In Downing Street, Keir Starmer has made it clear that he will permit the use of UK military bases by the United States solely for “defensive” actions targeting Iranian military installations. Meanwhile, Donald Trump at the White House has threatened to strike civilian infrastructure and declared on Monday that he is “not at all” concerned about the implications of war crimes.
Starmer’s stance thus far has portrayed the UK as a responsible player focused on regional security, while refraining from direct involvement in the conflict alongside the US. However, this position has not only displeased Trump but has also raised questions regarding the legality of distinguishing between defensive and offensive military operations. Should the US initiate strikes on facilities such as bridges and power plants, scrutiny over the UK’s stance will likely increase, even if these operations do not originate from British bases.
In articulating its position on “defensive” strikes, the UK government took the unusual step of publicizing a summary of its legal justification, asserting that it acts “in the collective self-defense of regional allies who have sought assistance.” Many legal experts expressed skepticism from the outset about the UK’s attempts to differentiate between defensive operations involving US bombers and the offensive actions in what most international law specialists deemed a conflict unlawfully initiated by the US and Israel.
Susan Breau, a professor of international law and senior research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, questioned the feasibility of distinguishing between defensive and offensive strikes. She noted the complexities involved in maintaining such a distinction, particularly in light of Trump’s evolving military strategy. Breau pointed out that recent warnings issued by Israeli officials regarding train usage by Iranians indicate a shift towards targeting civilian infrastructure.
Breau, who has been critical of the UK’s position from the beginning, emphasized that the core issue lies in the UK’s allowance for US forces to utilize British bases. She remarked, “While I could see the UK maintaining a presence in the region for the defense of its Gulf neighbors, permitting the US to operate from those bases is problematic. When the attack occurred on the British base in Cyprus, I understood the rationale for opening up their facilities. However, with Trump altering the battle strategy and rules of engagement, the situation is changing.”
Conversely, Victor Kattan, an assistant professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham, believes that the UK’s current legal stance might still be defensible, even if Trump follows through on his threats. He noted that if the British government knowingly permits their aircraft, missiles, or bases to be used for such purposes, it could be deemed unlawful, and they should clearly communicate this to the Americans, possibly preventing their use in such contexts.
Kattan suggested that the UK could assert, “We are only allowing our systems, hardware, and personnel to intercept rockets and the launchers targeting nations such as Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, or Saudi Arabia. Our bases and equipment will not be used to retaliate against the Iranian government or to engage in attacks on critical infrastructure.” Although this distinction is nuanced, Kattan believes it remains a defensible position.
Both Breau and Kattan agree that the UK will continue to closely monitor its legal standing to assess its appropriateness, even if they do not share the same viewpoint on the resolution of this pivotal issue. Kattan stated it is expected that the UK will be “constantly reviewing” its legal framework, while Breau stressed the need for reevaluation, expressing her surprise if the government had not already begun this process.
