A Servile U.S. Ally Offering Its Bases for Bombing: Britain’s Role in the Assault on Iran

In every war the U.S. enters, Britain follows closely behind, sending its jets, troops, and airbases, even when it has no direct stake, as seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran.

Though the UK hasn’t officially declared involvement in the wars on Gaza or Iran, British media have exposed its covert role—deploying spy and strike aircraft, and joining attacks on the Houthis in Yemen.

Britain has also supplied components for the F-35 jets used by “Israel” to bomb Iran, according to Declassified.

While the UK is far from a central player in the Israeli war on Iran, U.S. and British sources confirm its involvement in strikes on Tehran—just as it did in past U.S.-led wars.

This participation continues despite legal warnings. UK Attorney General Richard Hermer cautioned Prime Minister Keir Starmer that joining America’s war on Iran would be “unlawful.”

At a COBRA security committee meeting on June 19, 2025, Hermer stressed that any military action beyond defending allies from direct attack could expose Britain to serious legal and political risks, lacking the required legitimacy.

Arms for ‘Israel’

One of the most controversial roles the UK plays in the current Israeli aggression on Iran is supplying “Israel” with aircraft parts, weapons, and ammunition—assistance critics say is enabling alleged war crimes in Gaza and Iran.

This has sparked repeated protests across Britain, with activists storming the premises of arms companies accused of fueling Israeli Occupation crimes.

Shipping documents reviewed by Declassified and The Ditch reveal that in May 2025, components for fighter jets were flown from London Stansted Airport to “Israel.” The parts, originally shipped by U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin—primary contractor for the F-35 program—were then transported to Nevatim Airbase, home to “Israel’s” F-35 fleet.

According to both investigative outlets, between October 2023 and August 2024, F-35 parts were sent directly to “Israel” from a British airbase on at least 14 separate occasions.

British ministers have defended the shipments, claiming halting all F-35 exports to “Israel” would threaten international peace and security. They argue that “Israel” needs the advanced jets to “defend itself” against Iran.

The UK’s Department for Business and Trade also contends that once UK-made parts enter global supply chains, tracking them or halting their arrival in “Israel” becomes impossible. But the documentation reviewed suggests otherwise—pointing to clearly traceable shipments moving through British territory.

Despite export restrictions imposed in September 2024, Britain appears to have continued facilitating these transfers—raising serious questions about ministerial accountability.

“Any decision by the UK authorities to permit the transfer of parts to Israel through a UK airport risks deepening ministers’ exposure to criminal prosecution,” Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), told Declassified.

“They say themselves that there is a ‘clear risk’ that Israel is going to use F-35s to commit serious violations of international law, which are war crimes. They should urgently confirm that any further transfers are prohibited.”

Further fueling the controversy, Irish outlet The Ditch reported on June 9, 2025, that a UK-based company shipped more than 1,000 boxes of British-made ammunition to “Israel” using specialized arms containers routed through Israeli ports.

Joining the Gamble

According to British media reports, the UK’s involvement in the Israeli war on Iran currently centers on intelligence support and weapons transfers, including surveillance aircraft and advanced military equipment.

Yet deeper participation appears increasingly likely. In 2024, Declassified revealed that Britain had been expanding a spy base near Iran, upgrading facilities tied to its signals intelligence agency in the Middle East—moves seen as preparations for a potential war on Tehran.

Satellite imagery taken before Israeli Occupation’s June 2025 attacks on Iran showed heavy construction underway at a British intelligence post in Oman, a key ally.

Now, with U.S. President Donald Trump openly signaling his intent to attack Iran—a move that materialized on June 22—both British and American sources suggest London’s role may escalate to direct military involvement, including deploying fighter jets and opening UK airbases to American forces.

On June 20, 2025, the BBC asked: “If Donald Trump decides to commit US forces to help Israel eliminate Iran's nuclear programme then what role will the UK be asked to play?”

The broadcaster highlighted several ways Britain could become entangled, including granting the U.S. access to its airbase on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, home to American B-2 bombers.

Should the UK authorize U.S. “operations” from Diego Garcia, Iran could retaliate by targeting British assets—something Iranian officials have repeatedly warned. That could include launching ballistic missiles at the RAF’s Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus, according to reports in the British press.

The scenario recalls Britain’s participation in previous U.S.-led wars—in Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003—raising fears that history may be repeating itself.

Britain’s Military Bases

Owing to its imperial legacy, the United Kingdom maintains a global network of military bases—many of which are now intertwined with U.S. “operations,” especially in the Middle East and Indian Ocean. These bases, while technically under British sovereignty, often host American forces and equipment, playing a strategic role in Washington’s global military posture.

The most significant among them is Diego Garcia, a remote tropical island in the Indian Ocean. Despite its small size, the base holds massive strategic value. It is jointly operated by the UK and the U.S., and located roughly 3,700 kilometers from Iran—making it a prime launch point for U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers in the event of an attack on Tehran.

As the BBC reported, the U.S. cannot use Diego Garcia for such “missions” without explicit permission from the UK, placing London in a position of indirect influence over American military plans.

In the Mediterranean, Britain also retains two key bases on the island of Cyprus. One of them, RAF Akrotiri, currently hosts Royal Air Force Typhoon jets reportedly on standby for a potential strike on Iran. The other is a signals intelligence listening post atop Mount Ayios Nikolaos—known as Ay Nik—which is part of Britain’s Sovereign Base Areas on the island.

Cyprus has long served as a staging ground for British rapid deployment forces, such as the Spearhead Battalion, ready to respond to emergencies across the Middle East.

In the Persian Gulf, the UK Royal Navy plays a quieter but crucial role in securing maritime routes, particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz. This responsibility traces back to the so-called Tanker War of the 1980s, when mines were laid during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Back then, the British Navy launched Armilla Patrols, and today, its minehunters remain stationed in Bahrain under the command of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet—though British officials admit the vessels are nearing the end of their operational lifespan.

Despite the growing regional tension, British officials have ruled out deploying combat troops to Iran in support of a potential Trump-led military venture. As The Guardian reported on June 19, 2025, London’s involvement appears to be limited to logistical permissions—namely, authorizing U.S. stealth bombers to take off from Diego Garcia. Still, even this support places Britain within the broader architecture of a war it publicly claims to be distancing itself from.

The Cost of Intervention

Britain’s role in the Israeli war on Iran is raising fundamental questions: Why does the UK consistently follow the U.S. into foreign wars? What interests are being served? And is this about clinging to the legacy of a lost empire—or a desperate attempt to project global power?

According to Geraint Hughes, Reader in Diplomatic and Military History, King's College London, the stakes are high if Donald Trump drags the U.S. into a full-scale war with Iran. In an article published by The Conversation on June 19, 2025, Hughes argues that the real dilemma for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government isn’t whether Britain can support such a war—but whether it should.

After the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the damning findings of the Chilcot Inquiry, it is politically and morally difficult for any UK government to justify joining another major war without strong parliamentary backing and clear legal grounds. The Chilcot report concluded that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat and that Britain’s war aims were poorly defined, ultimately discrediting the rationale for military action.

Ironically, Starmer himself was a vocal critic of the Iraq war and is well aware of the legal sensitivities involved in supporting U.S. strikes against Iran. In recent years, it has become standard practice—though not a legal requirement—for prime ministers to seek parliamentary approval for major military operations. In 2013, David Cameron famously lost a Commons vote to authorize airstrikes against the Assad regime in Syria, though he later secured approval in 2015 to join the fight against ISIS.

Given the widespread criticism within the Labour Party of “Israeli tactics” in Gaza and the mounting civilian casualties, a similar vote today on military action against Iran would likely face strong resistance.

Hughes also highlighted the paradox of Britain remaining America’s closest intelligence and defense partner, even as Trump publicly abandons traditional European alliances. The U.S. president has questioned NATO’s relevance and signaled that defending Europe is no longer a priority for U.S. national security.

In this context, Trump may be using pressure over NATO commitments—particularly the Article 5 mutual defense clause—as leverage to compel Britain and other European allies to support Israeli Occupation’s war on Iran. If so, Britain’s involvement risks becoming a transactional gesture, exchanged for American security guarantees it once took for granted.