How Britain could help Trump hit Iran's nuclear sites without deploying UK forces

As Keir Starmer considers whether Britain should support the US if Donald Trump decides to bomb Iran, the attorney general, Richard Hermer, has reportedly warned him that UK involvement could be illegal. The prime minister was an outspoken opponent of the 2003 Iraq war when he was a human rights lawyer and will be well aware of the thorny legal issues around engagement in strikes against Iran.
British officials have repeatedly emphasised that the UK is not expected to deploy its military forces in any attack on Iran. Instead, a key issue would probably be whether to give permission for the US to fly B-2 stealth bombers from the Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia, which is the subject of a new 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius that leaves the UK in full operational control, is mainly used by the US. But the fact it is ultimately a British base means that Starmer would have to approve its use for an attack. RAF Akrotiri, Britain's base in southern Cyprus, is also a potential launch site for US aircraft. Any use of the base by US forces would require the green light from the British government.
The UN's founding charter outlines the principles governing the use of military force. There are three possible justifications: self-defence (which may include collective self-defence); exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and authorisation by the security council acting under chapter VII of the charter. In the case of the bombing of Iran, the justification given by Israel – and one that would presumably be offered by the US and any of its allies – would be self-defence under article 51 of the charter. Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack. It must be the only means of averting an attack and the force used must be proportionate.
The US has taken a broad view of 'imminence' in cases of threats of terrorism or mass destruction in the past but it could prove difficult to argue that a US attack against Iran's nuclear programme or leadership would constitute an act of self-defence against an imminent armed attack on the US. The White House would probably argue that it was acting in collective defence of Israel. The strength of this argument would rest on whether Israel has acted in accordance with international law in attacking Iran in the first place and then whether the US use of force was limited to protecting Israeli civilians and US interests from an Iranian attack.
Israel says its goal is to damage Iran's nuclear programme and prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. This is a broad interpretation of self-defence and its legality would depend on stressing the imminence of a nuclear attack. Israel would need to argue that it was the last window of opportunity to stop such an outcome. In 1981, Ronald Reagan's administration backed a security council resolution that condemned Israel for launching an attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Baghdad. The resolution stated that 'diplomatic means available to Israel had not been exhausted'. Comments from some Israeli politicians also throw doubt on the self-defence rationale. Israel Katz, the defence minister, said on Tuesday that the purpose of the campaign was 'to remove threats to the state of Israel and undermine the ayatollahs' regime'.
There is no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have 'knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act', according to the UN. In 2021, John Healey, the defence secretary, asked in the Commons for clarification from the then Conservative government over the ground rules on the use of British bases by US forces. He was told that a proposed military operation would need to be accordance with UK law and the UK's interpretation of relevant international law. The UK's position on pre-emptive strikes is well known. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, argued that international law permitted force only in self defence where there was an actual or imminent attack and that 'the development of [weapons of mass destruction] was not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence'. Goldsmith argued only later that a UN resolution relating to Iraq made it a legal war. Writing in the Guardian at the time, Starmer, then a human rights lawyer, said article 51 might authorise a pre-emptive strike 'in a nuclear world' but that any threat to the UK or its allies would have to be imminent and any force used in response to that threat would have to be proportionate. 'The mere fact that Iraq has a capacity to attack at some unspecified time in the future is not enough,' Starmer wrote.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

40 minutes ago

• Times

What war in the Middle East means for your money

The conflict between Israel and Iran is the latest geopolitical shock set to hamper the outlook for the UK economy — and, ultimately, your bank balance. Since the attacks began on June 12, the price of oil has risen to a six-month high. Hopes for interest rate cuts have been dashed, fears of rising inflation have been amplified, and any respite from stock market turmoil appears to have been short-lived. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This week the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said: 'I'm always concerned about the effect of international issues on people back at home. You saw with Ukraine the direct impact it had on energy bills. Equally, with this conflict, you can see the effect it's having on the economy, particularly on the price of energy.' From petrol prices to pension pots, here's what you need to know: Iran is the third-largest oil producer among the 12 members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), and there are worries about how a wider regional war could affect the transport of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for about 25 per cent of seaborne crude oil transportation, according to the consultancy Capital Economics. The price of a barrel of Brent crude hit a six-month high of about $78 after Israeli attacks on Iran began, up from about $65 at the start of this month. That is bound to have a knock-on effect on motorists, said David Oxley from Capital Economics: 'A rough rule of thumb is that a $10 rise in the oil price will add about 7p to the price at the pump.' It normally takes about two weeks for oil prices to feed into pump prices, Oxley said. Motorists have, however, had some recent respite from the cost of living crisis as petrol and diesel prices hit their lowest in almost four years. Petrol cost an average of 132p a litre last month, the lowest since July 2021, while diesel was at 138p, the lowest since September 2021, according to the motoring organisation the RAC. While prices are likely to rise, they are not expected to reach the high of March 2022, when Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused the oil price to reach $127 per barrel. The price in sterling peaked in July of that year at more than £100 with pump prices hitting 192p per litre for petrol and 199p per litre for diesel. More than a million homeowners whose fixed deals come to an end this year may have their hopes of further interest rate cuts dashed. The lowest two-year fix was 3.72 per cent last month, but rates are starting to tick up again, according to the property portal Rightmove. The lowest two-year deal is now 3.82 per cent from Lloyds Bank for those with a Club Lloyds account. The lowest five-year fixed rate has gone from 3.78 per cent to 3.88 per cent, also from Lloyds. Lenders had been cutting mortgage rates to compete for business, but changed tack after inflation went from 2.6 per cent for the year to March to 3.5 per cent in April. This makes cuts to the Bank of England base rate less likely — the Bank generally keeps the rate high when inflation is above its target of 2 per cent. The Consumer Prices Index inflation figure for the year to May, released this week, was 3.4 per cent. Uncertainty around President Trump's trade tariffs and conflict in the Middle East has also dampened hopes of further base rate cuts. The Bank held rates at 4.25 per cent this week, which, although a lot higher than the sub 2 per cent rates many mortgage holders will have fixed at three or five years ago, is down from the peak of 5.25 per cent in August last year. Fixed mortgage rates are based on swap rates (the rates at which banks lend to each other, which are in turn based on forecasts of where Bank rate is expected to be in the future), which have edged up over the past week or so, suggesting that mortgage rates could follow. Homeowners who want certainty can lock in a new deal up to six months before theirs ends yet still swap if a cheaper deal comes along. Rising oil prices could also cause other expenses to creep up, particularly if the Iran conflict continues or escalates. Lotanna Emediegwu, an economics lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said that prolonged conflict could drive up energy bills. The price cap that limits how much suppliers can charge customers on standard variable tariffs will work out at an average bill of £1,720 a year for gas and electricity from July 1 (down 7 per cent from today's cap). At the moment analysts expect the cap to go up 2 to 3 per cent in October, but this could change dramatically. He said: 'Until recently, fuel prices had been rising less than other things, so actually mitigating some inflationary pressures. The recent conflict is expected to reverse this trend. 'The financial repercussions extend beyond immediate energy costs into transportation and logistics. Transport expenses are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in fuel prices. This affects everything from airline fares to shipping costs for products, ultimately hitting consumer prices.' Before June 12, when Israel launched strikes on Iran, inflation had been expected to rise to 3.5 per cent by the autumn — now it could go further. A sustained $10 per barrel rise in the oil price typically pushes up annual inflation by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points, according to The Economist, meaning that it could be closer to 3.7 per cent by September. Emediegwu said a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz shipping route could add a further 0.5 to 1 percentage points, which could take it close to 5 per cent. So far the stock market has been fairly resilient to the conflict in the Middle East. The UK's FTSE 100 is down about 0.77 per cent since the turmoil started, while the US's S&P 500 is down about 1.06 per cent. If a sustained conflict leads to an increase in the price of oil, stock valuations may fall — this is because higher oil prices lead to higher inflation, which means interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer, which makes it more expensive for companies to borrow money to grow and often curbs investors' risk appetite. Losers are likely to include airline and travel stocks, as well as so-called growth stocks, which include technology and healthcare companies. Many investors will have exposure to the US 'Magnificent Seven' tech stocks of Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Tesla, Amazon, Meta and Nvidia. These companies are often valued on their future earnings potential, which means their stock price can be volatile if company results or wider economic conditions point towards a slowdown of earnings. The good news is that Iran and Israel are a very limited part of the global stock market, so direct exposure for most UK investors will be immaterial. However, Michael Field from the research firm Morningstar said that the risk is that wider markets get jittery about the potential for the conflict to escalate further. Investors should avoid making any kneejerk changes to their portfolio. Ultimately, while geopolitical tensions may create short-term turmoil, historically markets have been resilient in the long term. Jacob Falkencrone from the investment bank Saxo said: 'As an investor, your greatest tool is a disciplined approach — staying informed, remaining calm and focusing on your long-term investment goals rather than reacting impulsively to temporary shocks.'

Sky News

an hour ago

• Sky News

The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it

The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before the crucial vote. As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. 3:06 In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.

Times

2 hours ago

• Times

Palestine Action group shows no signs of slowing down

'We are tired of being ignored. It is up to all of us to stop this complicity' were the words that launched Palestine Action almost five years ago. Founded by Huda Ammori, who has Palestinian and Iraqi heritage, and Richard Barnard, a veteran left-wing activist, the fledgling group said direct action should be taken against Elbit Systems, a weapons manufacturer that they claim 'profits from Israel's war crimes'. Two months later, in September 2020, they did just that. Activists occupied a factory in Shenstone, in Staffordshire, smashing windows, drilling holes into ceilings, throwing air conditioning units to the ground and dousing the building in red paint. The demonstration marked the start of co-ordinated attempts to damage both the defence firm facilities and finances across the country, which have propelled the group on a path towards proscription. Throughout 2021 Palestine Action widened its activities, occupying a drone factory in Leicester. The occupation lasted six days, and ten arrests were made for conspiracy to commit criminal damage and aggravated trespass. The defendants were cleared after the trial judge instructed the jury to consider the common law defence of Necessity. After launching their Scottish branch, they targeted Thales, another defence firm. Having infiltrated its Glasgow facility in 2022, the activists allegedly caused more than £1 million of damage. Five were jailed after members of the group threw a smoke bomb into an area where staff were being evacuated. Protesters in red suits and balaclavas also caused hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage to an electronics plant in Wales that year, which they believed was making circuit boards for Israeli drones. The group's activities ramped up after the October 7, 2023 attacks. As Israeli forces announced a 'full siege' on Gaza, Palestine Action published a list of over 50 targets 'complicit in Elbit's murderous arms trade'. A few days later they sprayed the headquarters of the BBC — which wasn't on the list — with red paint to 'symbolise complicity in genocide'. Protestors also blockaded Lockheed Martin in Bedford, smeared red paint over the Foreign Office and targeted the headquarters of aerospace firm Leonardo, at which two men were arrested for what the Met called racially aggravated criminal damage. Their actions began to go beyond scaling roof tops and breaking factory windows. Members of the campaign group allegedly used a modified prison van to ram the entrance of Elbit's Bristol HQ last summer. Once inside they dismantled weapons, allegedly caused £1 million in damage and assaulted two officers were with a sledgehammer, police said. Eighteen people were charged and held on remand over the break-in. Less than a month after members of Just Stop Oil threw tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers painting, two Palestine Action members squirted tomato ketchup at a statue of former prime minister Arthur Balfour. The former foreign secretary has been a focus of activist anger as he was the signatory of the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 document that pledged support for the establishment of a 'national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine. In March 2024, the group used blades to slash a painting of Lord Balfour hanging in the University of Cambridge. Seven months later — to mark the declaration's anniversary — they reportedly stole two busts of Israel's first president from the University of Manchester's chemistry building. As Palestine Action grew in notoriety and numbers, the British state also became a target. Early in 2024, six members were arrested for allegedly plotting to prevent the London Stock Exchange from opening. Activists have inevitably attracted the attention of authorities and received jail time. Among the first to be hauled before the courts were five members in November 2022, who had covered Elbit's Kingsway offices in their, now signature, red paint. They were, however, acquitted by a jury of 'conspiracy to commit criminal damage' and the offices later closed. Palestine Action declared a victory for this and for the closure of an Elbit factory in Oldham, where their sustained protests had resulted in 36 arrests. In August 2024, five members of the group were handed custodial sentences for protest action. It took two years for the courts to hand out suspended prison sentences and order the protesters to pay more than £5,000 in compensation after seven activists broke into the Bristol headquarters of Elbit to destroy equipment. Zoë Rogers turned 21 in prison. She had been charged with criminal damage, violent disorder and aggravated burglary in relation to the Bristol incident after telling her mother, Clare, that the pro-Palestine marches 'weren't working'. She was denied bail and is on remand with a trial set for November 2025. Fatema Zainab was arrested and charged as part of the same operation. As the court system caught up in December 2023, two members of a group known as the Elbit Eight, Genevieve Scherer and Jocelyn Cooney, were acquitted on charges relatingfrom July 2020 to January 2021. Their defence had argued that they were justified in 'working to disrupt manufacture of Israel's weaponry'. Richard Barnard was convicted of one count of criminal damage at the now-closed Elbit factory in Oldham.