4 hours ago
1
In the Commons on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer was clear that Britain will not join offensive action against Tehran. It is wise not to join an illegal attempt at “regime change from the skies”. Sir Keir will, however, permit US use of British bases for limited defensive strikes aimed at stopping Iranian missile attacks. That is a legally clear line, but it may be politically and militarily tricky to stick to.
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions are reckless and unlawful. But so are Iran’s strikes – hitting hotels, airports and energy infrastructure – across the Gulf. Where Britain’s allies have asked for support, or where UK nationals are at risk, the UK is legally entitled to act in collective self-defence. But this holds only as long as the action is restricted to halt Tehran’s barrage.
Taking out Iranian missile launchers striking British targets would be legal. Embarking upon a campaign to dismantle a sovereign state’s long-term military capacity would not. Mr Trump’s objectives are “destroying Iran’s missile capabilities” and “annihilating their navy”, as well as preventing Tehran from ever having nuclear weapons. The US president doesn’t rule out the possibility of American troops on the ground in Iran. If missiles are being launched, shooting them down – or hitting the launcher to stop further attacks – can be lawful defensive action. But this is clearly not what Washington is talking about.
This matters for Britain. It can be legally permissible for Sir Keir to permit the use of bases on Diego Garcia or at RAF Fairford for defensive strikes to prevent ongoing attacks. But allowing those bases to support a prolonged bombing campaign aimed at destroying Iran’s wider military capability would amount to joining illegal US-Israeli actions. If the UK government says it is not taking part in offensive action, that must be reflected in what actually happens. Sir Keir is sanctioning the use of British bases for “specific and limited defensive purposes”. That must not provide cover for something broader.
Sir Keir’s statement to MPs revealed how easily the line could be blurred. The prime minister told MPs that “France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source.” To destroy missiles “from source” suggests more than stopping a launch; it could mean crippling future capability. Mentioning France and Germany suggests a cautious, shared judgment. But if underground missile complexes are hit not to stop attacks now but to strip away long-term military power, the claim of self-defence starts to fall apart.
Iraq casts a long shadow. Then, too, disgust at a hardline regime and hopes for a better future were invoked as reasons for military action. But they were not legal grounds for war. Sir Keir knows better than most that arguments were made that later stretched beyond their original limits. He has said that he will not repeat that mistake. Publishing a summary of the legal basis for this decision and notifying the United Nations are important steps for a country that says it stands for a rules-based order. Successive governments have consulted MPs before using force. If British territory is used for more than defensive strikes in Iran, the Commons should vote. The war powers convention exists to prevent drift. Sustaining US strikes for regime change or strategic degradation risks making Britain a co-belligerent in an illegal war.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
