Has Britain entered the war against Iran? Well, yes… and no. In trying to dance carefully around a large trap door, Sir Keir Starmer has merely succeeded in falling straight through it.
On Saturday, the US and Israel went to war against the Tehran regime. Iranian missiles and drones have now attacked targets across Israel and the Gulf, including Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Cyprus.
In his carefully worded statement on Sunday evening, Starmer reversed his previous position and said he would grant the American request to use British military bases — for the “specific and limited defensive purpose” of destroying Iran’s missiles at source.
The government’s legal summary (hat tip: A Lawyer Writes) spelled out the limits of this permission. It said British “military assets” would be intercepting drones or missiles “targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict” and which “have not been involved in hostilities from the outset”.
So Britain will be defending Cyprus, Kuwait and the Gulf states — but not America or Israel.
Apart from the astonishing snub to its principal allies, the US and Israel, this is incoherent. Is it really suggesting the RAF will shoot down Iranian missiles targeting hotels or airports in Dubai or Bahrain — but not if they’re targeting US air bases or Israeli apartment blocks?
The government has made this unsavoury distinction for several reasons. It’s partly because of its neuralgic terror of repeating the political catastrophe of the Iraq war. It also because it’s riding the twin tigers of Islamic and left-wing hatred of Israel.
But it’s principally because Starmer and his fellow “human rights” lawyer, Britain’s attorney-general, Lord Hermer, have made a religion out of international law.
And although Hermer’s legal advice hasn’t been published, it’s a fair bet that he has advised the war is illegal under its terms.
Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, broadcaster and author - you can follow her work on her website HERE
In his carefully worded statement on Sunday evening, Starmer reversed his previous position and said he would grant the American request to use British military bases — for the “specific and limited defensive purpose” of destroying Iran’s missiles at source.
The government’s legal summary (hat tip: A Lawyer Writes) spelled out the limits of this permission. It said British “military assets” would be intercepting drones or missiles “targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict” and which “have not been involved in hostilities from the outset”.
So Britain will be defending Cyprus, Kuwait and the Gulf states — but not America or Israel.
Apart from the astonishing snub to its principal allies, the US and Israel, this is incoherent. Is it really suggesting the RAF will shoot down Iranian missiles targeting hotels or airports in Dubai or Bahrain — but not if they’re targeting US air bases or Israeli apartment blocks?
The government has made this unsavoury distinction for several reasons. It’s partly because of its neuralgic terror of repeating the political catastrophe of the Iraq war. It also because it’s riding the twin tigers of Islamic and left-wing hatred of Israel.
But it’s principally because Starmer and his fellow “human rights” lawyer, Britain’s attorney-general, Lord Hermer, have made a religion out of international law.
And although Hermer’s legal advice hasn’t been published, it’s a fair bet that he has advised the war is illegal under its terms.
Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, broadcaster and author - you can follow her work on her website HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.