News

Downing Street to White House: ‘UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated pre-emptive strike on Iran’

Big news from the UK — Downing street has “rebuffed” US requests to use UK military bases to support a preemptive attack on Iran. The rejection includes the use of any US bases on British territory for the buildup of forces in the Gulf. This  would prohibit the use of US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The reason? Because they do not consider Iran “a clear and present threat” therefore a preemptive attack on Iran would be in breach of International law. How refreshing.

The Guardian, Iran military action not ‘right course at this time’:

The UK government has reiterated that it does not believe military action against Iran would be appropriate at the moment, following the disclosure that Britain has rebuffed US requests to use UK military bases to support the buildup of forces in the Gulf.

Downing Street said: “We are working closely with the US with regard to UK bases” but “the government does not think military action is the right course at this point of time”.

……

They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general’s office and which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

It states that providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law on the basis that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent “a clear and present threat”

“The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran,” said a senior Whitehall source. “It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans.”

……

“But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance,” said one source. “They’d expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it’s Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise.”

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.

The U.S. is not talking:

A US state department official said: “The US and the UK co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types of conversations.”

(Hat tip Mondoweiss commenter seafoid)

12 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I can understand the haters. We’ve always had bigots. But with the USA sporting the biggest army in the world and annually spending as much as most of the rest of the world combined on so-called defense, I cannot understand why regular people are fearful. If they think we might nevertheless be attacked, they should be ANGRY at that HUGE EXPENDITURE FOR NAUGHT.

About bloody time…
Israel and the US grow ever closer together – the US and the UK grow apart.
What was that about “closest allies” again?

At last the junior partner has grown a set of cojones, better the US knows now the lunacy of boxing yourself into a position where there is no way out but escalation, as Obama has done, lets hope the coalition of the willing remains the US/Israel.

This is good news out of England. I am puzzled about where they stand. It was just this last spring that the Guardian reported, according to anonymous sources in the military and government, that they were preparing to join the US in war against Iran. Now what was that all about? At the time I found this report difficult to believe but still the Guardian has a lot of credibility.

Thanks, Annie. What is ironic is the US must be reminded of its obligations under international law by Great Britain. This is because Neocons have been given too much free reign, and realists have been banished. It will be interesting to see the coverage of this development, and whether the candidates will comment.