- 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 'blocking US troop build-up requests'
26 October 2012
A report in The Guardian claims that while no official request for a troop build-up has been made, British officials are already making it clear that the UK would not approve such a move after receiving legal advice from the Attorney General's office.
The Guardian cites diplomatic sources which said that American government had been told that the UK would not allow it to use British bases in Cyprus or launch aircraft from the British overseas territories of Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean. The legal advice reportedly says Iran is not a "clear and present threat" and that supporting any pre-emptive military strike may be illegal
"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," a senior Whitehall source told The Guardian. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans."
Israel is said to have been considering pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in a bid to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons. Iran has insisted its nuclear weapons programme is civilian purposes only, but Israel fears that Iranian nukes could be used on Israeli targets if they were allowed to develop.
Earlier this week Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said that sanctions imposed against the Iranian regime in a bid to end its nuclear ambitions were beginning to work and that the UK sought to avoid military action. There are currently around 2,000 British military personnel, mostly from the Royal Navy, in the Persian Gulf.
The US has reportedly been "surprised" by the resistance, which is from both coalition parties, but Britain is said to be prepared to contribute to military action should it be initiated.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "As we continue to make clear, the government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear issue. We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which military action would be legal. That would depend on the circumstances at the time."
HAVE YOUR SAY
26 October 2012
Cameron is trying to avoid acting like Heath, who wouldn't let US bases be used to resupply Israel in 1973, or Blair, who prepared for the Iraq war even before Bush asked him to participate! At the moment the Heath side is winning. So - it's a bit like the rest of his premiership.
Chris - London
27 October 2012
'.......Britain is said to be prepared to contribute to military should it be initiated'...... ehh, with what exactly?
David McKevitt - USA
27 October 2012
Sometimes regimes respond to the threat of action, and having hardware in place can be a deterrent, so the U.S. should be allowed to deter from her allies bases.
j. cassford - Arundel
27 October 2012
Using Ascension to attack Iran????!!
Someone needs to look at a map.
Diego Garcia and Akrotiri maybe.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
29 October 2012
The Obama adminstration is suprised when a country they have repeated snubbed says "no": What goes around comes around.
Ian Skinner - Enfield
29 October 2012
Are we relying on the Guardian for the inside information on UK/US military strategy these days? I hope not!
Hereman - Wirral, England
29 October 2012
It looks like the UK government is learning from recent history.
It is a pity Blair and Brown did not do so 10 years or so ago.
If by some tragedy Romney ends up in the White House next, it is even more imperative the UK behaves as a candid ally and not the 51st state.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
29 October 2012
If we start to begin troop build up we could be accused of escalating a situation that is at best tense. We could also be accused of having already agreed to attack Iran.
Legally we are not in a position at present to begin build up of forces as no vote to attack has been taken by the UN.
Let the Israels host US troops and weapons rather than use the UK if the US wants to pre position its forces prior to any action
JC - UK
11 November 2012
Considering the way the Obama administration has treated our closest allies; I'm hardly surprised.
Will - USA
11 November 2012
David McKevitt-USA: You're right, most of our soldiers and resources are already helping you boys out in Afghanistan.
Sam - Liverpool
13 November 2012
Sanctions cannot stop Iran's development program for nuclear weapons, and it is abundantly clear that attempts to negotiate with Iran on this issue are a waste of time.
If the government are getting cold feet over an attack on Iran, it might be because they fear the consequences in terms of civil unrest in the UK. It's too bad; they should have thought of that 20, perhaps 30 years ago. Now they, or should I say, we, have to deal with it because the alternative, that of allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and then trusting to the almighty to prevent them using to attack Israel, or to attack European cities in retaliation for US support of Israel, is unacceptable and moreover, crassly stupid.
The question of legality has little relevance to anything at this level. The people who wrote the UN convention were a bunch of lawyers who never missed a meal, never saw a battlefield and never saw the inside of a Nazi concentration camp. The inadequacy of the convention as a basis for international relations is becoming more and more obvious all the time. At the very least, a major revision is necessary.
J. Southworth - University of Hull
22 December 2012
Good.
There's been far too much of the US saying 'jump' and the UK saying 'how high?' in recent years.
The UK should be doing what is in the interests of the UK which is not always the same as what is in the interests of the US.
I thought the US had an empire of bases anyway (around 900) so why don't they use one of them?
Pete - Preston
20 January 2013
The question here is whether abstract issues of legality should have precedence over strategy. The answer to the question is no.
J. Southworth - University of Hull