Latest news with #DiegoGarcia
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour fears repeat of Iraq war failures if it supports US strikes on Iran
Labour ministers fear that supporting the US in possible attacks on Iran could repeat the failures of the Iraq war. Senior government sources are concerned that backing American air strikes on a nuclear facility could be unlawful after Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, warned Sir Keir Starmer it could be illegal. Party figures also fear that supporting the US by allowing its military to carry out bombing runs from the UK's Diego Garcia air base in the Chagos Islands would be politically unpopular. The Telegraph has been told there is 'twitchiness' in No 10 over the situation because of Labour's legacy of involving the UK in the 2003 invasion of Iraq – at the urging of the US government – without a UN resolution. The UN's charter states that attacking another country is only permissible in international law in self-defence, to defend an ally or if it is authorised by the Security Council. Jonathan Powell, Downing Street's national security adviser, and Lord Mandelson, the British ambassador to the US, are among the officials dealing with the current crisis from the UK side. Both were confidantes of Sir Tony Blair at the time of the Iraq invasion, with Mr Powell serving as the No 10 chief of staff. Lord Mandelson, who was an ally on the Labour backbenches at the time, has since written that Sir Tony developed 'tunnel vision' over the war, and ignored his pleas in early 2003 to consider the 'political nuances' and 'practical implications' of an invasion. On Thursday, he joined David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, in Washington for meetings with US officials, including Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. Mr Lammy was planning to use the talks to attempt to persuade American officials that they should not intervene in the conflict between Iran and Israel, it is understood. It came as Donald Trump provisionally approved a plan to drop a 'bunker buster' bomb on Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility. On Thursday, the president said he would make a decision on whether to proceed with any US attack 'in the next two weeks'. US media report that the president is becoming increasingly convinced of the need to strike the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, which is buried deep beneath a mountain south-west of Tehran. If he does order an air strike, it is possible the US would use B-2 bombers stationed at Diego Garcia. Downing Street has publicly played down talk of Britain joining US forces, arguing on Thursday that 'de-escalation is the priority' in the region and that 'we would not want to see anything that ramps up the situation'. 'The continuation of the current situation is in no one's interest. We want to see cool heads and a return to diplomacy because that is the best route forward,' Sir Keir's official spokesman said. Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, said MPs would get a vote on any sustained British military action. However, there are fears in Downing Street that publicly supporting Israel's attacks on Iran would alienate voters, as well as Labour MPs who have been campaigning against military action. On Thursday, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said that 'any of those justifications' for war in the UN charter did not apply because the UK was 'not under threat ourselves' and there was no Security Council resolution. Earlier this week, Richard Burgon, a Left-wing Labour MP, said that the Government must rule out military action in Iran because 'we saw with Iraq how following Right-wing US presidents into Middle East wars can end'. The Government has taken an increasingly hard line on Israel over the war in Gaza in recent months and last week took the unusual step of sanctioning two of the country's ministers. Polls show that around half of the public do not want Britain to intervene on either side of the conflict between Israel and Iran, while the majority of remaining voters say they either do not know which country to support or that the UK should back Israel. The UK has not been directly involved in protecting Israel from Iran's most recent missile attacks, although last year it did provide air-to-air refuelling support when Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles. A spokesman for Lord Hermer declined to comment on his legal opinion, but The Telegraph understands it was issued shortly after Israel's first attack on Iran last Thursday. He reportedly told Sir Keir that he had concerns about 'playing any role in this except for defending our allies' – one of the three justifications for such military action under the UN charter.
The National
6 hours ago
- Business
- The National
US bombers line up at Diego Garcia base as Iran strike looms
The airbase that could be used to launch bunker-busting strikes on Iran has seen an influx of heavy American bombers and fighters. Satellite images taken three days ago show the presence of four B-52s that can technically drop the 13,600kg GBU-57 bomb needed to penetrate Iran's underground nuclear network. They were spotted by commercial satellite imagery company Planet Labs, and traces how the balance of aircraft at the base has changed as the situation in the Middle East deteriorated. Six F-15 multirole warplanes have also arrived in recent days and would be used to protect the airbase from Iran drone or cruise missile attack. Six KC-135 tankers are also there, giving America the option to refuel aircraft on the approach to Iran if required. There is also the prospect that with aircraft movement into Diego Garcia remaining fluid, B-2 Spirit stealth bombers could also land there, having been spotted in recent months. Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands, has been used as the site of a joint UK-US military base since the 1970s due to its strategically important position in the Indian Ocean. The UK recently signed a deal to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, with an agreement to lease Diego Garcia for £101 million each year for the next 99 years. Critics of the deal said the UK risks losing an important strategic presence in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia would likely be used as a base for a 'stand-off' attack on Iran, The National has been told. 'While they can drop the GBU-57, the fact they have to fly straight and level means that the B-52 would be sitting ducks if used over Iran,' said military aviation expert Tim Ripley. 'But they carry 20 cruise missiles, which they can launch from a distance.' The total value of the jets currently present is approaching $1.5 billion which contrasts with the $12 billion cost of the six B-2s that were at the base two months ago and appear to have been moved back to the US. It is understood that they were there to be used against the Houthis in Yemen as part of America's bombing campaign before a ceasefire was agreed. They are the most expensive aircraft ever built and the only ones certified to drop GBU-57 bombs. Their departure makes it more likely that if US President Donald Trump decides to support Israel by attacking Iran's Fordow nuclear facility hidden in a mountain, the strike will be launched from America. The B-2s would fly from their Whiteman air force base in Missouri direct to the site near Qom − a distance of 11,200km distance. While that is at the very limit of their range, they will be able to receive air-to-air refuelling from tankers stationed in the Middle East and Europe. The Diego Garcia deployment is part of a widespread movement of US warplanes into the region as the possibility of a US attack on Iran increases. A fleet of more than 30 air-to-air refuelling tankers have crossed the Atlantic and are now stationed at airbases across Europe and the Middle East. They have been joined by squadrons of F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters that will be on hand for a major air attack alongside the jets from what will soon be two US aircraft carriers in the region, once the USS Nimitz arrives from the Pacific. But as the Diego Garcia base is a British overseas territory, permission would be required from London before any raid on Iran is undertaken. The UK is likely to face domestic opposition to joining the US in the conflict. Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an emergency Cobra meeting upon his return to the UK from the G7 summit to discuss the UK's response to the crisis. Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer reportedly raised concerns about the legality of the UK's involvement, advising that the UK should limit this to 'defensive' support. However, Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, on Thursday told the Chatham House think tank's London Conference that he did not see obstacles to a UK green light for use of the archipelago for an Iran mission. 'If American bombers do strike they will almost certainly do so from Diego Garcia,' he said. 'We've just negotiated a long-term lease so there could be an American base on Diego Garcia. I don't see Keir Starmer saying, 'oh, but you can't use it. I'm afraid'. I don't see that. 'It's very straightforward. They've got an American base there and whole purpose of Diego Garcia is so the Americans can use it when they need to use it.' There are some concerns that further escalation with Iran would have the undesired effect of re-enforcing its nuclear ambitions. Former National Security Adviser Lord Peter Ricketts said the UK 'should not' support potential US strikes on Iran. 'The only way we're going to control Iran's nuclear ambitions in the long term is by having a deal with them,' he said. 'I think just coming back and bombing them every few years is not going to make the world safer. In fact, it's going to reinforce their determination to keep working on a nuclear weapon when this round of fighting is over,' he said.
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Bad luck, Lord Hermer. We are inextricably involved in any US strike on Iran
The US might be about to assist Israel in the striking of Iran's underground uranium enrichment plants. The media is awash with attempts to predict what will happen, but given the number of moving parts, and the person in charge, this is not proving easy. However American colleagues of mine are sure it's a matter of 'when' America will strike, not 'if '. Meanwhile it is not at all clear what the UK Government's stance is. The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is warning that the UK joining the war on Iran may be illegal. My view is that he is a little late to the party here. We've had ships, aircraft and troops in the region since before 2003 – all facing Iran and contributing to operations against it and its proxies. We have conducted intelligence gathering throughout and shared that with allies. More recently, we have conducted strikes against Iranian proxies and have refuelled aircraft in direct support of Israel's defensive operations against them. Right now we are housing American B-2 bombers – the likely centrepiece of any US strike – on British territory, Diego Garcia (highlighting with impeccable timing the strategic incontinence of the pending loss of sovereignty there). What is Lord Hermer suggesting – we should withdraw our support? That would be unbelievably short-sighted. Or is he, like many, failing to distinguish between a handful of precision strikes from 40,000 feet and a third Gulf War? There is a long and nuanced spectrum between 'do nothing' and 'war'. Binary interjections such as Hermer's don't reflect this reality and simply add uncertainty to a government which already seems pretty uncertain. When the No.10 comms machine gags UK generals and admirals at a RUSI land warfare conference, but allows foreign officers to be quoted – as happened yesterday – you know you are dealing with a system that's deeply uncomfortable with political-military leadership. This is probably why the ships of Operation Highmast, including HMS Prince of Wales, have gone straight past Iran and are much of the way to the Pacific. I'd like to think that it was a high level decision between us and the US about where our different carriers could best be used and that the decision was that she should fill the hole left by the USS Nimitz as she steams towards the Gulf of Oman. In fact, this would be entirely reasonable. But I fear that the Government simply failed to make a decision. I hope I'm wrong but when you see senior officers gagged you have to suspect that they and the Government disagree. Meanwhile out in the big world, the US now has nearly everything in place to make a move. Everyone has been surprised by the speed with which the IDF suppressed Iranian air defences: there has never been a better time to defang Iran and remove their ability to produce a nuclear weapon once and for all. There is some doubt that even the US with its powerful Massive Ordnance Penetrators can actually do the job, however. Iran's nuclear facilities, Fordow in particular, are buried deep inside the mountains. Then there is the fact that Iran is not entirely toothless. This is why we are seeing aircraft leave the air base in Al Udeid and ships departing from Bahrain. Sensible precautions: and in the case of the aircraft, this permits them to operate from countries who would permit strikes from their territory. Does Israel have a backup plan if the MOP isn't used or doesn't work? Storming a fortress bunker of this size and at this sort of range – one whose defences have had decades to prepare – is the sort of mission that makes me glad I joined the Navy. The IDF and the Israeli secret services have pulled off some astonishing special operations in their time but this might be too hard even for them. Meanwhile the USS Nimitz is closing and could be just three days from her probable battle station in the Gulf of Oman. I don't want to overplay her role in all this but another 75 jets, Hawkeye radar/command planes, a ballistic intercept umbrella – under the flight path from Iran to Diego Garcia, too – and hundreds of cruise missiles will come in handy. It's unlikely the US will make a move until Nimitz is on hand. The question of regime change is also much discussed. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, made some remarks in Strasbourg yesterday. She said this is a vital juncture in 'the struggle of the people of Iran and the Iranian Resistance against the ruling religious fascism'. 'The only viable solution remains the overthrow of this regime by the people of Iran and the Iranian Resistance … this regime that has executed 1,350 prisoners in the last year alone [must] be replaced by a democracy'. With the myths of strength and competence of the current regime now lying in tatters, now may be the time. Meanwhile the only people saying much in Britain are the lawyers. We wring our hands, silence our senior military and seemingly hope for the best. The Attorney General 'has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies'. It's very hard to see how stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon is anything other than that – and indeed self-defence on our own part. This is not the same as opening another war in the Middle East, in fact it's the opposite. It's preventative self-defence against a barbaric regime and we should back our allies to achieve it. What we now need is strong and clear leadership, with associated open and confident communications, that reflects this.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
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.
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Britain ‘may have to inform Iran ally Mauritius' before air strikes from Chagos
Britain will be required to inform Mauritius about any future air strikes on Iran because of Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal. The Iranian ally may have to be given advance warning about such strikes, after the Government decided to give away the Indian Ocean territory and lease back the Diego Garcia military base there. The base, which is jointly used by the UK and US, has previously been used for bombing runs on Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Air Force (USAF) has recently stationed B-2 long-range bombers there, which could be used if Donald Trump decides to launch an attack on Iran.
