‘Please don't ask': why the US kept the UK out of the raids on Iran's nuclear sites
The US did not ask to use UK airbases to support its overnight bombing of Iran because that would have required British ministers to take a view on the legality of the attack, according to a former government adviser.
Lord Ricketts, a former UK national security chief, said he believed the US concluded it was better not to ask to launch B-2 bombers from the RAF base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean than to be told no.
'Either the Americans worked it out, or were privately told please don't ask, because it would raise fundamental questions about our taking part,' Ricketts said. 'The US has a different view on international law than the UK does.'
On Sunday morning, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, said that 'no request was made' by the US for help in the bombing. No British airbases or any other military assets were involved in Operation Midnight Hammer, ministers added.
The prime minister, Keir Starmer, said the UK had been 'given due notice' of President Donald Trump's intention to bomb Iran, though it is unclear how far in advance this may have been of the bombing raid that took place just before midnight UK time. Officials said notification occurred 'shortly before' the US strikes were launched.
In the past, Britain has been eager to act as the US's principal military ally in the Middle East, most notably in 2003 when the UK participated in the controversial ground invasion of Iraq when Tony Blair, then the prime minister, sought to work closely with former president George W Bush.
But on this occasion the UK has largely acted as a bystander and has not always appeared to read the ultimate intentions of the US president, who is notoriously unpredictable.
Last Tuesday at the G7 summit in Banff, Canada from which Trump departed early because of the Iran crisis, Starmer said there was 'nothing the president said that suggests that he's about to get involved in this conflict', having sat next to him at dinner the previous evening. Those present said that the prime minister seemed confident, even unequivocal in his analysis of the situation.
After the summit, reports circulated that the government's most senior lawyer, Richard Hermer, was unconvinced that any UK military involvement in attacking Iran would be legal. One official who had seen Hermer's legal advice told the Spectator 'the AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies'.
B-2 bombers frequently use the RAF base at Diego Garcia, which is a shorter flight over water to Iran but, as is the case with the use of all UK bases by the US air force, it would require British permission. Similar authorisation would be needed for the US to use RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus for refuelling, though that too was not sought.
A graphic released by the Pentagon showed seven B-2 bombers flying from their home base at Whiteman, Missouri across the Atlantic and avoiding passing over European countries by flying over the strait of Gibraltar and through the Mediterranean before going on to Iran via Israel, Jordan and Iraq, a flight path of more than 8,000 miles.
Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, said on Sunday morning that 'no other country on planet Earth' could have conducted the bombing raid on Iran, which he later emphasised 'was US operated and US led'. Only assistance from Israel was acknowledged by Gen Dan Caine, the US chair of the joint chiefs of staff, in the former of prior attacks to degrade Iranian air defences.
Under international law, a country is allowed to fight in self-defence and the prevailing view is that pre-emptive military strikes are legal if it is believed an incoming military threat is imminent – though the US argues the right of self-defence applies broadly against any illegal use of force against itself or its allies.
In justifying the bombing raid on Sunday, Hegseth did not mention the question of imminence. He said: 'The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear programme and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel.'
'I think to a certain degree the UK government will be relieved' that the US did not ask for help, said Matthew Savill, a former civil servant now with the Royal United Services Institute thinktank. But he cautioned that, despite that, the UK 'could get sucked into the regional blowback' in the form of attacks by Iran or its proxies.
On Sunday, UK defence officials said that additional steps had been taken to protect British forces in the Middle East after the US bombing. Force protection at sites such as Akrotiri in Cyprus – where at least 14 Typhoon fighters are stationed – and naval bases in Oman and Bahrain were at the 'highest level,' the defence secretary, John Healey, said.
Starmer called for restraint in the response to US strikes on Iran, warning of the possibility of escalation beyond the Middle East. The prime minister spoke to the king of Jordan and the sultan of Oman and called for talks that would end the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme.
'It is important that we now de-escalate the situation, stabilise the region and get the parties back around the table to negotiate,' he told broadcasters on Sunday morning. 'I'm very clear in my own mind that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon that is the greatest threat to stability in the region.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
What's in the latest version of Trump's big bill now before the Senate?
At some 940-pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Now it's up to Congress to decide whether President Donald Trump 's signature's domestic policy package will become law. Trump told Republicans, who hold majority power in the House and Senate, to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Senators were working through the weekend to pass the bill and send it back to the House for a final vote. Democrats are united against it. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. There could be changes as lawmakers negotiate. Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new tax breaks that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, which would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Middle-income taxpayers would see a tax break of $500 to $1,500, the CBO said. The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. The homeland security secretary would have a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. The attorney general would have $3.5 billion for a similar fund, known as Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden. To help pay for it all, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program´s work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. Some 80 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. All told, the CBO estimates that under the House-passed bill, at least 10.9 million more people would go without health coverage and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps. The Senate proposes a $25 billion Rural Hospital Transformation Fund to help offset reduced Medicaid dollars. It's a new addition, intended to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that the proposed Medicaid provider tax cuts would hurt rural hospitals. Both the House and Senate bills propose a dramatic rollback of the Biden-era green energy tax breaks for electric vehicles. They also would phase out or terminate the various production and investment tax credits companies use to stand up wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. In total, cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs would be expected to produce at least $1.5 trillion in savings. A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The House and Senate both have a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump´s long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments, restrictions on the development of artificial intelligence and blocks on transgender surgeries. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars money to family planning providers, namely Planned Parenthood, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for exploration to Mars. The bill would deter states from regulating artificial intelligence by linking certain federal AI infrastructure money to maintaining a freeze. Seventeen Republican governors asked GOP leaders to drop the provision. Also, the interior secretary would be directed to sell certain Bureau of Land Management acreage to provide for housing. The sale of public lands would cover at least 600,000 acres and up to 1.2 million acres, according to a projection from the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group. Altogether, keeping the existing tax breaks and adding the new ones is expected to cost $3.8 trillion over the decade, the CBO says in its analysis of the House bill. An analysis of the Senate draft is pending. The CBO estimates the House-passed package would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the Senate GOP view, the tax provisions cost $441 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats and others say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the Senate tally at $4.2 trillion over the decade.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
SNP's ‘student politicians' snub submarine welding centre
Sir Keir Starmer's government is expected to step in to fund an ambitious defence facility on the Clyde after the SNP's 'student union' politicians refused grant funding on ideological grounds. A £2.5 million grant from Scottish Enterprise, the national economic development agency, for a submarine welding centre was withheld due to a party ban on 'munitions' funding. Rolls-Royce, which is ready to support the project by providing £11 million worth of specialist equipment, expressed 'dismay' at the news last week. It said the project had been classified as a 'munitions' scheme solely on the basis that it would 'support the construction of naval vessels'. • SNP ban on 'munitions' funds puts Scottish shipbuilding on the line In a letter seen by The Times, Steve Carlier, president of submarines at Rolls-Royce, warned John Swinney, the first minister, that the project 'cannot continue' without the public funding and was at risk of being formally cancelled within days. The funding, which Scottish Enterprise said had not been formally applied for, is believed to have been rejected as the Scottish government's definition of 'weapons or ammunition' would include a 'military submarine', rather than directly relating to any arms. Rolls-Royce has disputed that it is a 'munitions' company. All UK military submarines are powered by nuclear propulsion, regardless of whether or not they have the capacity to carry nuclear weapons, and Rolls-Royce technology is not used for firing warheads. John Healey, the UK defence secretary, told The Sunday Show, on BBC1 that he could 'hardly believe' a Scottish nationalist government would stand in the way of skills development in Scotland. He said: 'We have a long-term partnership with Rolls-Royce who are central to some of the military equipment that keep us all safe. Rolls-Royce want to set up a new welding skills centre, not just to support its munitions business but also to support Scotland's shipyards [to offer] essential skills, new opportunities for young people. 'If the Scottish SNP government won't step up to support skills and the future of jobs in Scotland then we will. It really strikes me as student union politics. This is not a serious government concerned about the opportunities for young people in the future or the skills base for Scotland, or indeed the industry and innovation for the future.' The SNP also has an ambition to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons, which are based at Faslane naval base on the Clyde. Healey added: 'This is a deterrent that for over 70 years has been our guarantor of security in the UK. It is what Putin fears most and the UK is the only country that commits its nuclear deterrent in full to the defence of our Nato allies. Strong deterrence is required and vital to keep people safe in the future.' • Most Scots want to keep UK's nuclear deterrent, poll shows Britain is also engaged in highly sensitive talks to purchase fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons, in a major expansion of the deterrent intended to counter the growing threat posed by Russia. The move would represent the biggest development in the UK's deterrent since the Cold War and a recognition that the world has entered a more dangerous nuclear era. Healey would not reveal where the new fighters would be based but the prospect of nuclear-armed jets being deployed from RAF Lossiemouth, or on manoeuvres at the air force's ancillary training and support bases in Scotland, will incense the SNP and its core anti-nuclear supporters. Mairi Gougeon, the Scottish rural affairs secretary, told the BBC that the welding centre was never eligible for funding thanks to the 'long-standing' policy of the SNP government. She said: 'I think the key difference here between ourselves and the UK government is that when we have principles, we stick to them.' Gougeon said Scottish ministers 'completely understand' the 'really unprecedented threats' the UK faced on the world stage and confirmed the SNP supported the increased defence spending announced by the prime minister. She added: 'That doesn't mean that we can't also still maintain the policy positions that we've had for quite a long time and have been long standing within our party, that we don't support the use of public finance for the manufacture of munitions and neither do we support that for nuclear weapons.' A Scottish government spokesman said: 'We are committed to ensuring Scotland is the home of manufacturing innovation, but the Scottish government's long-standing policy position is that it does not use public money to support the manufacture of munitions. 'We recognise the important role of the aerospace, defence, security and space sectors in the Scottish economy and we regularly engage with a range of companies, alongside ADS Scotland as the industry body. 'We are investing up to £2 million to develop engineering skills in the Glasgow city region, designed by the Clyde Maritime Cluster in partnership with Skills Development Scotland. 'The Scottish government has yet to see the detail of the Defence Spending Review, but we remain firmly opposed to the threat, use and basing of nuclear weapons as a deterrent in Scotland.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
A rise in defence spending will kick-start the industrial future
The decision at the Nato summit this week to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 is a seismic shift for all of us and will have massive implications for the budgets of every government department over the next decade. When we consider in the high levels of debt and tax, this raises fundamental questions for government in allocating resources at a time when the growth of tax receipts is constrained by the paucity of economic growth. Right across western Europe the challenge caused by the financial crisis of 2008 led to a step change in the long-term trajectory of financial growth. Put simply we have come up short. The challenge for us is how we strengthen the economy in the midst of the challenges we face? A failure to move the needle on this will result in living standards continuing to be squeezed and the impossibility of funding the growth of defence spending, resulting in painful cuts elsewhere. • Ageing and sick population will lead to £16bn annual tax rise Events have conspired to leverage massive costs on to the public purse: Covid, the cost of living crisis, largely as a knock-on effect of the Ukrainian conflict, have led to levels of fiscal debt typically only seen at times of war. Time of war is an apt phrase as politicians and wider society have a growing realisation that times have changed. Global instability and the threat of war is very real. Though in these islands we have excellence in many aspects of our armed forces, to a large extent our military capability has been hollowed out. The need to enhance defence capability and at pace is stark. There is now a race to invest and if we take last year's defence spending of £53.9 billion as our base, we are going to have to find by 2035 an extra £60 billion plus a year to invest in defence. Where is this to come from? Starmer's government are for now, silent on the source of the majority of this funding. Difficult choices are going to have to be made. • SNP ban on 'munitions' funds puts Scottish shipbuilding on the line Short of a sustained increase in economic growth there is going to be a squeeze elsewhere on spending. Austerity will be a price to be paid as a consequence of having to invest in our national security. Investment in defence, though, can be a lever and transformative in itself in generating economic growth. With the increase in defence spending requiring £60 billion-plus, it is beyond doubt that we need to make sure that Scotland gets its fair share, and I know the Scottish government will be standing up for Scotland's interest in making it happen. There is a long history of the SNP doing just that. From Nicola Sturgeon making the case for shipbuilding jobs at Govan and numerous MPs making the case for defence spending in Scotland, most notably Angus Robertson and Stewart MacDonald, who championed the industry and in particular defended Scotland's historic regiments — a campaign led by Annabelle Ewing. It is therefore of no surprise — and consistent with the long-term position of the SNP — to read John Swinney being quoted in The Times this week that he had no objections if a company came to Scotland to set up a munitions factory, while making the point that the Russian threat is very real. We speak of our support for Ukraine. We speak of their right to defend their sovereignty. There is a need to replenish munitions in support of the defence of Ukraine. In doing this, though, there are red lines and that means munitions supplied in the needs of strategic defence interests and never in situations such as Gaza where civilians are targeted. Indeed, the SNP website makes the point that 'defence manufacturing infrastructure in Scotland is fundamental to our national engineering and manufacturing sector'. Today in Scotland we have excellence in aerospace, defence, security and space. The challenge is leveraging in investment and accelerating economic growth that is critical to our financial security as a consequence of the need to invest in our national security. ADS, the umbrella body for the industry, points out that the sector today employs 33,500 workers and delivers a value added of £3.2 billion, with an output per worker of £95,000. These figures make it self-evident that there is an economic prize in attracting defence investment into Scotland. We all want high growth, high wage, high productivity Scotland. A society that drives investment in skills and innovation. Think for a minute of our industrial past and leading-edge electrical engineering businesses such as Ferranti, (now Leonardo). Scotland is at the forefront of innovation in both defence and in civil applications. We need to re-engineer to capture that pioneering spirit, not just for defence capabilities but to use that opportunity as a lever through defence diversification to create a broader and deeper industrial and advanced manufacturing base. John Swinney is right to demonstrate that Scotland is open for investment. An increase in defence spending is coming. We should seize the opportunities out of this to kick-start investment in advanced manufacturing through, among other things, utilising our world-class academic base to develop the technologies and businesses for the future. Investment in defence, will kick-start the delivery of an industrial future for Scotland. Ian Blackford was the SNP leader in the House of Commons from 2017 to 2022, and an MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber from 2015 to 2024.
