The UK should protect its allies in the Gulf and Middle East - but Israel isn't one of them
For Britain, Israel is mostly a strategic liability – but a very close ally in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Now that Israel is locked in a war with Iran and Britain is rushing to send a handful of RAF jets to the region, that relationship needs careful managing.
The UK cannot afford to offer Israel unnecessary help and suffer reputation guilt by association with its campaign in Gaza – there is plenty for the RAF to do aside from that.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has said that the aircraft may be used to defend the UK's allies – in other words, shoot down Iranian missiles heading to Tel Aviv.
Helping Israel stop the erratic and malevolent Iranian regime from making the A Bomb is smart. Being seen to do so, and protecting Israel against the consequences, is not.
Iran has threatened to attack any US ally that defends Israel. The US has already helped shoot down ballistic missiles fired by Tehran in retaliation for the ongoing, and widespread, Israeli attacks on its air defences, missile systems, military leadership and nuclear programme.
The US has a vast array of military assets very close to Iran that are vulnerable to attack across the Persian (Arabian) Gulf with air force and navy bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman.
As a Nato member, the UK joining the defence of these locations would be good politics and part of the UK's obligations to the alliance under the Article 5 mutual defence agreement.
But Reeves was opaque over what the RAF's handful of aircraft, likely based out of Akrotiri in Cyrus, would be doing.
Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if asked, the chancellor told Sky News' Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in.
'I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.'
Let's be very clear. Israel is prosecuting a campaign against the population of Gaza with the intent, according to Israeli cabinet ministers, to empty the enclave of 2.5 million people. It is simultaneously campaigning on the West Bank, illegally taking land from Palestinians there, setting up colonies, and imposing a system of grand apartheid on the non-Jewish population.
The UK has attracted widespread criticism for its reluctant and tardy criticism of these operations and continues to operate a spy plane over Gaza while supplying small amounts of military equipment to Israel. This is a very bad look, a moral failure that could lead to blowback in the form of violence against the UK.
In April last year, the former head of MI6, Sir Alex Younger, told a Commons committee: 'You cannot pretend that the international environment, our foreign policy or the way in which the west is perceived are not significant drivers of all of this'.
This is obvious. It should be obvious, too, to the British government that the very limited military capacity that the UK has will make no difference at all to the defence of Israel.
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's forces were able to fly 200 planes in their first attacks on Iran this week. There's no way the UK can get that many into the air under any circumstances.
Israel has, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2025, 240 fighter-bombers. The UK has 113. Israel has more attack helicopters (Apaches mostly) 38 vs 31, and the RAF has only nine aerial tankers compared to Israel's 14.
Israel also has the kinds of air defence capabilities that the UK could only dream of; these include the Iron Dome systems, so effective against Hamas missiles. It also has the David's Sling, which has a range of about 185 miles, that can take down short and medium-range missiles like Iron Dome by smashing into them mid-flight.
Meanwhile, its Arrow 2 defence system can hit incoming missiles 30 miles away at very high altitude, while Arrow 3 has a range of 1,500 miles and can shoot down missiles in space.
The UK and US do have a very important listening station in Akrotiri, which is also a busy airfield for planes flying over Gaza, and the whole of the Middle East. It is within range of Iranian missiles and would need defending by the UK's extra jets and other assets.
Iran is likely to try to strangle oil traffic through the Gulf. The UK used to help patrol the region, but the Royal Navy has been steadily reducing its presence there.
Meanwhile, Britain runs the UK Maritime Trade Operations service, which advises shipping in the regions of the Gulf and Red Sea about security threats.
It has stepped up its warnings to shipping in the Gulf and has reported the jamming of navigation systems and ramming attacks by small, unknown vessels, before Israel's sorties against Tehran. These operations are clearly ongoing rehearsals and training by Iranian forces.
So, there is plenty for Britain to do without suffering the reputational damage of helping Israel with military aid it hardly needs right now. It's geopolitical dirty linen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
My day with Spanish anti-tourist activists giving Britons a soaking
Not long after we set off from near Gaudí's house, we came across our first target: a Louis Vuitton store. After one activist climbed a ladder to deliver a political speech, protesters, including a child, began spraying the store front. One scribbled 'Free Palestine' on the wall before a red smoke bomb engulfed us all. This was supposed to be an anti-tourism protest in Barcelona, one of many co-ordinated across southern Europe on Sunday. I had joined for the day to witness what it was like to be on the other side and see the sweeping pushback against over-tourism through the lens of locals. After making a short political stand, the Assembly for Tourism Degrowth moved on, with the tourist magnet of the Sagrada Familia church in our sights. I was now armed with a water pistol I'd been given by a figurehead in the group, Daniel Pardo, who was leading us past the Generator Hostel. Two young women slapped 'Tourists Go Home' stickers on the windows. Mr Pardo, seeing a window of opportunity, ordered the demonstration to stop. Next thing I knew, water guns were trained on the hostel entrance. For the tourists inside, it was initially amusing. Then came the tape. Activists began crossing the front entrance repeatedly, symbolically 'barring' entry with red-and-white ribbon. It was too much for one hostel employee, who stormed out shouting in frustration. Protesters sprayed him with their water pistols as he tore through the tape, grabbed one of the guns, and returned fire. A brief scuffle broke out, with pushing and shoving, before he was eventually pulled back inside. Moments later, another activist emerged from the crowd and picked up where the soaking had left off. He kicked a smoke bomb into the hostel, where horrified tourists – including children – looked on. The group moved on again, this time towards their biggest prize: the Sagrada Familia, a symbolic target for the protesters given it is visited by five million tourists every year. Police blocked their path and even officers were caught by the odd squirt from water guns. After a 30-minute stand-off, the group was allowed to proceed to within sight, but not within reach, of the famous basilica. On the way, protesters targeted outdoor restaurant tables. Gabriel and Rachel, tourists from Los Angeles, were among those caught in the crossfire. While Gabriel sat over his soggy avocado lunch, he told me that it was annoying but insisted it wouldn't stop him returning to Barcelona. At this point, I should make it clear I did not fire my water gun. Many protesters insist their fight isn't with the tourists themselves, but with the political and economic model that they say allows mass tourism to overwhelm their city. Rents in Barcelona have soared and neighbourhoods once filled with families are now dominated by short-term lets, particularly Airbnbs. Not only this but many local shops have vanished, replaced by souvenir stalls and endless Turkish cafes, particularly around areas such as La Rambla and Poblenou. Residents say elderly neighbours are struggling to afford food and bills while landlords and corporations cash in. 'We have a big problem with housing in Barcelona. Some people are lucky just to eat or turn on the lights,' said Francisca García, who joined the protest. For groups like hers, tourism is not just a nuisance but a form of 'economic colonisation,' where quality of life is sacrificed for the comfort of short-term visitors. Their goal, they insist, is not better tourism but less of it. That may be true for most activists but their actions sometimes blur the line. The most common chant that echoed throughout the day was: 'Tourists go home, refugees welcome.' Message may be getting through At one point, a protester shouted into a microphone that Gaudí built the Sagrada Familia for locals, not tourists who leave it looking like a 'shit-tip'. At the end of the protest, when the Assembly read out its manifesto, the language veered towards conspiracy, accusing authorities of 'brutal gentrification' and 'population replacement'. 'For more than two decades, we have seen a large part of the neighbourhood being evicted and practically its entire old town demolished, in a savage attempt to replace its population,' the manifesto reads. Their message, however messy, may be getting through. Barcelona's mayor has announced plans to ban all short-term tourist rentals by 2029. More than 10,000 flats are currently licensed for tourists, and the city hopes to return many of these to locals. 'We are confronting what we believe is Barcelona's largest problem,' said mayor Jaume Collboni. The movement is no longer a fringe concern, with protests also taking place across southern Europe on Sunday in Madrid, Palma, Venice and Lisbon. Tourists are undoubtedly starting to take notice – it's becoming harder to ignore. Even away from the protests, my hotel made a point of proudly advertising its commitment to 'sustainable tourism' in the room, as though it were a key part of its appeal. Sander and Luke Dingle, visiting from Florida, told me their hotel had posted warnings about the protest but they weren't deterred. 'We'll keep travelling around Spain, we're going to Madrid in a few days and we'll probably come back to Europe next year,' they said. Indeed, tourism in Barcelona is still booming. More than 11.7 million tourists visited the city in 2024, a 5 per cent increase on the previous year. The Spanish government in recent days has also approved a €3.2 billion expansion of the city's airport, indicating there will be no sign of the industry slowing down. It seems inevitable that tourism will continue to thrive in Barcelona but if today is anything to go by, the activists won't be letting up. Visitors might just have to pack an extra waterproof next to their factor 50.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Civil servants handed ‘dangerous' power to spy on public's bank records
Civil servants will be given 'dangerous' powers to access the public's bank accounts under Government plans branded a 'snoopers' charter'. Privacy campaigners and peers have raised concerns about the legislation, which would give mid-ranking officials powers that are usually reserved for police investigators. The new fraud Bill will allow civil servants to ask banks to provide personal information about a person's account without a court order, and extract funds if they 'reasonably believe' that money is owed to the taxpayer. They will also be given the power to ask for a search and entry warrant and to freeze bank accounts, in one of the most significant transfers of enforcement powers to non-police officials on record. Ministers say the rules will help the Cabinet Office crack down on public sector fraud, but opponents believe that they are an unacceptable breach of civil liberty. 'Chilling effect on freedom' The proposals follow warnings about similar action against suspected benefit cheats by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), as well as a plan for HMRC to gain access to more financial information about taxpayers. Members of the House of Lords have raised concerns about the 'shocking' level of power that will be given to unelected civil servants, which they warn could have a chilling effect on freedom. The legislation, which is currently under review in the Lords, does not require officials to seek permission from a minister before requesting access to a bank account. The powers given to the Cabinet Office can be wielded by any anti-fraud official with a civil service rank above 'higher executive officer' – a Whitehall middle manager. It will apply to members of the new Public Sector Fraud Authority, a new government body designed to crack down on criminal fraud against public bodies after the Covid-19 pandemic. The organisation will be brought in by other government departments to deal with cases of public sector fraud, which costs the taxpayer billions of pounds each year. The idea was first suggested by the previous Conservative government, after one of Boris Johnson's ministers resigned over how fraud was handled by government departments. But Labour ministers have decided to increase the power of civil service investigators. The new body will have powers far beyond most ordinary civil service enforcement teams, and will not operate with an independent chairman. Banks would be 'agents of the state' Big Brother Watch, the civil liberties campaign group, told The Telegraph that the 'dangerous new bank spying powers' would 'effectively turn banks into agents of the state, tasked with spying on everyone's bank accounts and reporting back to the Government'. Lord Vaux, a crossbench peer, has told colleagues that the measures would give severe police powers to 'relatively junior civil servants in the Cabinet Office'. Speaking last month, he said: 'If handing police powers to civil servants was not chilling enough, here are powers that facilitate the state raiding bank accounts.' Peers have put forward amendments to the Bill that would increase the level of accountability in the new system, including requiring banks to inform individuals whose accounts have been accessed, and would make officials accountable to Parliament when the powers are used. No duty to inform customers As it stands, the legislation would prevent a bank from telling its customers if the Government has asked to see what is in their account. A user might only become aware of what had happened when their account was frozen, or money disappeared. Baroness Finn, who has opposed the Bill in the House of Lords, said it would give civil servants police powers 'without public record or the consent of Parliament'. She said: 'We have heard a great deal about the importance of tackling fraud, but powers alone do not constitute a policy. What matters is how these powers are used, by whom and under what form of oversight.' Similar concerns were raised after the Spring Statement, when consultation documents revealed that HMRC could be given powers to demand more personal information from banks about their savers. This could include National Insurance numbers, which would make it easier for HMRC to match taxpayers to the money in their savings accounts. A DWP spokesman said: 'We are bringing forward the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation, as part of wider plans that will save £9.6 billion by 2030. 'It is right that we modernise our approach to catching fraudsters and identifying overpayments at the earliest stage. All the powers in the Bill are underpinned by a principle of fairness and proportionality and do not involve mass surveillance of people's bank accounts. 'We are absolutely clear we will not tolerate any waste as we protect taxpayers' money, ensuring people get the money they are entitled to, and we invest in our public services as part of our Plan for Change.'
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Putin and Xi will be panicking over Iran
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be following the conflict in the Middle East with deep concern as the Iranian regime appears increasingly frail. Both countries have publicly spoken in support of Iran by strongly condemning Israel for its attack that has so far killed top personnel, and hit defence systems, military targets and nuclear enrichment sites. As Iran is weakened, both China and Russia lose a key partner that shares an interest to rage against what they see as US hegemony in the region. Russia loses yet another portal through which it could attempt to regain supremacy in the Middle East, following the December fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria, where it used to have a robust military presence. 'They do share disdain for Western values and systems,' said Tuvia Gering, a China and Middle East specialist at Israel's Institute of National Security Studies. 'They also learn from each other and share technologies on how to suppress their own populations.' But as tensions escalate, the partnership with Iran is 'increasingly turning into a liability'. One area where Russia is not worried about is a continued supply of Iranian drones, which have been key in its war on Ukraine, noted Nicole Grajewski, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who specialises in Russia and Iran. Drone factories set up in Russia are capable of producing independently without Iranian support – as many as 2,700 a month. But the most pressing issue is a mutual concern that Iran will use heightened tensions as a pretext to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and race toward building a weapon – something Tehran had previously already threatened. China and Russia both have nuclear weapons, and as is the case with all countries holding such firepower in their arsenal, neither are particularly keen to see Iran develop its own. It would mean less control over Iran, as the latter would be far less dependent on the fearsome dragon and bear. China, as the biggest customer of Iranian oil products, will suffer from Israel's attacks on Iranian oil and gas facilities. Beijing imports as much as two million barrels of oil a day from Iran, which accounts for a significant portion of its energy needs. If conflict escalates and Iran attacks the US military presence in the UAE and Saudi Arabia – also key energy suppliers to China – then the latter could see further disruption to its energy supply. 'It's an energy security risk,' said Mr Gering. 'For a country already suffering under the strain of an economic downturn and a trade war [with the US], it's not an ideal scenario.' Long-term sanctions on Iran make it a poor trade partner, which means China won't benefit as much on infrastructure investment projects, and Russia won't have a buyer for defence materials. There is a scenario where, once the dust settles, both could 'increase their arms exports, but Iran doesn't have the capital to pay for this, so it would probably be barter', said Ms Grajewski. A weak Iran isn't beneficial, as 'both China and Russia have a preference for these stable authoritarian regimes with similar outlooks on the international system'. On the surface, Iran's partners are acting as expected, but behind the scenes, a flurry of activity reflects deepening worries about the current situation spiralling out of control. Russia, for instance, called for an emergency meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog's board to be held Monday morning to discuss the impact of Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Putin has held calls with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Pezeshkian, the Iranian president, and Donald Trump, going so far as to offer to mediate. Xi has come out to say, 'Israel must be stopped.' China, too, has engaged both sides, with Wang Yi, ther foreign minister, speaking with his Iranian and Israeli counterparts. Russia was not as diplomatically active in the last round of Israel-Iran strikes in October 2024. This 'might be because the Kremlin views this as more of a situation that's uncontrollable', said Ms Grajewski. There may be 'concerns about this spilling over, also the destabilisation of Iran and its interest in the region, could be one of the rationales behind the outreach'. Beijing is gritting its teeth in the event of regime change – as there was in Afghanistan and Syria in recent years – so that they can 'make nice with whoever is left to rule', said Mr Gering.
