As the military conflict between Israel and Iran entered its third day, Sir Keir Starmer called for “de-escalation”, which is a noble and sensible objective. But it can be little more than a diplomatic holding position. With neither side anything like ready to heed such appeals, and casualties mounting in both countries, the fear must be that the trajectory lies in the opposite direction, which presents the government with a new dilemma, to add to the many it currently faces at home as well as abroad: how far, if at all, should the UK become involved in what could escalate into a wider Middle East war?
Thus far, it would seem that beyond the relatively small presence of British troops already in the region, the UK’s involvement is limited to the dispatch of additional fast jets and mid-air refuelling planes, as disclosed by the prime minister on his way to the G7 summit in Canada. He described this as a “contingency”, intended – it has to be assumed, although he did not spell it out – to facilitate a response, should Iran mount an attack on UK interests. This was a possibility specifically broached by Iran in the event of a third country, such as the UK, moving to reinforce Israel militarily.
Such a threat must be taken seriously and prepared for, although equally, it must be hoped that the situation does not arise. The UK had earlier taken the precaution of directly denying a Russian claim that its bases in Cyprus had been used to support Israeli strikes against Iran, although, with reporters, Starmer left open the question of when, or whether, the UK had advance knowledge of those strikes.
Even without an Iranian attack on UK interests, however, the pressure for more UK involvement – direct or indirect – is likely to grow. This is an exceptionally fast-moving conflict that has erupted within days into what is effectively a state-on-state war after months when Israel acted mostly against Iran’s proxies in the region, such as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, rather than against Iran itself. It would also seem to have demolished all hope of an international agreement being reached with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions.
The UK remains a longstanding ally of Israel, and this has not changed substantially, even as the UK has sought increasingly to condemn the death and destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza following the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. True, the government has upped its criticism, especially against blocks on humanitarian aid to Gaza; it suspended some arms export licences for Israel, voted differently from the United States in some UN votes condemning Israel, and recently sanctioned two far-right members of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet, but UK condemnation has had its limits.
It is possible that the US will increase its direct support for Israel, and that the UK could follow suit as part of efforts to remain close to Washington. Barely six weeks ago, British planes took part alongside US forces in a joint raid on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
One small, but hopeful, sign so far is that the government appears to be making efforts to maintain contacts on both sides. The foreign secretary, David Lammy, spoke to his Iranian opposite number on the morning after Israel’s first strikes, in a conversation where he was reported to have urged “restraint” and “calm” after what he called Israel’s “unilateral act”. The longer the UK can keep channels open with Iran, the better.
As for any direct intervention in the conflict, this must be a matter for parliament. Some MPs will remember the salutary experience of David Cameron when he unexpectedly lost the vote on intervening in Syria on the side of rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad. That defeat, which also discouraged others from taking part, arguably saved the UK and others from another debacle on the scale of Iraq.
The experience of Iraq and Libya should also stand as a warning, as some voices in Israel and the Iranian diaspora suggest that regime change should be the objective of the current military action. The region as a whole is plagued with more than enough violence as it is.
In almost every respect, Kananaskis in the Canadian Rockies, where the G7 leaders are meeting, is about as far from the current turmoil in the Middle East as it is possible to be. It must be hoped that distance offers the necessary clarity to make calls for regional de-escalation a realistic proposition and, with it, a return to the talks that would be a preferable way of reining in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
For that to happen, the US, the UK and other parties must be prepared to exercise all the leverage they have. It is a slender hope, but one that must be worth hanging on to, given that every alternative would surely be worse.
