UK attorney general ‘has questions’ on legality of Israel’s actions in Iran

Published

3 weeks ago

June 19, 2025

admin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

World

IDF chief says conditions ‘created’ for Gaza ceasefire – as Trump says it could be ‘this week or next’

Published

16 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

IDF chief says conditions 'created' for Gaza ceasefire - as Trump says it could be 'this week or next'

Donald Trump and a leading figure in the Israeli army have suggested a ceasefire in Gaza could be close.

Eyal Zamir, chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), told Israeli media that “conditions were created to advance a deal” to bring about an end to the conflict in the coastal territory, and the release of hostages.

In a televised address, he said: “We have achieved many significant results, we have caused great damage to the governance and military capabilities of Hamas.

“Thanks to the operational power that we have demonstrated, the conditions have been created to advance a deal to release the hostages.”

‘This week, or next’

It comes as the US president hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington DC on a prolonged visit this week.

Mr Trump said his meetings with Mr Netanyahu were focused “on Gaza for the most part”.

He said: “I think we have a chance [of a ceasefire] this week, or next week.”

However, the US leader added: “Not definitely,” saying nothing was certain about the situation in Gaza.

Hamas reiterates ‘keenness’ to end fighting

Meanwhile, Hamas has repeated its message that it is committed to the negotiations but warned of a number of sticking points despite the positive noises from senior Israeli figures.

In a statement, the militant group said: “In its keenness to succeed in the ongoing efforts, the movement [Hamas] has shown the necessary flexibility and agreed to release 10 prisoners.

“The key points remain under negotiation, foremost among them: the flow of aid, the withdrawal of the occupation from the territories of the Gaza Strip, and the provision of real guarantees for a permanent ceasefire.”

Mr Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff previously told a cabinet meeting that the anticipated ceasefire would last 60 days and involve the release of ten hostages and nine bodies.

A source close to the negotiations told Sky News that the hostage release would take place in two waves during the 60 days and was conditional on the ceasefire.

Israeli strikes continue

It comes as Israeli attacks on Gaza continue.

According to hospital officials, at least 40 Palestinians were killed in the latest attacks on Gaza – including 10 people from the same family.

Nasser Hospital in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis said the dead included 17 women and 10 children.

World

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

1 day ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

World

Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

Published

1 day ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Trump applying 'heavy pressure' on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

US President Donald Trump is putting “heavy” pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza, two sources close to the ceasefire negotiations have told Sky News.

One US source said: “The US pressure on Israel has begun, and tonight it will be heavy.”

The source, who is not authorised to speak publicly, was referring to the White House dinner on Monday night between Trump and Netanyahu.

A second Middle Eastern diplomatic source agreed that the American pressure on Israel would be intense.

Netanyahu arrived in Washington DC in the early hours of Monday morning and held meetings on Monday with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser.

The Israeli prime minister plans to be in Washington until Thursday with meetings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Trump has made clear his desire to bring the Gaza conflict to an end.

However, he has never articulated how a lasting peace, which would satisfy both the Israelis and Palestinians, could be achieved.

His varying comments about ownership of Gaza, moving Palestinians out of the territory and permanent resettlement, have presented a confusing policy.

Situation for Palestinians worse than ever

Over the coming days, we will see the extent to which Trump demands that Netanyahu accepts the current Gaza ceasefire deal, even if it falls short of Israel’s war aims – the elimination of Hamas.

The strategic objective to permanently remove Hamas seems always to have been impossible. Hamas as an entity was the extreme consequence of the Israeli occupation.

The Palestinians’ challenge has not gone away, and the situation for Palestinians now is worse than it has ever been in Gaza and also the West Bank. It is not clear how Trump plans to square that circle.

Trump’s oft-repeated desire to “stop the killing” is sincere. Those close to him often emphasise this. He is also looking to cement his legacy as a peacemaker. He genuinely craves the Nobel Peace Prize.

In this context, the complexities of conflicts – in Ukraine or Gaza – are often of secondary importance to the president.

If Netanyahu can be persuaded to end the war, what would he need?

The hostages back – for sure. That would require agreement from Hamas. They would only agree to this if they have guarantees on Gaza’s future and their own future. More circles to square.

Was White House dinner a key moment?

The Monday night dinner could have been a key moment for the Middle East. Two powerful men in the Blue Room of the White House, deciding the direction of the region.

Will it be seen as the moment the region was remoulded? But to whose benefit?

Trump is a dealmaker with an eye on the prize. But Netanyahu is a political master; they don’t call him “the magician” for nothing.

Trump makes decisions instinctively. He can shift position quickly and often listens to the last person in the room. Right now – that person is Netanyahu.

Gaza is one part of a jigsaw of challenges, which could become opportunities.

Diplomatic normalisation between Israel and the Arab world is a prize for Trump and could genuinely secure him the Nobel Peace Prize.

But without the Gaza piece, the jigsaw is incomplete.