Keir Starmer has issued his strongest rebuke yet of Donald Trump\u2019s action in Iran, saying the UK did not believe in \u201cregime change from the skies\u201d.<\/p>\n
The prime minister said the UK would not join offensive strikes by Israel and the US on Iran<\/a>, but defended his decision late on Sunday to permit the US to conduct defensive strikes on Iranian missile sites from RAF bases, saying that was \u201cthe best way to protect British interests and British lives\u201d.<\/p>\n As MPs urged Starmer not to allow the UK to be dragged further into the conflict, Starmer suggested he had qualms about the US action and plans in place for the aftermath of the strikes.<\/p>\n \u201cWe all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis, and a viable thought-through plan,\u201d he said. \u201cThat is the principle that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend.\u201d<\/p>\n He said he would not risk the lives of British military personnel unless an operation had a \u201cproper lawful basis\u201d.<\/p>\n The US president said on Monday he was \u201cvery disappointed\u201d in Starmer<\/a> for blocking him from using two British bases to carry out strikes on Iran, adding: \u201cIt sounds like he was worried about the legality.\u201d<\/p>\n Speaking in the Commons, Starmer said the UK was deploying planes and allowing the use of bases for defensive purposes because of Iran launching strikes on the UK\u2019s allies in the region in its retaliation.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is clear that Iran\u2019s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored,\u201d Starmer said. \u201cThe basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law.\u201d<\/p>\n He said the RAF had intercepted an Iranian drone strike heading for a coalition base in Iraq where UK forces were stationed. Two drones were also fired at the British base in Cyprus<\/a>, RAF Akrotiri. Starmer said they were launched before Sunday\u2019s night\u2019s statement on the US use of UK bases.<\/p>\n The defence secretary, John Healey, said the damage was minimal but that the UK was moving families who lived at RAF Akrotiri to alternative temporary accommodation in Cyprus. The base is not being used to launch US strikes.<\/p>\n A Cypriot news agency reported the damage to the airbase was caused by small low-flying drones launched by Hezbollah<\/a>, an Iranian proxy group from Lebanon \u2013 but the UK Ministry of Defence did not formally confirm that.<\/p>\n Starmer had not previously expressed explicit opposition to Saturday\u2019s initial wave of US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country\u2019s supreme leader, and other senior Iranian leaders.<\/p>\n Iran has since launched a wave of retaliatory missile and drone attacks on a range of targets in the Gulf and the Middle East, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman.<\/p>\n The UK is expected to allow the US to use RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands to bomb Iran\u2019s \u201cmissile cities\u201d, sites where high-speed ballistic missiles, Iran\u2019s most dangerous weapons, are stored and can be launched from.<\/p>\n The hits would require the use of US heavy bombers using so-called bunker-buster munitions, with the British bases preferred by the US air force because they are closer to Iran than the US itself.<\/p>\n The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, said Starmer was using the cover of international law to justify his weak position \u2013 and accused him of making a U-turn after the scale of Iran\u2019s retaliation became clear.<\/p>\n \u201cToday, the president of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the prime minister publicly, saying he took far too long to grant access,\u201d she said. \u201cWe are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law. But I\u2019m afraid that explanation simply does not hold. International law<\/a> didn\u2019t prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on.\u201d<\/p>\n