- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
UK 'sought legal advice on Iran attack'
23 May 2012
The possibility of British involvement was said to have been discussed at last week's meeting of the National Security Council, according to BBC journalist Nick Robinson.
Ministers were said to have been told that any Israeli military action against Iran was likely to lead to wider war in the Middle East and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil supply route which the US and UK have pledged to keep open.
The potential legality of a variety of levels of British involvement is said to be being investigated, with options ranging from "British diplomatic support for Israel through to the possible involvement of the Royal Navy in the region", Robinson wrote.
The government was reportedly drawing up contingency plans for a potential British role in any attack on Iran as far back as November last year, shortly before a damning International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report said that elements of Iran's nuclear programme could only be used to produce nuclear weapons.
The issue hinges on Iran's uranium enrichment activity, which the country insists is for electricity generation and medical purposes. While nuclear reactors require 3 to 4 per cent enriched uranium, Iran's nuclear programme has already produced 20 per cent enriched uranium, still short of the 90 per cent needed for weapons grade, but a cause of concern for western leaders.
The news comes as the first day of talks over Iran's nuclear programme begin in Baghdad between the country's nuclear negotiators and the P5+1 nations, the UK, Russia, China, the USA, France and Germany.
The talks are the second set this year following a meeting in Istanbul in mid-April, and the P5+1 are expected to ask Iran to forego its 20 per cent uranium enrichment activity and allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors into the country.
Kate Hudson, chair of The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: "The consequences of a military attack on Iran would be disastrous not only for that country but for the region as a whole. The lessons of both Iraq and Afghanistan show that there cannot be a military solution to complex regional problems – death and destruction is not the answer. Genuine dialogue and diplomacy on the basis of equality and respect is the only way forward."
Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander said the government should be "focussed on ensuring a successful outcome to the talks now underway" rather than "sabre rattling".
"Now is the time both to be engaging directly with Iran and increasing the diplomatic pressure upon Iran to meet its obligations under the NPT (non-proliferation treaty)."
HAVE YOUR SAY
23 May 2012
The existing weapons states have obligations under the NPT as well - to disarm. In return for which other powers would not acquire them. No sign of them meeting those obligations.
Germany has obligations under the NPT it breaches by supplying (and paying for) submarines Israel uses for it's nuclear weapons.
The US breaks it's own laws by providing Israel with aid in spite of it's nuclear status.
The UK government is complicit in it's silence about Israel's weapons.
It is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to live with this hypocrisy in the long term. Either there has to be moves towards disarmament by the existing powers or we can expect widespead proliferation in the future.
And it would be mad for the UK to get involved in a war whose aim would be to preserve an Israeli monopoly in the middle east. But then, sadly, so was the UK's involvement in Iraq.
Jeremy - Newcastle
23 May 2012
There is an error (spelling mistake) in your sentence containing the phrase "it's nuclear weapons". "it's" is wrong. It should be "its" (no apostrophe). The word is a possessive adjective, third person singular, neuter - not an abbreviation of "it is". This error is repeated twice further down in your text. Where was the writer of this text educated? The comment by "Jeremy - Newcastle" on 23 May repeats this error. So much for education standards in our country!
I support Israel. The Iranian psychopaths should be put in their box. So should Assad in Syria.
Arthur - Holywood, Co. Down
23 May 2012
Arthur - thanks for the spelling lesson. Genuinely worth being picked up on such things. But, apart from calling me uneducated and the Iranians psychopaths, you don't offer anything in the way of an argument or a response?
Jeremy - Newcastle
23 May 2012
Regardless of the picky, insulting attitude of Arthur's message, I actually agree totally with Jeremy's words and the highlighting of the hypocricy of the west.
I do not think the Iranian's to be psychopaths, neither do I see Israel as the good guys. Their not. look what happens to Palestine every day.
I however do agree, despite the blatant hypocricy mentioned, that Iram getting hold of nuclear weapons would not be good at all, and pray the amateurs running this country stay well out of it, unless they want to fund the forces properly so the UK can play its part in the P5.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
23 May 2012
Lets see how sanctions work before we start another war. The Israeli's are less likely to attack Iran now that the new coalition government includes Shaul Mofaz a former chief of staff and opponent of any attack on Iran. That means we have time to let the pressure on Iran work.
Graham - High Wycombe
23 May 2012
Pray tell what role our Royal Navy could play in all of this...we have no ships!
As to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, we don't have to side with or give approval to any Israeli action
The yanks will do everything they can to help Israel without regards to the fact Israel has/had nuclear weapons of their own, Why should we get involved in any attack on Iran by Israel, just where will we get the troops from. They are on the dole now.
JC - UK
23 May 2012
Arthur is a pedant, and he feels compelled to point out other peoples' failings in placing apostrophes. I wonder if he will point out my error in placing a comma before 'and'? Go on, make my day!
While Jeremy - Newcastle may have deficiencies in his grammar, his post is otherwise clear and well argued. I'm with him on this one, any involvement in agression against Iran would be catastrophic for all Western nations. Widespread conflict would quickly erupt thoughout the region and not be limited to Shia v Sunni.
AW Employee - Yeovil