The UK government’s top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel’s actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government.
The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer’s thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK’s potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.
If the attorney general deems Israel’s actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general’s concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict “unless our personnel are targeted”.
US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily.
Image: Members of the Israeli special forces check the remains of a suspected ballistic missile in northern Israel.
Pic: Reuters
This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow.
These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran.
More on Iran
Related Topics:
The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland.
Under a long-standing convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations.
The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes.
Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Israel’s justification
Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an “imminent” and “existential” threat to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country’s own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel.
They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been “less than satisfactory” in “a number of respects” on its international compliance over its nuclear activities.
It is not clear what aspect of Israel’s justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over.
The Attorney General’s Office has told Sky News: “By long-standing convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed.
“The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice.”
The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
34:31
Michael Clarke and Dominic Waghorn answer your questions about the Israel-Iran conflict
In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran.
The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024.
But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders.
The UN’s nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA’s general conference has said “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.
Israel believes that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target.
It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons.
Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use.
Image: The site of an Iranian missile attack on Israel. Pic: Reuters
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel’s use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law.
Interpretations of International Law
Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks.
The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats.
The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent.
The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred.
Image: An oil storage facility after it appeared to have been struck by an Israeli missile in Tehran. Pic: AP
That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad.
The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of “imminent”.
The concepts of “proportionality”, “necessity” and “imminence” are key considerations.
International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the “proportionality” test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear.
But whether there was the “necessity” to attack Iran at this point is more questionable.
The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the ‘imminence’ of the Iranian threat against Israel – and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was “imminent” – as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve.
In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction – a claim that turned out to be wrong.
The then-attorney general’s advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair’s decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq.
Turkey has urged the US to take action after accusing Israel of violating the Gaza ceasefire deal.
The country’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Washington and its allies should consider sanctions and halting arms sales to put pressure on Israel to abide by the agreement.
Turkey, a NATO member, joined ceasefire negotiations as a mediator, and increased its role following a meeting between Mr Erdogan and Donald Trump at the White House last month.
“The Hamas side is abiding by the ceasefire. In fact, it is openly stating its commitment to this. Israel, meanwhile, is continuing to violate the ceasefire,” Mr Erdogan told reporters.
“The international community, namely the United States, must do more to ensure Israel’s full compliance to the ceasefire and agreement,” he said.
Mr Erdogan was also asked about comments from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who hinted that he would be opposed to any peacekeeping role for Turkish security forces in the Gaza Strip.
The Turkish president said talks on the issue were still underway, adding: “As this is a multi-faceted issue, there are comprehensive negotiations. We are ready to provide Gaza any form of support on this issue.”
Israel has accused Hamas of breaching the truce and previously said its recent military action in Gaza was designed to uphold the agreement.
Relations between former allies Israel and Turkey hit new lows during the Gaza war, with Ankara accusing Mr Netanyahu’s government of committing genocide, an allegation Israel has repeatedly denied.
Image: A rally in support of Palestinians in Istanbul. Pic: Reuters
Speaking during a visit to Israel on Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that a planned international security force for Gaza would have to be made up of “countries that Israel’s comfortable with,” but declined to comment specifically on Turkey’s involvement.
Around 200 US troops are working alongside the Israeli military and delegations from other countries, planning the stabilisation and reconstruction of Gaza.
The US is seeking support from other allies, namely Gulf Arab nations, to build an international security force to be deployed to Gaza and train a Palestinian security force.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
Rubio warns against West Bank annexation
Mr Rubio said many nations had expressed interest, but decisions had yet to be made about the rules of engagement. He added that countries need to know what they were signing up for.
“Under what authority are they going to be operating? Who’s going to be in charge? What is their job?” said Mr Rubio.
The secretary of state also reiterated his earlier warning to Israel not to annex the occupied West Bank, land that Palestinians want for part of an independent state.
A bill applying Israeli law to the West Bank won preliminary approval from Israel’s parliament on Wednesday.
Image: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with US military personnel in Israel. Pic: Reuters
“We don’t think it’s going to happen”, Mr Rubio said, adding that annexation “would also threaten this whole process”.
“If [annexation] were to happen, a lot of the countries that are involved in working on this probably aren’t going to want to be involved in this anymore. It’s a threat to the peace process and everybody knows it”, he added.
The US has announced it is sending an aircraft carrier to the waters off South America as it ramps up an operation to target alleged drug smuggling boats.
The Pentagon said in a statement that the USS Gerald R Ford would be deployed to the region to “bolster US capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States homeland and our security in the Western Hemisphere”.
The vessel is the US Navy’s largest aircraft carrier. It is currently deployed in the Mediterranean alongside three destroyers, and the group are expected to take around one week to make the journey.
There are already eight US Navy ships in the central and South American region, along with a nuclear-powered submarine, adding up to about 6,000 sailors and marines, according to officials.
It came as the US secretary of war claimed that six “narco-terrorists” had been killed in a strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea overnight.
Image: A still from footage purporting to show the boat seconds before the airstrike, posted by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on X
Pete Hegseth said his military had bombed a vessel which he claimed was operated by Tren de Aragua – a Venezuelan gang designated a terror group by Washington in February.
Writing on X, he claimed that the boat was involved in “illicit narcotics smuggling” and was transiting along a “known narco-trafficking route” when it was struck during the night.
All six men on board the boat, which was in international waters, were killed and no US forces were harmed, he said.
Ten vessels have now been bombed in recent weeks, killing more than 40 people.
Mr Hegseth added: “If you are a narco-terrorist smuggling drugs in our hemisphere, we will treat you like we treat al Qaeda. Day or NIGHT, we will map your networks, track your people, hunt you down, and kill you.”
While he did not provide any evidence that the vessel was carrying drugs, he did share a 20-second video that appeared to show a boat being hit by a projectile before exploding.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:32
Footage of a previous US strike on a suspected drugs boat earlier this week
Speaking during a White House press conference last week, Donald Trump argued that the campaign would help tackle the US’s opioid crisis.
“Every boat that we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives. So every time you see a boat, and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough’. It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people,” he said.
On Thursday, appearing at a press conference with Mr Hegseth, Mr Trump said that it was necessary to kill the alleged smugglers, because if they were arrested they would only return to transport drugs “again and again and again”.
“They don’t fear that, they have no fear,” he told reporters.
The attacks at sea would soon be followed by operations on land against drug smuggling cartels, Mr Trump claimed.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
“We’re going to kill them,” he added. “They’re going to be, like, dead.”
Some Democratic politicians have expressed concerns that the strikes risk dragging the US into a war with Venezuela because of their proximity to the South American country’s coast.
Others have condemned the attacks as extrajudicial killings that would not stand up in a court of law.
Jim Himes, a member of the House of Representatives, told CBS News earlier this month: “They are illegal killings because the notion that the United States – and this is what the administration says is their justification – is involved in an armed conflict with any drug dealers, any Venezuelan drug dealers, is ludicrous.”
He claimed that Congress had been told “nothing” about who was on the boats and how they were identified as a threat.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:02
What happened at ‘coalition of the willing’ meeting?
European allies were quick to follow that lead. And some countries that have been trading Russian oil appear spooked enough to start backing away from doing so.
But analysts are warning against overstating the impact of all this.
Alexander Kolyandr, senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, told Sky News that sanctions won’t be enough on their own.
“There should be an understanding that sanctions alone would not force Putin to stop the war,” he said.
“So Ukraine should get more arms, Ukraine should get more support, and Ukraine should get more guarantees.”
Image: The aftermath of a Russian airstrike in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Pic: Reuters
There appears to have been progress on sending more long-range weapons to Ukraine.
It needs them to neutralise the threat of drones launched from miles behind Russia‘s border.
And possibly towards unfreezing Russia assets to use the proceeds to help fund the Ukrainian war effort, though some nations still oppose the idea.
But this week has seen an unusual level of alignment between the allies on both sides of the Atlantic. That will last as long as Trump does not change his mind.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Sanctions are ‘unfriendly act’
The US president wants to broker an end to the war.
Putin will not be serious about negotiating for peace as long as he thinks he has a chance of victory.
“Putin and the Kremlin are pretty much sure that they are winning the war,” Mr Kolyandr told Sky News, “and that if they keep on pushing, Ukraine might collapse.
“And that’s why I don’t think that President Putin is ready to agree to any kind of compromise which would be acceptable for Ukraine or its European allies.”
It may take a lot more than sanctions on a handful of oil companies to persuade Putin it is not in his interest to continue this war.