Lammy Sparks Confusion Over Legality Of RAF Jets Striking Iran

David Lammy has caused significant confusion after claiming RAF jets could legally strike at Iranian missile sites if they were considering attacking British targets.

The deputy prime minister and justice secretary was trying to outline the government’s stance over the Iran war on Friday morning.

It comes after the US and Israel initiated joint strikes on Iran last weekend, killing the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio said this was a “pre-emptive” attack.

The UK has made it clear it is not part of any offensive action against Iran.

However, the government has permitted the US to use its military bases to launch defensive, limited strikes against Iran.

Britain is also sending forces to Cyprus after an Iranian drone strike targeted a sovereign UK base for the RAF on the island.

As the conflict threatens to engulf other nations, wider questions are being asked over just how far Britain would go to protect its interests.

Speaking to broadcasters on Friday, Lammy – who is also the former foreign secretary – tried to define what the government meant by “defensive action”.

While admitting it is “absolutely” related to intercepting drones, the cabinet minister told BBC Breakfast: “It’s important that I don’t get drawn into operational detail.

“There’s a fundamental basis on which we do this, and that is it is legal.

“Defensive action where we are being attacked, it is entirely legal to protect our people and protect our staff.

“Therefore all operational capabilities available to us in those circumstances.”

Presenter Naga Munchetty said: “So the UK could attack Iranian missile sites from our bases?”

Lammy replied: “I’m not here to act as a lawyer but I think your viewers would understand that in response to being attacked, yes we can take down sites that are anticipating attacking our people across the region.”

“The UK would fire at an Iranian missile base on the suspicion that it was about to fire at us?” Munchetty asked.

Lammy said: “You will recognise that we have satellite capability, we have intelligence capability, working with our allies…”

The presenter cut in: “It’s about the anticipation – so they wouldn’t have to fire. We could fire at an Iranian missile base because we anticipate that it will fire against us?”

“It is my understanding that that would be legal,” he replied.

The prime minister’s spokesperson later told reporters that this was not a U-turn in the UK’s position.

He referred to the legal advice published by the government and said defence secretary John Healey had made it clear the focus was on “defensive action”.

When asked if that meant Britain could strike at sites in Iran which have the capability to hit British targets, the spokesperson said: “We have consistently said that we’ll take the necessary steps to prevent future strikes… as we’ve set out over the course of the week, [that] is allowing the US to take out those missiles at source whilst we are defending the skies.

“And that is a consistent position that we have conveyed throughout the week.”

Lammy’s words have also sparked concern among opposition parties.

Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said: “The deputy prime minister is sliding down the slippery slope to full conflict by backing direct UK strikes on military positions in Iran.

“We need an urgent clarification from number 10 on whether this is a change in Britain’s position on involvement in Trump’s illegal war.

“Another Labour government cannot be allowed to pull the wool over the public’s eyes as it follows America into an overseas war with unclear goals.”

Miller added: “British citizens caught up in the conflict, including our brave troops, have to be protected. Any offensive action must be approved by a vote in Parliament. The Prime Minister committed to this.

“We must not copy Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal approach to war in the Middle East.”