UK will defend its allies
But only if they were not previously involved in the Iran conflict
The prime minister has said that the the UK and its allies are permitted under international law to use or support force in circumstances where acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate.
In a rare but not unprecedented move, Downing Street published what it called a summary of the UK government’s legal position. This followed calls for the government to release the legal advice it is presumed to have received from Lord Hermer KC, the attorney general.
Earlier yesterday, that presumed advice was heavily criticised by Hermer’s Conservative shadow, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC. Responding to the Downing Street statement overnight, Wolfson said the government’s legal position was “still weak and still wrong”.
Here, in full, is the government’s summary of its legal position:
The UK condemns in the strongest terms the Iranian regime’s reckless and ongoing indiscriminate attacks against countries in the region. Such actions demand a united response to restore peace and security and prevent further escalation of the conflict.
As well as defending itself and its position in the region, the UK is acting in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support. The UK and its allies are permitted under international law to use or support force in such circumstances where acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate.
Accordingly, the UK has military assets flying in the region to intercept drones or missiles targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict. In addition, the UK has responded to a US request which will facilitate specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes at regional allies.
The UK’s actions and related support to its allies is solely focussed on ending the threat of air and missile attacks against regional allies unlawfully attacked by Iran and who have not been involved in hostilities from the outset. It does not signal the UK having any wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict between the US, Israel and Iran.
The UK remains of the view that a negotiated solution should be supported and that further escalation into a wider regional conflict should be avoided.
The government will notify the United Nations Security Council of relevant actions taken under article 51 of the United Nations charter.
In a video statement posted on X last night, Sir Keir Starmer said that Britain had given the US permission to use UK military bases to strike Iran.
The prime minister said:
We have British jets in the air as part of coordinated defensive operations which have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes. But the only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source — in their storage depots or the launchers which used to fire the missiles.
The United States has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose. We have taken the decision to accept this request — to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved.
The basis of our decision is the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives. That is in accordance with international law. And we are publishing a summary of our legal advice.
We are not joining these strikes, but we will continue with our defensive actions in the region.
The announcement came shortly before a British sovereign military base in Cyprus was hit by a suspected drone attack from Iran.
“Our armed forces are responding to a suspected drone strike at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus at midnight local time,” a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said. The drone was said to have caused “limited damage” but no casualties.
Mark of shame
Earlier in the day, Wolfson said the government’s lack of participation in military action by the United States and Israel against Iran on Saturday was a mark of shame rather than a badge of honour. “It is amoral evasion dressed up as legal principle,” Wolfson added.
Starmer said on Saturday that the UK “played no role in these strikes”. He added: “Our forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests, and our allies — as Britain has done before, in line with international law.”
Describing the prime minister’s response as pusillanimous, Wolfson rejected the assertion that the government’s refusal to support the strikes was required by international law. He disagreed with the presumed advice offered by the attorney general, which I tried to challenge when I interviewed Hermer last week.
Writing on X yesterday, Wolfson said:
The prime minister has refused publicly to support the US and Israel strikes, and also refuses to allow the US to use UK bases, because of international law advice he has reportedly received from Lord Hermer.
International law ought to provide a mechanism to restrain and, if necessary, end despotic and tyrannical regimes such as that in Iran. If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law and one which is worse than worthless in the modern world.
To be clear: I don’t believe that it is. I think international law is important, and both can and should provide a just legal order. I do, however, have serious questions as to the moral attitudes of some of its expositors; too many international lawyers serenely promote an analysis which ultimately protects tyrants.
Wolfson made seven specific points before putting a number of questions to the government:
The inherent right to use force in the face of an imminent attack from a hostile nation which is responsible for a pattern of hostile actions exists for good reason: a country cannot be expected to remain idle and just wait for the next attack.
Iran has repeatedly threatened to attack the UK’s bases and personnel. Those threats come in the context of persistent Iranian attempts to launch attacks on UK soil, too; the director general of MI5 has stated, and the PM confirmed last night, that the UK has responded to tens of Iranian-backed plots, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. There is also a constant barrage of cyberattacks; while not all cyberattacks are armed attacks in sense of article 51 of the UN charter, some may be and all confirm not just hostile intent but action pursuant to such intent.
The UK’s long-standing allies, the US and Israel, were right to consider that they faced further attacks prior to their recent military action, given that (1) Iran has previously attacked both states directly and also through its many proxies; (2) Iran has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy Israel; (3) Iran was assessed to be on the brink of acquiring a nuclear capability with uranium enrichment at 60% (which can only be for military use); and (4) Iran already possessed — as demonstrated by its recent attacks — a sophisticated and effective long-range delivery capability which Israel cannot fully neutralise with defensive weapons.
The acquisition of a nuclear capability by Iran represents a genocidal risk for Israel and its people. Iran’s repeatedly stated aim is to wipe the State of Israel, and its inhabitants, off the face of the earth. The slogan of the proxies through which Iran has often attacked Israel is: “God is greater, death to America, death to Israel, curse to the Jews, victory to Islam”. In these circumstances, whether they are characterised as part of an ongoing armed conflict with Iran or as a new use of force based on self-defence, Israel’s actions are justifiable.
The UK (and also the US) is permitted under international law to use force to aid another state which is acting in self-defence. Moreover, the UK is under an obligation in international law is to prevent genocide, not just to stop it: stopping an ongoing genocide is required, but it necessarily means that action was taken too late.
Against that background, the UK has three distinct legal bases to assist, militarily if necessary, its long-standing allies the US and Israel (and now other states in the region, too): (1) to defend another member state pursuant to collective self-defence; (2) to take proportionate action to avert continued Iranian attacks on the UK’s own bases and personnel; and/or (3) to prevent Iran from implementing its clearly stated genocidal intentions against the people of Israel.
The US and the UK are in the same legal position; accordingly, if the UK government’s position (as reported) is that the UK cannot itself take offensive military action to support the US and Israel, the UK government must also consider that the US strikes were unlawful.
Wolfson then put four questions to the government:
Does the UK government consider that the US and Israeli strikes were unlawful?
Why could we not join the leaders of Canada (Liberal) and Australia (Labor) and offer unequivocal support?
Why are we not actively assisting our several other allies in the region, throughout the Gulf and beyond, who have now also been attacked?
Specifically, is it the UK’s position that we can help those states defend themselves against missiles, once launched, but we can’t actively assist them in taking out the missile launchers?
The shadow attorney general concluded:
The legal debate about these matters is important. And any government should be cautious before using or endorsing lethal force. But when your first point in responding to targeted strikes on a tyrannical regime which has sought to attack, and which still plans attacks against, your own citizens both at home and abroad is “we did not participate”, you need to rethink your analysis.
Last night’s speech delivered by the prime minister was, frankly, embarrassing. He laid out all the threats to the UK — including clear physical threats to my own community — but then failed even to say that he supported military action to remove those threats. His overriding concern was simply to make it clear that the UK did not participate in the US and Israeli strikes.
In that context, lack of participation is not a badge of honour; it is a mark of shame. It is amoral evasion dressed up as legal principle.
Responding on X last night to the published summary of the government’s legal position, Wolfson pointed to its limitations. The UK would “intercept drones or missiles targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict”. The UK’s support was “solely focussed on ending the threat of air and missile attacks against regional allies unlawfully attacked by Iran and who have not been involved in hostilities from the outset”.
Did that mean, he asked, that UK forces would intervene if Iran fired missiles at Dubai or Oman but not if the missile was aimed at a US ship or at Tel Aviv?
This approach, he argued, would still make the UK a bystander in the conflict between US and Iran. In Wolfson’s view, it was “still weak and still wrong”.
I wonder when the "rules based international order" will recognise that Trump is acting in breach of the US constitution & so could be argued to be leading a "despotic and tyrannical regime", not so very different to that of Iran?
If he interferes with elections in November, the situation will become even clearer.
The UK has, in fact, participated in the attack on Iran. I have been watching the massive build up of US air power to the region over several weeks. Many of these assets have flown from British RAF bases and have clearly provided the US with the resources it needed to launch the attack.
The fact that these flights have suddenly ceased is presumably to enable Starmer to say we did not participate.