Exactly how UK could be impacted by Trump's Iran attack - including going to war
Britain faces mounting questions about its own role in the rapidly escalating tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States - after US airstrikes shattered three of Iran's nuclear sites
As US airstrikes shattered three of Iran's nuclear sites on Sunday - including the heavily fortified Fordow facility buried beneath a mountain - Britain faces mounting questions about its own role in the rapidly escalating tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States.
While the UK hasn't fired a shot, it is entangled diplomatically, militarily, and strategically - and could find itself drawn in if tensions escalate even further. It comes after Iran 's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said his country "reserves all options" to retaliate and that the US strikes - which he branded "extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal" will have "everlasting consequences". Here's where things stand, and what might come next.
Could the UK be pulled into a war?
The US strike, which President Trump declared a 'spectacular military success,' saw six bunker-busting bombs and submarine-launched missiles used to target nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. It marked a dramatic shift in the long-simmering standoff with Iran - and left allies scrambling to react.
Though Britain wasn't involved in the operation, it was informed of Trump's plan in advance. Responding to the strikes on Sunday, Prime Minister Keir welcomed the setback to Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying said there is a 'risk of escalation' both in the Middle East and 'beyond the region' as he called for a return to diplomacy.
Washington ultimately chose not to request use of the British-controlled Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean in its attack - a move that would have required Starmer's approval for the strikes and, effectively, placed the UK in the conflict.
Attorney General Lord Hermer reportedly advised that UK participation must remain strictly defensive, in line with international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, the Times reports. But should the US ask, the pressure on Britain to stand beside its closest ally could be immense.
How the US attack on Iran affects UK politics
Keir Starmer may be feeling blindsided. Just last week at the G7 summit, he said he didn't think Donald Trump was about to get involved in the conflict. Days later, US airstrikes pounded Iran's nuclear sites.
Now the Prime Minister is being pulled into a fast-moving international crisis - one that risks swallowing up his time and energy. Back home, he's already bracing for a major rebellion over welfare cuts.
Energy prices may surge
If things spiral, British households could feel it in their wallets. Iran has the power to block the Strait of Hormuz - a narrow stretch of water where 20% of the world 's oil and gas flows. If it does, energy prices could surge. That means more pain at the petrol pump and bigger bills for everyone already struggling with the cost of living.
Security services fear UK could be targeted
Iran has long regarded the UK as a legitimate target, and officials are warning that the threat level could rise in response to the latest US strikes. Security services believe that if Iran seeks to retaliate, it may do so indirectly, causing disruption without crossing into open warfare.
MI5 is already said to be on alert for acts of arson or disruption carried out by proxy criminal gangs. In Parliament on Sunday, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds warned the strikes had increased the risk of Iranian-backed terror threats in Britain.
Starmer likely to bolster Britain's military presence in Middle East
More British forces could soon be heading to the region. Last week, as the fighting between Israel and Iran escalated, the UK sent RAF Typhoon jets to provide 'contingency support.' More deployments could follow as the situation worsens - and ministers prepare for the possibility of a long and unpredictable conflict.
What happens next?
For now, Britain is not at war - but it could find itself drawn further in to the ongoing conflict. The UK government is currently working to protect British nationals in the Middle East and harden defences at overseas military sites.
If Trump demands allied support for broader intervention, the UK may need to choose to either align with US military action, risk Iranian retaliation, or stand aside and mediate the diplomatic storm.
In 2003, the UK followed the US into a highly controversial military campaign against Iraq in a quest to rid it of its supposed arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction" - which turned out to have all been destroyed years previously.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
32 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Swinney ‘concerned' about UK being drawn into Middle East conflict
Tensions escalated further over the weekend as the US struck three of Iran's nuclear sites and President Donald Trump floated the idea of 'regime change' in the country following strikes between it and Israel. While Downing Street said on Monday the focus would be on 'diplomacy', a spokesman for Number 10 said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was a 'good thing'. Speaking during a visit to a school in the Springburn area of Glasgow on Monday, John Swinney urged the international community to work to find a resolution. 'I share the concerns of Scots about the events in Iran over the weekend,' he said. 'To wake up to what we woke up to yesterday morning is very, very frightening and alarming and I don't think any of us should underestimate the significance and the severity of the situation that we face.' He added: 'That's why I have made a strong plea for every resource of the international community to be deployed to de-escalate the situation and to get the world to step back from the brink.' Mr Swinney went on to encourage the UK Government to 'put all of their weight' behind diplomatic efforts to stem the conflict. Asked if he was concerned about British involvement in the conflict, he said: 'There's obviously the potential for this to have very wide-ranging implications and they could involve the United Kingdom. 'So of course I'm concerned about that point. 'I think we need to step back, to find a negotiated settlement to the issues that have been raised and to avoid any further escalation, which will simply increase the severity and the significance of the dangers that we all face.'
Glasgow Times
33 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Swinney ‘concerned' about UK being drawn into Middle East conflict
Tensions escalated further over the weekend as the US struck three of Iran's nuclear sites and President Donald Trump floated the idea of 'regime change' in the country following strikes between it and Israel. While Downing Street said on Monday the focus would be on 'diplomacy', a spokesman for Number 10 said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was a 'good thing'. Speaking during a visit to a school in the Springburn area of Glasgow on Monday, John Swinney urged the international community to work to find a resolution. 'I share the concerns of Scots about the events in Iran over the weekend,' he said. 'To wake up to what we woke up to yesterday morning is very, very frightening and alarming and I don't think any of us should underestimate the significance and the severity of the situation that we face.' He added: 'That's why I have made a strong plea for every resource of the international community to be deployed to de-escalate the situation and to get the world to step back from the brink.' Mr Swinney went on to encourage the UK Government to 'put all of their weight' behind diplomatic efforts to stem the conflict. Asked if he was concerned about British involvement in the conflict, he said: 'There's obviously the potential for this to have very wide-ranging implications and they could involve the United Kingdom. 'So of course I'm concerned about that point. 'I think we need to step back, to find a negotiated settlement to the issues that have been raised and to avoid any further escalation, which will simply increase the severity and the significance of the dangers that we all face.'
Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Spectator
Keir Starmer needs a new attorney general
A major plank in the Labour Party's electoral platform last year was its policy of scrupulous obedience to international law. Attorney-General Lord Hermer has repeatedly pushed this view, swearing undying loyalty to everything from pyjama injunctions coming out of Strasbourg to arrest warrants from the Hague. Unfortunately this exercise in legal piety is now coming back to bite the government big-time. It is making it very difficult for Britain to play what cards it has in the new international game of thrones. Most recently think of Midnight Hammer, the US bunker-buster strike on Iran. Britain, normally a keen supporter of the US, was unceremoniously sidelined. We could have offered help through the use of Diego Garcia or RAF Akrotiri as a staging post, or through more clandestine means best not described here. Yet we did not; nor were we asked to. Indeed, there is speculation that our diplomats may have privately told the US not to ask as a refusal might offend. Why? It seems clear that a major reason was our attitude to international law. Hermer had, it seemed, legally advised against the operation after poring over the terms of the UN Charter. Those we have to deal with will simply note us down as being easy pickings However principled and however uplifting to an academic legal expert with an article to write or a conference to address, this safety-first approach is dangerous. Businessmen in private practice look to their lawyers not as father confessors to tell them what they can't do, but as enablers to help them do what they want. So too should nations. If our interests lie in a particular direction, we need to look for ways to further them. Simply giving up when we receive the memo saying 'legal says no' is a road to disaster. True, with Midnight Hammer there is no guarantee we would have been asked to help: indeed the operation was mounted at least partly to let Trump's top brass demonstrate that Uncle Sam could strike where and when he wished without outside aid. But diplomatically, an offer of assistance would have worked wonders: our cold feet on the issue of co-operation will have been noted, and will have the opposite effect. Nor is this the first time. In the Middle East, Israel is the only power worth the name that is democratic, outward-looking and largely supportive of western values. We should be doing our utmost to support it. But we aren't. To appease an International Criminal Court of doubtful impartiality, last October Hermer peremptorily threatened to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he set foot here. And when aircraft operated by Tel Aviv took on Tehran's medieval theocrats earlier this month, we pointedly stood aside and joined the international appeasers' call for de-escalation. Why? Again, partly because of an over-cautious attitude to international law. Yet again, all this is without considering the Chagos debacle. There was ample wiggle-room to obtain a much better deal for Diego Garcia, vital to the security of Britain and the West. But it was thought more important to avoid the possibility of a clash with the International Court of Justice, another court with increasingly anti-Western political leanings, by essentially entering into negotiations with a worryingly pro-Chinese and far-from-incorrupt ex-colonial government with an admission that it held all the legal cards. Why are we doing this? The official line is that Britain needs to set a good example in an increasingly anarchic world; that we will be admired and respected as a result; and that other countries will be more amenable when we complain that our own rights have been infringed. Unfortunately, there is every indication that this is hogwash. Of course, other countries and the UN will on the surface be polite and even praise us for our stand: this is the language of the international diplomatic circuit. But those we have to deal with will simply note us down as being easy pickings who will not take strong steps to preserve our interests if our lawyers say no. If you don't believe this, ask the Mauritians, who, according to the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago, funded a major tax cut on the basis of our government's pusillanimity. Starmer is still feeling his way in the world strategy stakes. Despite having a great deal instinctively in common with Lord Hermer, he is slowly learning that principles adopted in opposition, whether on human rights, international courts or whatever, may have to bend in contact with the hard reality of Britain's interests. To avert the gentle decline of a country shackled by misplaced legalism, he needs a legal adviser who sees himself not as the sea-green incorruptible Robespierre of the International Law Reports tasked with telling the nation what it can't do, but as someone to help it achieve its strategic aims. Say it quietly, but Starmer desperately needs a new attorney general.
