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

‘At least 59 killed’ in Gaza after Israeli military opens fire near aid centre and carries out strikes

Published

2 hours ago

July 12, 2025

admin

'At least 59 killed' in Gaza after Israeli military opens fire near aid centre and carries out strikes

At least 59 Palestinians have reportedly been killed after the Israeli military opened fire near an aid centre in Gaza and carried out strikes across the territory.

The Red Cross, which operates a field hospital in Rafah, said 25 people were “declared dead upon arrival” and “six more died after admittance” following gunfire near an aid distribution centre in the southern Gazan city.

The humanitarian organisation added that it also received 132 patients “suffering from weapon-related injuries” after the incident.

The Red Cross said: “The overwhelming majority of these patients sustained gunshot wounds, and all responsive individuals reported they were attempting to access food distribution sites.”

The organisation said the number of deaths marks the hospital’s “largest influx of fatalities” since it began operations in May last year.

The IDF has said it fired “warning shots” near the aid distribution site but it was “not aware of injured individuals” as a result.

It said in a statement: “Earlier today, several suspects were identified approaching IDF troops operating in the Rafah area, posing a threat to the troops, hundreds of metres from the aid distribution site.

“IDF troops operated in order to prevent the suspects from approaching them and fired warning shots.”

Mother’s despair over shooting

Somia Alshaar told Sky News her 17-year-old son Nasir was shot dead while visiting the aid centre after she told him not to go.

She said: “He went to get us tahini so we could eat.

“He went to get flour. He told me ‘mama, we don’t have tahini. Today I’ll bring you flour. Even if it kills me, I will get you flour’.

“He left the house and didn’t return. They told me at the hospital: your son…’Oh God, oh Lord’.”

Asked where her son was shot, she replied: “In the chest. Yes, in the chest.”

‘A policy of mass murder’

Hassan Omran, a paramedic with Gaza’s ministry of health, told Sky News after the incident that humanitarian aid centres in Gaza are now “centres of mass death”.

Speaking in Khan Younis, he said: “Today, there were more than 150 injuries and more than 20 martyrs at the aid distribution centres… the Israeli occupation deliberately kills and commits genocide. The Israeli occupation is carrying out a policy of mass murder.

“They call people to come get their daily food, and then, when citizens arrive at these centres, they are killed in cold blood.

“All the victims have gunshot wounds to the head and chest, meaning the enemy is committing these crimes deliberately.”

Israel has rejected genocide accusations and denies targeting civilians.

‘Lies being peddled’

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the controversial US and Israeli-backed group which operates the distribution centre near Rafah, said: “Hamas is claiming there was violence at our aid distribution sites today. False.

“Once again, there were no incidents at or in the immediate vicinity of our sites.

“But that’s not stopping some from spreading the lies being peddled by ‘officials’ at the Hamas-controlled Nasser Hospital.”

The Red Cross said its field hospital in Rafah has recorded more than 250 fatalities and treated more than 3,400 “weapon-wounded patients” since new food distribution sites were set up in Gaza on 27 May.

It comes after four children and two women were among at least 13 people who died in Deir al Balah, in central Gaza, after Israeli strikes pounded the area starting late on Friday, officials in Al Aqsa Martyrs hospital in the territory said.

Fifteen others died in Israeli airstrikes in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, according to Nasser Hospital.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has not responded to a request for comment on the reported deaths.

Israeli has been carrying out attacks in Gaza since Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people and took 251 hostages on 7 October 2023.

Hamas still holds 50 hostages, with fewer than half of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children, according to Gaza’s health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count.

US President Donald Trump has said he is closing in on another ceasefire agreement that would see more hostages released and potentially wind down the war.

But after two days of talks this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there were no signs of a breakthrough.

The latest fatalities in Gaza comes as a 20-year-old Palestinian-American man was beaten to death by settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Friday, the Palestinian Health ministry said.

Sayafollah Musallet, also known as Saif, was killed during a confrontation between Palestinians and settlers in Sinjil, north of Ramallah, the ministry said.

A second man, Hussein Al-Shalabi, 23, died after being shot in the chest.

Mr Musallet’s family, from Tampa Florida, has called on the US State Department to lead an “immediate investigation”.

A State Department spokesperson said it was aware of the incident but it had no further comment “out of respect for the privacy of the family and loved ones” of the reported victim.

The Israeli military said the confrontation broke out after Palestinians threw rocks at Israelis, lightly injuring them.

World

Backlash as Air India crash report points to possible human error – here’s what experts think

Published

5 hours ago

July 12, 2025

admin

Backlash as Air India crash report points to possible human error - here's what experts think

As investigators continue to piece together the full picture, early findings of the Air India crash are pointing towards a critical area of concern — the aircraft’s fuel control switches.

The flight, bound for London Gatwick, crashed just moments after taking off from Ahmedabad airport on 12 June, killing all but one of the 242 people on board the plane and at least 19 on the ground.

According to the preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the two engine fuel control switches on the plane were moved from the “RUN” to “CUTOFF” position.

These switches control fuel flow to the engines and should only be used when the aircraft is on ground, first to start the engines before a flight and later to shut them down at the gate.

They are designed so they’re unlikely to be changed accidentally, pointing to possible human error on the Air India flight.

The findings include the final conversation between the pilots and show there was confusion in the cockpit as well.

When one pilot asked the other why he cut off the fuel, he responded to say he did not do so.

Moments later, a Mayday call was made from the cockpit, but the plane could not regain power quickly enough and plummeted to the ground.

Captain Amit Singh, founder of Safety Matters Foundation, an organisation dedicated to aviation safety, told Sky News: “This exchange indicates that the engine shutdowns were uncommanded.

“However, the report does not identify the cause – whether it was crew error, mechanical malfunction, or electronic failure.”

Previous warning of ‘possible fuel switch issue’

“The Boeing 787 uses spring-loaded locking mechanisms on its fuel control switches to prevent accidental movement,” Mr Singh explained.

But a previous bulletin from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “warned that these switches might be installed with the locking feature disengaged,” he said.

This could “make them susceptible to unintended movement due to vibration, contact, or quadrant flex”, he added.

Speaking to Sky News, aviation expert Terry Tozner said: “The take-off was normal, the aircraft rotated at the correct speed left the ground and almost immediately, the cut-off switches were selected to off, one then two.

“But nobody has said with any clarity whether or not the latch mechanisms worked okay on this particular aircraft. So we can only assume that they were in normal working order.”

In India, there has been a backlash over the findings, with some saying the report points to pilot error without much information and almost dismisses the possibility of a mechanical or electric failure.

Indian government responds

India’s civil aviation minister Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu has been quick to respond, saying: “We care for the welfare and the wellbeing of pilots so let’s not jump to any conclusions at this stage, let us wait for the final report.

“I believe we have the most wonderful workforce of pilots and crew in the whole world.”

Both pilots were experienced, with around 19,000 flying hours between them, including more than 9,000 on Boeing 787s.

The report says the aircraft maintenance checks were on schedule and that there are no signs of fuel contamination or a bird strike.

So far, no safety recommendations have been issued to Boeing or General Electric, the engine manufacturers.

Concern over destroyed flight recorder

Mr Singh said “the survivability of the flight recorders also raises concern”.

The plane’s rear flight recorder, designed to withstand impact forces of 3,400 Gs and temperatures of 1,100C for 60 minutes, “was damaged beyond recovery”.

“The Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which deploys automatically when both engines fail and power drops below a threshold, was observed as deployed in CCTV footage when the aircraft was approximately 60ft above ground level,” Mr Singh said.

“This suggests that the dual engine failure likely occurred before the official timestamp of 08:08:42 UTC, implying a possible discrepancy.”

Mr Singh said it was also “of particular note” that the plane’s emergency locator transmitter (ELT) did not send any signal after the crash.

“Was the ELT damaged, unarmed, mis-wired, or malfunctioning?” he said.

The report has generated more questions than answers on topics including human error, power source failures and mechanical or electrical malfunction.

The final report is expected to take a year. Meanwhile, families grapple with the unimaginable loss of loved ones in one of the worst disasters in India’s aviation history.

World

Donald Trump announces 30% tariff on imports from EU

Published

10 hours ago

July 12, 2025

admin

Donald Trump announces 30% tariff on imports from EU

Donald Trump has announced he will impose a 30% tariff on imports from the European Union from 1 August.

The tariffs could make everything from French cheese and Italian leather goods to German electronics and Spanish pharmaceuticals more expensive in the US.

Mr Trump has also imposed a 30% tariff on goods from Mexico, according to a post from his Truth Social account.

Announcing the moves in separate letters on the account, the president said the US trade deficit was a national security threat.

In his letter to the EU, he wrote: “We have had years to discuss our trading relationship with The European Union, and we have concluded we must move away from these long-term, large, and persistent, trade Deficits, engendered by your tariff, and non-Tariff, policies, and trade barriers.

“Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from reciprocal.”

In his letter to Mexico, Mr Trump said he did not think the country had done enough to stop the US from turning into a “narco-trafficking playground”.

The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said today that the EU could adopt “proportionate countermeasures” if the US proceeds with imposing the 30% tariff.

Ms von der Leyen, who heads the EU’s executive arm, said in a statement that the bloc remained ready “to continue working towards an agreement by Aug 1”.

“Few economies in the world match the European Union’s level of openness and adherence to fair trading practices,” she continued.

“We will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required.”

Ms von der Leyen has also said imposing tariffs on EU exports would “disrupt essential transatlantic supply chains”.

Meanwhile, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said on the X social media platform that Mr Trump’s announcement was “very concerning and not the way forward”.

He added: “The European Commission can count on our full support. As the EU we must remain united and resolute in pursuing an outcome with the United States that is mutually beneficial.”

Mexico’s economy ministry said a bilateral working group aims to reach an alternative to the 30% US tariffs before they are due to take effect.

The country was informed by the US that it would receive a letter about the tariffs, the ministry’s statement said, adding that Mexico was negotiating.

Trump’s tariff threats and delays

On his so-called “liberation day” in April, Mr Trump unleashed “reciprocal tariffs” on many of America’s trade partners.

The US president said he was targeting countries with which America has a trade imbalance.

However, since then he’s backed down in a spiralling tit-for-tat tariff face-off with China, and struck a deal with the UK.

The US imposed a 20% tariff on imported goods from the EU in April but it was later paused and the bloc has since been paying a baseline tariff of 10% on goods it exports to the US.

In May, while the US and EU where holding trade negotiations, Mr Trump threated to impose a 50% tariff on the bloc as talks didn’t progress as he would have liked.

However, he later announced he was delaying the imposition of that tariff while negotiations over a trade deal took place.

As of earlier this week, the EU’s executive commission, which handles trade issues for the bloc’s 27-member nations, said its leaders were still hoping to strike a trade deal with the Trump administration.

Without one, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, ranging from beef and auto parts to beer and Boeing airplanes.