In warning against British involvement in any confrontation with Iran, former Nato deputy commander Sir Richard Shirreff argued that the United States is no longer a “reliable” ally. Whatever one’s view of the US, the more salient point is that Iran remains a “reliable” enemy. That reality should frame the debate over what is, in practice, being asked of Britain.
Washington is not seeking a large-scale British combat role. It is asking for access to bases and support in keeping open the Strait of Hormuz – a vital artery for global energy supplies and thus a matter of British national interest. The question, then, is not whether America, which is still underwriting Western security, can be trusted, but whether Britain can afford to ignore the threat.
The timing of Sir Richard’s intervention is also curious. It follows reports that Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia, the joint UK-US base in the Indian Ocean. At roughly 4,000 kilometres from Iran, the attack suggests that most of Europe, and crucially London, are now within the regime’s expanding reach, as Israeli officials have warned.
The government, though, appears alarmingly sanguine. Steve Reed, a cabinet minister, noted that one missile failed and the other was intercepted, concluding that Britain possesses “perfectly adequate resources” to keep itself safe. This risks mistaking good fortune for sound strategy. A policy premised on continued Iranian technical failures and successful interception – in this instance by that purportedly unreliable American ally – hardly constitutes robust defence planning.
Consider, by contrast, the assessment of Nato’s Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has warned that while Iran may not yet possess full intercontinental ballistic missile capability, it is “very close”. A regime combining long-range missiles with nuclear ambitions would pose, in his words, “a direct threat, an existential threat, to Israel, to the region, to Europe, to the stability of the world”.
It is worth remembering that Iran has long called not just for the death of the US and Israel but for that of Britain too. The lesson should be clear. Wishful thinking, or waiting for a threat to mature fully before responding, is not prudence; it is negligence. The Islamic Republic is not merely a regional threat. It is pursuing intercontinental missile capability that serves no purpose against Israel or the Gulf states but would put Europe, the UK and the US within its reach. It also sustains a network of terror proxies and operatives extending far beyond the Middle East.
The danger is neither theoretical nor merely rhetorical as the rising tempo of Iranian-linked terror plots on British soil attests. Yet Britain remains largely reactive – downplaying the missile threat while hoping to be right every time in foiling deadly Iranian terror plots on its streets. A more serious approach would mean going on the offensive by proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as key allies have already done, and equipping its own security services with the tools they need.
Even for those who opposed the current US-Israeli campaign, once military action has begun, Britain’s interest lies in its success – materially degrading the regime’s capabilities. UK support – through basing, logistics and safeguarding maritime routes – is neither escalation nor a “favour” to its principal ally. It is, rather, an exercise in self-interest.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.