UK Government urged to publish legal advice on joining war on Iran
Lord Hermer warned that UK involvement beyond defending Israel, which started the war with a wave of strikes on Friday, would be illegal under international law, The Spectator reports.
LibDem leader Ed Davey has urged the UK Government to publish his advice, adding: 'The last thing we need is for the UK to be dragged into another illegal war in the Middle East by the US.'
The Attorney General was said to have 'concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies', according to a source who spoke to The Spectator.
It comes as the UK awaits Donald Trump's next move as he failed to confirm whether America would join Israel in bombing Iran.
Asked about reports that Trump had approved a plan to attack Iran but not yet ordered strikes, the Prime Minister said: 'Obviously all of us, UK included, are very concerned about the nuclear programme that Iran is developing, we've long been concerned about that. Also, [we] completely recognise Israel's right to self-defence, but the principle is that we need to de-escalate this.
'There's a real risk of escalation here that will impact the region, possibly beyond the region, akin to Gaza, and obviously it's already having an impact on the economy. So I've been absolutely clear we need to de-escalate this. Yes, the nuclear issue has to be dealt with, but it's better dealt with by way of negotiations than by way of conflict.'
David Lammy (below) flew to the US on Thursday to meet his American counterpart Marco Rubio, with Whitehall sources telling The Guardian the UK's priorities were diplomacy and de-escalation.
Starmer convened a Cobra meeting on Wednesday and is considering both whether to support US strikes on Iran and whether to approve the use of the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos Islands for attacks.
A spokesperson for the attorney general's office said: 'By longstanding convention, reflected in the ministerial code, [the question of] whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed. The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice.'
Labour's Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said going to war with Iran would not be 'justifiable'. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One, she added: 'I think the only way in which we are going to solve this matter is through negotiations.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Why is China rushing to grow its nuclear arsenal?
China is growing its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than any other country on the planet, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It estimates that Beijing now has more than 600 nuclear warheads and is adding about 100 per year to its stockpile. That means that by 2035, it will have more than 1,500 warheads, still only a third of the arsenal of each of Russia and the US, but nevertheless an enormous increase and a marked shift away from its proclaimed policy of 'minimum deterrence'. To facilitate this expanding arsenal, China is building fields of new missile silos in its western desert regions. The Federation of American Scientists, which identified the silos via satellite imagery, has described them as 'the most significant expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal ever.' China is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime The Pentagon believes China is planning to quadruple its nuclear weapons stockpile by 2030, and its fears have been further heightened by People's Liberation Army (PLA) tests of nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons designed to evade America's nuclear defences. One test involved the launch of a rocket into space, which circled the globe before releasing into orbit a highly manoeuvrable hypersonic glider. The nuclear-capable glider – which has been likened to a weaponised space shuttle – had the ability to surf along the earth's atmosphere before powering down to its target at up to five times the speed of sound (hence the hypersonic). Hypersonic weapons are far more difficult to detect and destroy than traditional ballistic missiles. This week, China's foreign ministry spokesperson insisted: 'China has always adhered to the nuclear strategy of self-defence, always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security, and has not participated in the arms race.' This claim is almost as hackneyed as that of China's 'peaceful rise', but understanding China's evolving military doctrine is especially challenging because Beijing 'is refusing to take part in nuclear arms control talks. China last year suspended talks over arms control and nuclear proliferation with the US ostensibly because of American arms sales to Taiwan. However, Beijing has always been a reluctant participant. It is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime, yet there are none of the protocols and little of the depth of mutual knowledge about capabilities and intentions that existed and provided a level of stability during the last Cold War with the Soviet Union. Western strategists believe that one aim of the rapid nuclear build-up is to deter America from coming to the defence of Taiwan, which China claims as its own, and which it has repeatedly threatened to invade. The thinly disguised message to Washington is that America is deluding itself if it thinks a conflict over Taiwan could be contained to the immediate area and not endanger the American homeland. Trying to make sense of China's military doctrine is made all the more challenging by an ongoing purge at the top of the PLA and a heightened level of intrigue surrounding both the army and the Chinese Communist party (CCP). Earlier this year, General He Weidong, the number-two officer in the PLA and a member of the CCP's 24-strong politburo, was removed from his post. This followed the disappearance of Miao Hua, a navy admiral and one of six members (along with He) of the party's powerful central military commission, which is chaired by President Xi Jinping. Miao was also head of the PLA's political works department – charged with ensuring CCP control over the military. The PLA is a party organisation, and in the military pecking order, Miao was regarded as more powerful even than defence minister Dong Jun. Rumours have also swirled that Dong himself has been under investigation. He appears to have survived, at least for now, but if deposed, he would be the third successive defence minister to face corruption charges. China's rocket force, the most secretive and sensitive branch of China's military responsible for overseeing in part all those shiny new nukes, has also been the target of an extensive purge. Those targeted included the two heads of the force. Among others purged have been a navy commander responsible for the South China Sea and several others responsible for procuring equipment – long a notoriously corrupt part of the military. When Xi came to power in 2012, he pledged to clean up the PLA, which ran a business empire so big that preparing for war often appeared to be a secondary concern. In spite (or possibly because of) Xi's efforts, the graft only seems to have got worse – though it should be noted that 'corruption' is frequently used as a catch-all and a pretext for the removal of those considered insufficiently loyal to the leader. Because many of those now being targeted include Xi's hand-picked officials, it will inevitably be seen as an indictment of his abilities and judgement. This week's figures from SIPRI certainly confirm the worrying extent of China's nuclear ambitions. For the country's top brass charged with wielding these fearsome weapons, however, navigating the corridors of power at the pinnacle of Xi Jinping's capricious CCP is proving considerably more dangerous than the battlefield.
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
The left is rallying against war with Iran
Photo byAll eyes are on the White House, as the conflict between Iran and Israel enters its second week. Donald Trump has yet to commit to direct American involvement, telling reporters he would decide in the next two weeks. When he does, Keir Starmer will need to make a decision. Will the UK fall in behind its allies (the US and Israel) or will it keep its distance? This is an extremely delicate situation. The UK would be on difficult legal ground if it did get directly involved militarily, as it has not been directly attacked, nor have any of its Nato allies. Equally, it would not be in the country's interests to see an Iranian escalation which threatened shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, or the UK's military bases in Cyprus. Though Starmer has yet to make his position plain – he has repeated his assertion that this is a 'fast-moving situation' – whichever decision he takes is likely to lead to political friction. Inside the Labour Party, it already is. Though the UK is not directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, the same criticisms which have plagued the government on the ongoing war in Gaza have been applied here. Britain continues to technically supply arms to Israel through the F45 fighter jet programme and its belated sanctioning of far-right members of the Israeli government (Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich received sanctions last week) has been widely criticised. Increased UK involvement in the Middle East could lead to an escalation of these criticisms from the left, both within and outside of the Labour party. The potential for active UK involvement in the war in the Middle East is not likely to sit well with some Labour MPs. The scars of the Iraq war run deep among Labour politicians and party members. One backbench MP was clear: there are a lot of people in the Labour party who would not want to go to war in Iran. And while they said that while this is mostly concentrated among the old guard of MPs (those elected pre-2024), members of the new intake share their apprehension. The MP added that this concern could even stretch to the Cabinet, and that it would be better for Starmer to align the UK with its European partners and Canada, rather than remain at the beck-and-call of Trump and the US. Today Emmanuel Macron announced a European proposal to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. 'Britain has to have a recalibration of who they're dealing with,' the MP said. How Starmer deals with this conflict is also being watched closely by the leftward coalition which is forming outside the party. Among this broad extra-parliamentary group there is agreement that the UK must not be led into this conflict to serve US interests. Today (21 June), the Palestine Solidarity Campaign will stage a march from Russell Square to Westminster, with speakers including the Independent (former Labour) MP Zarah Sultana and Paloma Faith. Jeremy Corbyn and Zack Polanski will also be in attendance. This group is of course, dead against any direct UK involvement in the conflict. Corbyn told me, 'The last Labour government made the mistake of following the US into a catastrophic war and refusing to build its own, independent, ethical foreign policy. Human beings abroad paid the price.' The former Labour leader, who recently brought a 10-minute rule bill calling for an independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in Gaza, called on the government 'to learn the lessons of the past, otherwise it will be remembered for the less secure and less peaceful world it has helped to create'. His sentiments were similarly echoed by the Green Party deputy leader, and candidate for party leadership, Zack Polanski, who said: 'Starmer claims to support de-escalation – yet continues to back a government committing genocide in Gaza, arms its military, shares intelligence, and now refuses to rule out dragging us into another catastrophic war.' Polanski, who has said he thinks the UK should withdraw from Nato, similarly pointed to the lessons of history on this. He added: 'We saw in 2003 what happens when a prime minister chooses loyalty to an American president over the will of the British people. They must learn from that shameful chapter in history.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Privately, though, there is concern from those who are sympathetic to Gaza on the left that this escalation could only lead to more polarisation. Prior to Israel's strikes on Iran – and Iran's retaliation – it felt as though opinion on Gaza was on the cusp of a turning point, with more MPs feeling able to speak out about what they saw as indiscriminate Israeli aggression. This new stage of the conflict opens up a new attack-line. As Corbyn, Polanski, or other pro-Gaza MPs and politicians call for the end of arms sales to Israel, the worry is that critics will fire back that these MPs would leave Israel defenceless from Iran. None of this puts the Prime Minister in an easy position. Starmer has already received extensive criticism for being slow to act on sanctions and arms sales. If he commits to more UK involvement in this growing conflict, it will open him up to even further attacks from the left (and could even run the risk of more Labour losses to the Gaza independents or an equivalent organised party in 2029). Memories of Iraq, and the political damage that terrible conflict wrought on the Labour party have certainly not dissipated; the left are keen that no one forgets. [See also: The dangerous new neoconservatism] Related
