On 1 March, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK had granted a US request to use British bases for what he described as “limited” and “defensive” purposes in the ongoing war on Iran. The request had previously been denied. Since then, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers, America’s long-range strategic aircraft, have been landing at RAF Fairford.
Experts consider the legality of this position as ambiguous. Starmer may point to Iranian strikes on the UK’s Cypriot military base to justify the government’s defensive stance. The US, however, cannot make the same claim. A statement from the United Nations Associations-UK described the US-Israeli strikes as an illegal violation of UN Charter. Despite Starmer’s bold assertion that he “does not believe in regime change from the skies,” his actions do not quite match his words. Regardless of the legal status of the current conflict, Britain is now implicated.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, seemingly unchastened by the disasters of Iraq, criticised Starmer’s hesitation. At a private event hosted by Jewish News, he argued “[i]t’s not a question of whether it’s this president or that president. If they are your ally and they are an indispensable cornerstone for your security, you had better show up.” Yet if British security is contingent on pandering to the US’s legally contentious military objectives, the real question is not what do we stand to lose, but what have we already lost?
Previous American administrations witnessed Iranian nuclear advancements and chose negotiation. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015) was widely regarded as a success by many European leaders. Iran complied in constraining its nuclear program. America’s decision to withdraw from the agreement under the first Trump administration ultimately derailed diplomatic efforts. Instead of bargaining, Trump has chosen force, responding to the long-established nuclear threat with pre-emptive strikes. The rest of the world has been scrambling to interpret the motives and legitimacy of such actions, the consequences of which extend far beyond the US and Iran.
It is unsurprising, then, that the US-Israeli strikes on Iran have been said to represent “a war of choice.” This choice is not America’s alone. Britain, too, must choose. If the UK does not wish to become further entangled in yet another legally questionable West Asian conflict, it will have to do more than hope for legal and moral absolution through scholarly debate. Britain will have to stand for something.
In a recent address, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for the “middle powers” to “act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Responding to what he described as the “rise of hard power,” Carney argued that “the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together.” Since January, Carney has already struggled to realise this vision, at one point forced to retract comments which appeared to condone the US-Israeli strikes after acknowledging their tension with international law. But he has been able to securely state his position: “Canada is not participating in the United States and Israeli offensive and will never participate in it.”
This is the clarity Starmer has yet to deliver – granting RAF bases for US operations is just one example. Perhaps the UK has something to learn: without integrity, there can be no clear end, no limit, to Britain’s involvement in the Iranian conflict. If the UK is not careful, it risks finding itself on the menu – with no obvious way off.
“EGVA – Boeing B-52 Stratofortress – United States Air Force – 60-0041 / BD” by lynothehammer1978 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Related
As US Bombers Land on RAF Bases, When Will Britain Choose a Stance on Iran?
On 1 March, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK had granted a US request to use British bases for what he described as “limited” and “defensive” purposes in the ongoing war on Iran. The request had previously been denied. Since then, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers, America’s long-range strategic aircraft, have been landing at RAF Fairford.
Experts consider the legality of this position as ambiguous. Starmer may point to Iranian strikes on the UK’s Cypriot military base to justify the government’s defensive stance. The US, however, cannot make the same claim. A statement from the United Nations Associations-UK described the US-Israeli strikes as an illegal violation of UN Charter. Despite Starmer’s bold assertion that he “does not believe in regime change from the skies,” his actions do not quite match his words. Regardless of the legal status of the current conflict, Britain is now implicated.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, seemingly unchastened by the disasters of Iraq, criticised Starmer’s hesitation. At a private event hosted by Jewish News, he argued “[i]t’s not a question of whether it’s this president or that president. If they are your ally and they are an indispensable cornerstone for your security, you had better show up.” Yet if British security is contingent on pandering to the US’s legally contentious military objectives, the real question is not what do we stand to lose, but what have we already lost?
Previous American administrations witnessed Iranian nuclear advancements and chose negotiation. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015) was widely regarded as a success by many European leaders. Iran complied in constraining its nuclear program. America’s decision to withdraw from the agreement under the first Trump administration ultimately derailed diplomatic efforts. Instead of bargaining, Trump has chosen force, responding to the long-established nuclear threat with pre-emptive strikes. The rest of the world has been scrambling to interpret the motives and legitimacy of such actions, the consequences of which extend far beyond the US and Iran.
It is unsurprising, then, that the US-Israeli strikes on Iran have been said to represent “a war of choice.” This choice is not America’s alone. Britain, too, must choose. If the UK does not wish to become further entangled in yet another legally questionable West Asian conflict, it will have to do more than hope for legal and moral absolution through scholarly debate. Britain will have to stand for something.
In a recent address, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for the “middle powers” to “act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Responding to what he described as the “rise of hard power,” Carney argued that “the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together.” Since January, Carney has already struggled to realise this vision, at one point forced to retract comments which appeared to condone the US-Israeli strikes after acknowledging their tension with international law. But he has been able to securely state his position: “Canada is not participating in the United States and Israeli offensive and will never participate in it.”
This is the clarity Starmer has yet to deliver – granting RAF bases for US operations is just one example. Perhaps the UK has something to learn: without integrity, there can be no clear end, no limit, to Britain’s involvement in the Iranian conflict. If the UK is not careful, it risks finding itself on the menu – with no obvious way off.
“EGVA – Boeing B-52 Stratofortress – United States Air Force – 60-0041 / BD” by lynothehammer1978 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related