Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's insistence that UK bases be used only for 'defensive' strikes against Iranian military targets is facing increasing strain as US President Donald Trump escalates threats to attack civilian infrastructure. Trump has warned that 'a whole civilisation will die' if Iran ignores his demands, and has stated he is 'not at all' worried about committing war crimes.
The UK government has sought to present itself as a responsible actor by limiting its involvement to defensive operations, but legal experts question whether this distinction is tenable. The government released a summary of its legal position, arguing it acts 'in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support'. However, many international law experts have been sceptical from the start, given that the conflict was illegally started by the US and Israel.
Professor Susan Breau of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies said: 'How do you distinguish what's defensive from what's offensive? It will be extremely complicated for the UK to maintain that distinction given what Trump has said – his whole battle plan is changing.' She noted that allowing the US to use UK bases is the main issue, especially as Trump changes the rules of engagement.
In contrast, Victor Kattan, assistant professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham, argued that the UK's legal position could be defended even if Trump carries out his threats. He said the UK could limit its involvement to shooting down rockets targeting Gulf allies, while not participating in attacks on bridges, critical infrastructure, or oil and gas facilities. 'It's a fine distinction to make, but I think it's tenable,' he added.
Both experts agree that the UK will be closely monitoring its legal position. Kattan said it was a given that the government would be 'constantly reviewing' it, while Breau said: 'They need to reconsider it. And I would be surprised if they're not.'
