An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict

When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation.
His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy.
But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes.
It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump.
Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon.
He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran.
4:00
It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House.
When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation.
What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim.
1:15
Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do.
The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough.
It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak.
Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak.
2:38
But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action.
If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat.
The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes.
Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead.
There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say.
The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

North Wales Chronicle

32 minutes ago

• North Wales Chronicle

Trump says he is open to regime change in Iran

'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???' Mr Trump posted on social media. 'MIGA!!!' The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from defence secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing on three of the country's nuclear sites. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Mr Hegseth said. "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental.' The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!" –President Donald J. Trump — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2025 Secretary of state Marco Rubio warned on Fox News that any retaliation against the US or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would 'put the regime at risk'. Mr Trump's warning to Iran's leadership comes as the US has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear programme it spent decades developing. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month. Up until the president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Mr Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Mr Hegseth had said that America 'does not seek war' with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings, which could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. Mr Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambast Republican Congress member Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)' Mr Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Mr Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 'Operation Midnight Hammer' involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. General Caine indicated that the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' he said. While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Washington was 'fully responsible' for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were 'a gross violation of international law,' said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated 'returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.' A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to 'a global level'. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Mr Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Mr Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for 'a rapid resumption of negotiations.' France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Sultan of Oman.

Reuters

35 minutes ago

• Reuters

Oil hits five-month high after US hits key Iranian nuclear sites

SINGAPORE, June 23 (Reuters) - Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as Washington's weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries. Brent crude futures rose $1.88 or 2.44% at $78.89 a barrel as of 1122 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.87 or 2.53% at $75.71. Both contracts jumped by more than 3% earlier in the session to $81.40 and $78.40, respectively, five-month highs, before giving up some gains. The rise in prices came after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows. Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move. "The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh. Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volumes that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added. Brent has risen 13% since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10%. The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruptions, analysts said. Meanwhile, the unwinding of some of the long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.

Times

41 minutes ago

• Times

Can Iran still build nuclear weapons after the US bombing?

The 14 GBU-57 'bunker-busters' dropped by the Pentagon's B2 stealth bombers on Iran's nuclear facilities will have done a lot of damage, with about 200 tons of heavy munitions. They may not have 'fully obliterated' all three sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow as President Trump claimed, but they probably did cause 'severe damage' in the more modest assessment of the Pentagon. That does not mean, however, that Iran's nuclear programme is dead and buried. Apart from anything else, somewhere in Iran is probably a deadly cargo of canisters in secure storage. They contain just over 400kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity — enough, with some extra enrichment, for about nine nuclear warheads. That level of enrichment means the uranium is 60 per cent made up of the U235 isotope needed to make the kind of bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. In the raw, uranium consists of 1 per cent U235 and 99 per cent U238 isotope. Weapons-grade uranium is 90 per cent U235. To get from one to the other, a machine — of the sort the Iranians have at Isfahan — converts the uranium to uranium hexafluoride gas. That gas is then taken to one of the two known Iranian enrichment facilities, at Natanz or Fordow. There it is passed through racks of centrifuges which spin at hundreds of times a second, threshing the heavier U238 to the outside and leaving behind the 'enriched' gas with its greater concentration of U235. • Who are Iran's allies — and will any help after the US strikes? The Israelis and Americans will be hoping that the bunker-busters — 12 dropped on Fordow, whose centrifuge chambers are buried 90 metres below ground, and two on the shallower Natanz — will have destroyed those centrifuges. They are sensitive and even the lesser strikes on Natanz by the Israelis at the start of their own bombing campaign may have put them out of use. Questions remain, however. Did the US mission succeed? Satellite imagery of the Fordow site in the aftermath of the bombing seems to show some holes in the mountain above it, which may be consistent with damage. One possibility is that the bombs did not manage to break into the chamber but collapsed it enough to have the required effect. At Isfahan, the unit converting uranium to uranium hexafluoride, and the separate plant that converts the enriched gas back to metal to be turned into a warhead, are both believed to have been easier targets. • 'The key thing is that the enrichment facilities and metal conversion facilities are now non-operational and potentially destroyed,' said Ian Stewart, a former Ministry of Defence specialist and now director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute in the United States. 'It will take weeks or months to reconstitute those capabilities.' Are there hidden centrifuges? Secondly, there is the question of whether the Iranians have more centrifuges hidden away elsewhere, allowing them to restart the programme fairly quickly. 'We have to assume the Iranians are competent and put aside a spare set of equipment,' Stewart said. 'They may also have set up small numbers of machines in unknown locations. So for planning purposes you have to assume it will take weeks or months for Iran to reconstitute the enrichment capability, not years.' Iran has, of course, lost key members of its nuclear 'command and control'. Back in November 2020, Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, assassinated Brigadier-General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Revolutionary Guards officer seen as the mastermind of the 'dual use' programme: one built overtly for civilian purposes, but compatible with a decision to build a bomb. He was ambushed and shot near his weekend villa outside Tehran by a robot-controlled machinegun on a pick-up truck. Since the Israeli bombing began on June 13, at least ten prominent nuclear scientists, including Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation (AEOI), and many of the leaders of the Guards have also been killed. However, the programme employs thousands of people, many of whom are experts in their fields. 'The Iranian nuclear programme is decades old and draws on extensive Iranian indigenous expertise,' Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said. 'The physical elimination of the programme's infrastructure — and even the assassination of Iranian scientists — will not be sufficient to destroy the latent knowledge that exists in the country.' Key to the future is the whereabouts of that 400kg of 60 per cent enriched uranium, which Stewart called 'the most valuable asset in Iran right now'. Iran could fashion it into a large but crude nuclear device that could be transported by lorry, or, with a few centrifuges it had saved, convert some of it into a smaller nuclear weapon. Will Iran risk all-out war? Iran may or may not choose to escalate militarily, to try to show that it still has the military teeth and, indeed, necessary level of defiance to risk an all-out confrontation with the United States. But in the medium term it has a huge question to answer that is both technical and political. Does it tell the International Atomic Energy Agency where those cylinders of enriched uranium are, as it is required to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) to which — unlike Israel — it is a signatory? If it does, it will no doubt fear that the information will make its way to Israel or the US. If it does not, and particularly if it withdraws from the NPT, that could prompt the European states — Britain, France and Germany — who are still signatories to the semi-defunct 2015 nuclear deal to trigger a 'snapback' mechanism. That would entail reintroducing more sanctions and renewing the UN ban on the nuclear programme. The 2015 deal expires in October. President Trump still says he wants a new one — on his terms. An Iran that wanted peace at all costs would probably comply. But the Iran that exists at present — the Islamic Republic — has so far refused to fold. It may, eventually, agree to more talks. But the United States and Israel will be wary that this is a play for time, until the nuclear deal expires, or just until Trump tires of the whole issue.