The UK government’s legal rights if it decided to assist the US military are an area that could soon become a major subject of public debate. In the wake of US strikes on Iran, the world is watching to see what might happen next.
There are fears Iran may strike US bases in the Middle East or shut the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping route used for supplying oil around the world. The UK is not involved in the action as it stands.
But it has become embroiled in US military action in the Middle East in the past. And today questions have been asked about what Sir Keir Starmer’s Downing Street operation’s legal considerations would be if it were once again drawn into conflict.
What is UK’s position in international law if it assists USA over Iran?
The UK could only provide assistance legally “to an ally against an imminent threat to that ally,” former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer has said today. He told Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think that, legally, the position is we could only provide assistance if we were providing assistance to an ally against an imminent threat to that ally and I think the only question of an imminent threat would have been in relation to Israel.
“I think that’s the international law position. I think that we would regard, for the purposes of international law, both America and Israel as, in inverted commas, ‘allies’ for that purpose so if there was an imminent threat and America was standing beside Israel, if we were willing to stand beside Israel as well, we could have participated, but it never arose as an issue.”
He went on to say: “It depends what happens now, because if the position is that there are attacks on, for example, American bases, we can provide assistance in relation to that because that would be a matter of self-defence at that point.”
What has Starmer government said about the law and US bombings?
It has been pressed on this subject today already in the media – but has so far chosen not to comment. Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds would not say earlier today if the US strikes were legal. Asked on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg if the US action was a good thing, he said: “The outcome. It isn’t the means by which anyone in the British Government would have wanted to see this occur.”
Pressed over whether the US strikes were legal, he said: “It is where we are today.” Sir Keir Starmer has also made no comment on the legality of the action, despite issuing a statement to say Iran should return to negotiations.
The Conservative party position on the US strikes in Iran
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said today: “By targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, the US has taken decisive action against a regime that fuels global terror and directly threatens the UK. Iranian operatives have plotted murders and attacks on British soil.
“We should stand firmly with the US and Israel.”
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said Iran is a “threat” to the UK. Dame Priti told Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “We know the range of those ballistic missiles – they would threaten Europe.
“They’re a threat to us. We have state-sponsored activism and terrorism in our own country. We saw an Iranian spy involved in our base in Cyprus yesterday. These are not things that we can just sort of wring our hands over anymore.
“There has been a long history here and to the credit of America and President Trump, he has led the way in terms of trying to have diplomacy, diplomatic talks with Iran, and he did forewarn them that there would be consequences if they did not engage.”
