UK attorney general concerns over Iran-Israel war
The UK government's top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government.
The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer's thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK's potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.
If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general's concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict "unless our personnel are targeted".
US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily.
This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow.
These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran.
The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland.
Under a longstanding convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations.
The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes.
Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Israel's justification
Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an "imminent" and "existential" threat to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country's own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel.
They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been "less than satisfactory" in "a number of respects" on its international compliance over its nuclear activities.
It is not clear what aspect of Israel's justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over.
The Attorney General's Office has told Sky News: "By long standing Convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed.
"The Convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice."
The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year.
34:31
In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran.
The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024.
But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders.
The UN's nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality.
A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA's general conference has said "any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency".
Israel believes that Iran's nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target.
It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons.
Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel's use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law.
Interpretations of International Law
Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks.
The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats.
The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent.
The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred.
That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad.
The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of "imminent".
The concepts of 'proportionality', 'necessity' and 'imminence' are key considerations.
International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the 'proportionality' test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear.
But whether there was the 'necessity' to attack Iran at this point is more questionable.
The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the 'imminence' of the Iranian threat against Israel - and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was "imminent" - as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve.
In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction - a claim that turned out to be wrong.
The then-attorney general's advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair's decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq.
The concerns of the attorney general emerged from enquiries by Sky News about whether the UK would help Israel to defend itself from attack by Iran.
A separate source told Sky News that they would not steer us away from the claim over the attorney general's views.
But the source said there is always nuance with legal advice and that it likely included other factors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Parents SHOULD be fined for taking children on holiday during term time says LEE BOYCE - here's three ideas to help families have a cheaper break
For a while, there has been a war brewing at the school gates. It involves parents who feel they can only afford a holiday with children if they do it during term time and the Government and councils, which can fine them for doing just that. Last year, nearly half a million school holiday fines were dished out in England, according to the Department for Education. That was up 24 per cent on the previous year and has tripled within a decade. Last August, these fines became even stronger. The minimum fine for parents who take their children out of school in term time without permission went up to £80 per parent and failure to pay within 21 days doubled to £160. With the increase in numbers fined and the cost comes angst from parents, who let's face it, do deserve a break. Now, the situation is set to be debated in Parliament. That's because a petition urging the right for parents to remove kids from school for 10 days has amassed nearly 200,000 signatures. The petition reads: 'We're seeking reform to the punitive policy for term time leave that disproportionately impacts families that are already under immense pressure and criminalises parents that we think are making choices in the best interests of their families. No family should face criminal convictions.' It then adds: 'We are calling for reform of legislation on taking children out of school urgently.' That amount of time, in my opinion, is extreme. It'll also fail to garner sympathy from the generation above who will say: we never had this problem in our day. Although ask many of today's parents and they will definitely remember their own parents taking them out of school on the odd occasion. But growing numbers of families say the cost of a holiday during the summer peak is a problem. I know the pain. With a daughter in year one of primary school, I was braced for pricier holidays – but have been taken aback by just how much more expensive trips are. As someone, who before children would push for a March break and a September one, the difference in cost is astonishing. However, it is a simple case of supply and demand – that's how the world of money and services work. Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has previously vowed to tackle the 'epidemic of school absence'. Some of the problem involves persistent absence, child mental health issues, unofficial home schooling, but a large chunk is linked to holidays. This in turn is connected to schools being shut during the Covid pandemic, with teacher strikes soon after. The former head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, saying the social contract between parents and schools was broken. And in its response to the petition, the Government said: 'We are determined to break down barriers to opportunity by supporting every child to achieve and thrive at school, working with parents and protecting children's right to education. On holidays in particular, we understand that some parents wish to avoid peak periods. 'However, the school year is structured in such a way as to provide plenty of time throughout the year for holidays outside of term-time, and schools also have considerable flexibility to plan term dates themselves, and hold inset days and other occasional days at less busy times of the year.' A recent survey suggested more than half of families are prepared to take child out of school during term time to save money, despite the risk of a fine. Many just absorb any potential fine to the cost of the trip, and still argue they save money. That's certainly the vibe I get from many parents at my daughter's school and from family members and friends. My personal viewpoint is that holidays are vitally important for families to properly bond, have quality time together and also, typically, children learn from them. Not everything is taught in a classroom. That might be picking up some of the local lingo, getting confident in the swimming pool, visiting historical sites, making friendships with other children and even playing games like Uno with plenty of laughter and happiness with parents, who are often juggling work commitments, and don't always give their children every oodle of attention required. So then you might be surprised to learn I refuse to take my daughter out of school during term time. That's because ultimately, I don't think it sets a good example for life; that you can simply take time off when you want. It's also not great for teachers who are then responsible for your child to play catch-up. I do understand though the need for a holiday and not paying over the odds. But there is also an element where parents should take responsibility and plan. For example, we're heading to Centre Parcs this Friday for a long weekend. Have we had to remortgage? No. We saw there were two inset days in the school calendar more than a year ago, and booked at a very good price well in advance at a place where our children can try new experiences and activities. We also set a reminder for when flights to Barbados were available for the October 2025 half-term, booked a hotel on with free cancellation and managed to get the entire trip for the week, in a 4* hotel with interconnecting rooms for £4,000 for four of us a year in advance. That would be nearly double if booked now. Three ideas to fix school holidays It's clear something needs to change to help appease parents, keep headteachers calm and stop the truancy - and I fully understand not all families can afford a £4,000 holiday. Here's three potential options: 1. Give each child two sabbaticals during their primary school life, and two in secondary school. Parents must book it with at least three months' notice and take with them any learning materials from the teacher to keep children them on track. 2. Reduce the summer holidays by a week and let parents bolt it on to October, February or May half-term dates as they see fit. This will help smooth out demand and give parents the option to go away, cheaper, without the guilt and need to manipulate the system. 3. The Government starts a scheme where families are given a free return train ticket to use in any of the breaks from school to anywhere they choose in Britain once a year. This would help boost the UK economy with more people choosing to holiday at home, be greener and give our children more of a flavour of the beautiful spots that are on our doorstep, but have been overlooked for somewhere more exotic because of price. How would you solve the problem of children being taken out of school during term time? Get in touch: editor@
Leader Live
27 minutes ago
- Leader Live
David Lammy heads to US for crisis talks over Israel-Iran conflict
Mr Lammy and US secretary of state Mr Rubio will discuss the situation in the Middle East on Thursday evening. Iran and Israel continued striking each other's territory overnight as the crisis deepened. We currently advise against all travel to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. If you are a British national in Israel or the OPTs, you should register your presence to receive updates ⤵️ — Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (@FCDOGovUK) June 16, 2025 A hospital in southern Israel was hit by a missile, while a heavy water facility in Iran was targeted in the latest blow against Tehran's nuclear programme. Mr Lammy's meeting in Washington comes amid speculation US involvement could require the use of the UK-controlled Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo. But UK Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, something which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Mr Trump decides to act militarily. .@POTUS on dismantling Iran's Fordow nuclear facility: "We're the only ones that have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it — at all." — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 18, 2025 Energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh told Times Radio: 'Legal advice is for the Prime Minister, and I think that's where it will stay and you can understand why I won't comment on that. 'But what I will say is that we have a Prime Minister who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law.' She said Sir Keir Starmer was acting as a 'cool, calm head, to urge all partners around the negotiating table and to find a diplomatic route out of this'. But shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: 'I don't think we can hide behind legal advice at a time of crisis and national security when we have to work alongside our biggest ally in the world, the United States, when they look to us for potentially… setting out operational activities through our own military bases.' She said the Conservative Party would support British involvement in military action against Iran if it was deemed necessary. Iran long has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, but it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% and far in excess of the levels required for power stations. Dame Priti told Good Morning Britain: 'While we want peace in the region, we're crystal clear that Iran should not be able to obtain nuclear weapons. 'And if the Government judges that such action is necessary to avoid that then we would absolutely support the Government if it deemed it necessary to ensure that we can defend our country, our citizens and effectively a lot of our strategic equities in the Middle East region.' She also told the programme that the Government needs to 'step up' support for Britons stranded in Israel after the airspace was closed. 'I think the current Government's response is not sufficient and if families of embassy staff and personnel are being evacuated then I think the same facilities must be extended to our citizens,' she said. The Foreign Office has evacuated family members of embassy staff from Israel based on a specific assessment of the risks they face, but has not advised British nationals. Britons have already been advised against all travel to Israel and those already in the country have been urged to register their presence with the embassy. The UK Government has pointed out that land borders with Jordan and Egypt remain open, and consular teams are in position to provide assistance to British nationals who choose to leave Israel by land. Middle East minister Hamish Falconer said: 'Our first job is to keep British nationals safe, and our dedicated teams in the region are working around the clock to do this. 'We are asking all British nationals in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories to register their presence so that we can share our updates with them and make sure we're giving them the best advice possible.'
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Durham Reform UK councillors reviewing net zero commitments
Durham's Reform UK councillors are reviewing current council net zero policies before making any decisions about their election campaigning, the party told voters it would scrap net zero and energy levies to save households hundreds of pounds per opposition councillor asked the new administration at a recent meeting whether it would continue the previously agreed council ambition to reduce its carbon Karen Allison said efficiencies and savings had been identified and it was also requesting the council "consider the creation of mining production, transportation, and disposal at end of life of renewable technologies". Mark Wilkes, former climate change cabinet member and Liberal Democrat councillor, praised the work of the local authority's low carbon said: "Can cabinet confirm that it is committed to continuing the amazing work of the low carbon team in cutting emissions and improving the environment across County Durham and saving millions of pounds for this council, and indeed doing so much more?"Allison, portfolio holder for neighbourhoods and environment, explained the new administration wished to make an informed decision so it had "an accurate picture" of how successful the work had been."We are currently reviewing the claims of carbon reduction within County Durham, while requesting council consider the creation of mining production, transportation, and disposal at end of life of renewable technologies," she said the party was hoping to announce a decision soon, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS)."We take the environment seriously and are already discussing projects that include forestation, protecting wildlife, and biodiversity, and also how renewable energy technology may impact our local environment, which often gets overlooked," she zero means no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the year, the council - which was ran by a coalition - won an environmental award after cutting its annual carbon footprint by 50,000 tonnes over 15 years. Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
