Keir Starmer is encountering heightened demands to restrict U.S. access to British military bases following Donald Trump’s alarming statement that ignoring his demands could lead to the demise of “a whole civilization” in Iran. Notably, Downing Street has refrained from directly criticizing these remarks.
The UK government has permitted American forces to operate from British bases solely for defensive purposes aimed at Iran, such as targeting missile installations. In contrast, involvement in attacks on civilian facilities, including power stations, which Trump has threatened, has been explicitly ruled out.
The Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and several Labour MPs have reacted to Trump’s ultimatum for Iran to comply with his demands by a Tuesday night deadline, urging the UK government to take firmer action.
Even Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK and a staunch supporter of Trump, has described the president’s comments as excessively extreme.
When asked about the potential limitation of British bases’ usage should the U.S. target civilian infrastructure—actions that many experts would categorize as war crimes—Starmer’s spokesperson declined to engage, labeling the inquiry as “hypothetical.”
Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has called on Starmer to immediately prohibit U.S. operations from British or UK-associated airbases, such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, warning that inaction could implicate the UK in war crimes.
Zack Polanski, head of the Green Party in England and Wales, echoed this sentiment, insisting that the UK government must take a strong stance against the use of its bases for military actions that threaten war crimes.
Starmer’s spokesperson reiterated that while he would not provide ongoing commentary on allied operations, UK military bases are accessible strictly for defensive missions.
The spokesperson emphasized the commitment to protect UK interests and allies while adhering to international law, avoiding entanglement in broader conflicts.
Although no ministers have publicly expressed concern over Trump’s remarks, several Labour MPs have voiced their apprehension. Some are advocating for the complete barring of U.S. forces from British bases for missions related to Iran, following Spain’s lead in prohibiting U.S. aircraft involved in such operations from its airspace.
Stella Creasy, a prominent Labour MP, criticized the UK government for remaining passive while Trump undermines international law. She characterized the threat to obliterate an entire civilization as “unconscionable,” stressing that the UK cannot remain idle as the situation escalates.
One senior Labour backbencher remarked that while Starmer’s previous decisions regarding the conflict have been sound, a shift in strategy is now necessary, advocating for the UK’s stance to align with Spain’s refusal to allow military bases to be used for potential war crimes.
He stated that the UK’s international credibility is at stake if it permits Trump to utilize its military infrastructure for such threats. Other MPs have also expressed unease regarding the UK’s current position.
Ben Goldsborough, MP for South Norfolk, labeled Trump’s statements as “reckless and dangerous,” while Dawn Butler, MP for Brent East, described them as indicative of a deranged mindset.
Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP chairing the Commons foreign affairs select committee, questioned the reliability of assurances that U.S. forces are exclusively using UK bases for defensive operations.
She highlighted the importance of established protocols and the trust between the UK and U.S. defense forces, suggesting that clear directives regarding operational limitations should be expected to be honored by the Americans.
Farage, during a Reform UK press conference, indicated that, if in power, he would permit U.S. access to British bases for attacks on civilian targets in Iran, provided he received adequate justification regarding the objectives of such actions. However, he expressed alarm upon hearing Trump’s comments about an existential threat to Iran, stating that they were excessively extreme.
