At every level of the British diplomatic machine, the focus after Saturday night’s Iranian attack on Israel is now to do whatever possible to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East.
The message from the UK government is twofold.
First, that it stands with Israel and backs its right to self-defence – after all, this terrifying attack without precedent would trigger a heavy response anywhere else around the world.
At the same time, they do not want to see subsequent moves that then create an out-of-control spiral.
This is broadly the view of much of the G7, reflected in the statements after the leaders’ call on Sunday afternoon.
The US – and to a certain degree Britain – helped with the operation on Saturday night and is so supportive in public to Israel right now precisely so that it might have a hope of a degree of influence on what comes next.
More on Israel-hamas War
Related Topics:
They are all looking nervously at what Israel does next in order to respond to the attack – hoping that occasional Israeli talk of a “significant retaliation” does not play out.
Asked what a better and a worse outcome would look like, one UK source involved in discussions said: “The best case is that Israel doesn’t strike anything inside Iran – maybe goes after proxies in Syria or Yemen.
Advertisement
“The worst case is they take on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”
There is no certainty at this moment what path the Israelis will go down.
To try and encourage them to go down the former, less aggressive path, there are some who will try and draw a line between the 1 April Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, which killed members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
The fact this was a consulate building on foreign soil and allies like the US were not warned in advance was seen as huge provocation to Iran, which argues Saturday night’s attack is a response to that.
The Politics at Jack and Sam’s podcast reveals worries in Whitehall that Israel may reject any attempts to convince them that Iran’s actions were a proportionate response.
There are fears that by sending hundreds of drones towards Israel, Iran may have been attempting to “map” the operational capacity of the defence shield known as the Iron Dome.
They fear the mass attack now means Iran has a much better understanding of the manner in which the drones and other missiles were taken out by Israeli systems – where its strengths lie and where its vulnerabilities may be.
If Israel feels weaker and more vulnerable as a result of the nature of the attack, that may boost those in the Israeli war cabinet pushing for a tougher response, and to focus their resources in Iran rather than Hamas in Gaza, where they have been struggling to make progress in recent weeks.
The success of the Iron Dome protection system, along with allies’ efforts to down the drones and missiles before they could damage Israel, has prevented a very different outcome.
“If I’d woken up this morning to pictures of civilian destruction and death, the response of the whole world would be very different,” said one UK figure involved, acknowledging the knife edge events are turning on.
One question now is how British politics will respond.
The Tories and Labour have adopted similar language so far, conscious just how treacherous the Middle East has proved ever since the October attack and neither is keen to misstep at the start of this new phase.
The government is looking at additional sanctions on Iran, and Labour has already signalled they would back this.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Lord Cameron will lead the diplomacy, although he returns from a US trip that saw mixed success – which included a meeting with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, but also a failure to see Jake Sullivan the national security advisor as had been expected.
The reality is much of the diplomacy will see the UK in the slipstream of the US, meaning that relationship is more crucial than ever.
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.