Could a hostile state have set fire to the PM's house?

Telegraph

13-05-2025

Of all the possible culprits for the suspected arson attack on Sir Keir Starmer's private home, the least likely perpetrator is a hostile state.
Russia is targeting Britain and every other European member of Nato in a 'grey zone' or 'hybrid' campaign, encompassing actions short of armed conflict. This generally includes disinformation operations and physical sabotage, particularly against any infrastructure linked to Ukraine.
Last year, arsonists burned down a warehouse in London belonging to a Ukrainian business. Two British men admitted to being part of this group; one has pleaded guilty to taking money from a foreign intelligence service.
But Russia's 'grey zone' campaign is not known to have included any attacks on individuals in Britain, at least not since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. So far Russian intelligence appears to have stuck to sabotage and disinformation without climbing any further up the escalatory ladder.
The higher rungs might in theory include targeting high-profile individuals. But firebombing a property linked to the Prime Minister would amount to leaping to the top of the escalatory ladder, skipping every rung in between, making it unlikely that Russia or any other hostile state would have been involved.
In the past, of course, Russian intelligence has targeted individuals in Britain, murdering Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 and trying to kill Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018. The latter incident claimed the life of Dawn Sturgess, a British mother-of-three, who happened to come into contact with the Novichok nerve agent used against Skripal.
But Russia considered both Skripal and Litvinenko to be its own citizens who had betrayed their country by working for British intelligence. Trying to kill them would have been seen in Moscow as justified retribution rather than action against the British state itself.
The same applies to Iranian intelligence, which has also targeted individuals in Britain. But in every known case, these were Iranian dissidents or Iranian journalists critical of the regime. There is no public example of the Iranian state singling out a British politician, let alone one so senior as the Prime Minister.
Identifying two homes and one car linked to Sir Keir would have required planning and sophistication, but this would still have been possible for a well-motivated individual or group.
So while it is not impossible that a foreign state is involved, the finger of suspicion at least initially will probably point towards radical campaigners or activists.