that a 'number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' (It is worth bearing in mind that his main role these days seems to be garnering attention and provocative headlines.) With the Russian military tied down in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is unlikely to offer much in the way of meaningful help in the short term, but he will certainly capitalise on what appears to be a flagrant breach of international law and what he will present as yet more evidence of American hypocrisy. (Putin, too, claims to have attacked Ukraine in part to stop the country developing nuclear weapons and threatening Russia's national security.) Moscow also stands to benefit from a rise in the price of oil if Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz or targets other oil-producing facilities in the region. Beijing has strongly condemned the US attack, which the foreign ministry said, 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law'. China is Iran's largest trading partner, which supplied around 15 percent of the oil the country imported last year, and will not welcome the prospect of a massive spike in oil prices if the conflict escalates at a time when the Chinese economy is already slowing. But the prospect of the US getting drawn into another interminable war in the Middle East and deferring, yet again, the mythical 'pivot to Asia', with its focus on deterring a Chinese assault on Taiwan, offers other potential benefits to Beijing. The reverberations of Trump's gamble will be felt far beyond the borders of Iran. Flanked by Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth as he delivered his speech in the hours after the attack, the impression was less a show of unity than a president who is keenly aware of the domestic political risk this involves – and the vehement opposition already emanating from parts of his Maga base – and determined to show that his top lieutenants were all on board. Perhaps that was why Vance in particular, who has built his political brand on his opposition to US military intervention overseas, looked so perturbed. Trump has plunged the US into a war with Iran, with no apparent strategy, and objectives that appear to be evolving, in real time, on social media. Maybe the best-case scenario will yet transpire, and the Middle East will emerge from this conflict more stable and prosperous, but recent history cautions against too much optimism. [See also: The British left will not follow Trump into war] Related

Spectator

19 minutes ago

• Spectator

Is Britain ready to defend itself against Iranian reprisals?

Operation Midnight Hammer, America's air and missile strikes against Iran at the weekend, did not involve the United Kingdom. Although the Prime Minister was informed of the military action in advance, there was not, so far as we know, any request from the United States for British approval, participation or support, and Sir Keir Starmer continues to call for a de-escalation of the conflict. There had been a great deal of suggestion that the UK might be drawn into action against Iran. The most likely scenario was thought to be a request from Washington to use Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, the maritime and air base America leases from Britain in the Chagos Islands, for the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers which struck the nuclear facility at Fordow. In the end, the aircraft conducted their attack from their usual home at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri – but this is not an irrefutable alibi which will be accepted by the régime in Tehran. We should not imagine that such a 'crisis or conflict' is in the far-distant future Decades of standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the Middle East with the United States means that Britain is seen as America's close and almost inevitable ally in the region. Our participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 set the pattern in that regard. For Iran's leadership, however, Britain has a special and outsized villainy: it has not been forgotten that the United Kingdom was the driving force behind what it called Operation Boot and the CIA referred to as TP-AJAX, the overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in August 1953 to protect the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This means that when Iran now threatens retaliation for the US strikes at the weekend, Britain and British interests are effectively on the front line. The Defence Secretary, John Healey, announced on social media on Sunday that: The safety of UK personnel and bases is my top priority. Force protection is at its highest level, and we deployed additional jets this week. There is no shortage of British targets in the Middle East for Iran to strike at. The UK naval support facility in Bahrain is the base for Operation Kipion, the long-standing air and maritime security mission in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, the UK joint logistics support base in Oman has a dry dock large enough to accommodate the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and the Omani-British joint training area provides the British Army with a base for expeditionary warfare. There are also RAF units stationed at Al Udeid air base in Qatar and growing facilities at Donnelly Lines at Al Minhad air base in the United Arab Emirates. Slightly further afield, British Forces Cyprus, more than 10,000 military and civilian personnel, occupy sites across the UK sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus; since the current crisis between Israel and Iran began nearly two weeks ago, additional assets have been deployed so that there are now 14 Typhoon aircraft based at RAF Akrotiri. The government must think wider still. Last week's attack by Palestine Action agitators at RAF Brize Norton has proved that military installations in the UK are not immune from international events. There is also the threat of potential Russian espionage against sites in Britain where Ukrainian military personnel were being trained. Iran is a much diminished military power, but we must still regard its reach as global: Saturday's protest march in London by supporters of the blood-drenched Tehran theocracy proved that the Islamic Republic finds no shortage of useful idiots. What the activities of Palestine Action at RAF Brize Norton also demonstrated was that the security of military facilities is inadequate. The recent Strategic Defence Review warned of 'attacks on the Armed Forces in the UK and on overseas bases' and advised that the Ministry of Defence must 'have additional capabilities for the protection of bases and CNI [critical national infrastructure] in the event of crisis or conflict'. We should not imagine that such a 'crisis or conflict' is in the far-distant future; indeed, it may already have arrived. Last week anti-Israel activists were able to breach the perimeter at Brize Norton, ride electric scooters across the runway and damage two of the RAF's 14 Voyager tanker aircraft at a potential cost of £30 million, in addition to compromising the immediate capability of the armed forces. The government has ordered a review of security, and that must be urgent and comprehensive. The UK is vulnerable. This is not news, or should not be, but we have preferred to ignore it until recently. The likelihood of Iran seeking to retaliate against the United States and its allies merely focuses the mind. The government needs to establish what additional protection military bases at home and abroad reqrequire and how it can be provided – and then it must get on and do it. This cannot wait for quieter times. The front line is everywhere.

Glasgow Times

26 minutes ago

• Glasgow Times

Lammy says Middle East needs ‘diplomatic solution' after US talks

His remarks came after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, held in the wake of US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Mr Lammy also spoke with secretary of state Marco Rubio. 'Important discussion with @SecRubio this evening on the situation in the Middle East,' Mr Lammy wrote in a post on X. Important discussion with @SecRubio this evening on the situation in the Middle East. We will continue to work with our allies to protect our people, secure regional stability and drive forward a diplomatic solution. — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 22, 2025 'We will continue to work with our allies to protect our people, secure regional stability and drive forward a diplomatic solution.' Mr Lammy's sentiments were echoed by the UK's representative at the United Nations Dame Barbara Woodward, who urged Iran to show 'restraint' and for 'all parties' to return to the negotiating table. 'Military action alone cannot bring a durable solution to concerns about Iran's nuclear programme,' she said. In a Monday post on Truth Social, Mr Trump claimed the US strikes caused 'monumental' damage, although US officials have said they are still assessing the situation. 'The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' he wrote. Over the weekend, the US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations. Israeli military officials confirmed late on Sunday they had struck infrastructure sites in Tehran and in the west of Iran. Explosions could be heard in the city of Bushehr on Sunday, home to Iran's only nuclear power plant. Israel confirmed it had struck missile launchers in the city, as well as a command centre where missiles were being stored. Rescue workers and security forces work at the site of a direct missile strike launched from Iran in Tel Aviv, Israel (AP/Oded Balilty) Iranian media reported defence systems were firing in Tehran in the early hours of Monday morning, but Iran is yet to comment on the latest strikes. On Sunday night, Downing Street said Sir Keir and Mr Trump agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations. 'The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security,' Downing Street said. 'They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. 'They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. 'They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days.' Other countries endorsed the US strikes, with Australian foreign minister Penny Wong giving the White House her full backing on Monday. US President Donald Trump (left) and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer before speaking to the media at the G7 summit in Kananaskis (PA) 'We support action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon and that is what this is,' she said. In the hours after Mr Trump's phone call with Sir Keir, he again posted on Truth Social, saying: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The social media post marked a reversal from previous statements on regime change, including an earlier press conference from defence secretary Pete Hegseth, about the bombing on the three nuclear sites. Iran is yet to confirm how much damage was done in the US-led attack.