By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US president has recently attacked an agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and lease back the Diego Garcia base, calling it “a big mistake.” This reversal of previous support is reportedly linked to the UK’s refusal to permit the use of Diego Garcia or RAF Fairford for a potential military campaign against Iran, citing concerns over international law. Despite this, the UK government insists the deal is crucial for national security and will proceed with legislation.
Read the original article here
It appears that the United Kingdom is taking a firm stance, refusing to allow former President Trump to utilize Royal Air Force (RAF) bases for any potential military operations against Iran. This decision, if accurate, signals a significant divergence in approach and highlights a desire to avoid entanglement in a conflict that the UK seemingly wishes to steer clear of.
The reasoning behind this refusal seems multi-faceted, with a primary concern being the risk of direct retaliation. The idea is that by denying access to UK bases, the UK would insulate itself from becoming a target for Iranian aggression. This is a pragmatic concern, especially when considering potential retaliatory strikes on facilities like the joint US-UK bomber base at Diego Garcia, which would be critical in any regional conflict. The prospect of Iranian missiles hitting bases in Cyprus, or Iranian terror cells becoming active on mainland UK soil, are also evidently serious considerations.
Furthermore, the UK’s position could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to deter the Trump administration from initiating another war. This isn’t necessarily about defending Iran’s actions, as many acknowledge Iran’s problematic role in funding terrorism, destabilizing the Middle East, and suppressing its own population. Instead, it appears to be a strategic decision to prevent a potentially destabilizing conflict from erupting, a sentiment echoed by the comparison to Italy’s stance during the bombing of Libya in the 1980s.
It’s also important to note that the necessity of using UK bases for such an operation is being questioned. Reports suggest that the US possesses considerable existing infrastructure and naval assets in the Middle East, including carrier groups and air bases in Kuwait, which would make operations directly from European soil logistically unnecessary. The movement of US Air Force aircraft through UK bases has been observed, but this is often interpreted as logistical support or transit rather than direct staging for an attack.
The UK’s stance also seems to be rooted in a concern over international law, with the government reportedly citing potential breaches as a reason for their refusal. This suggests a careful consideration of legal ramifications, which might not be as readily prioritized by the US under a Trump administration. The mention of the Budapest Memorandum and Iran’s support for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, however, suggests a potential avenue for justifying intervention in some circles, even if the UK is choosing not to endorse it.
There’s also a broader sentiment that the US can and will act regardless of UK assistance. The argument is that if the US is determined to strike Iran, they have ample resources and alternative bases available. The UK’s refusal, therefore, becomes a statement of its own policy and a desire to maintain a degree of separation from a conflict it believes it can avoid.
The discourse around this issue is often intertwined with opinions on Trump himself. While some express strong negative views of him, framing him as a threat who would “let the world burn” to save himself, others attempt to separate the action from the individual, suggesting that a strike on Iran might be considered even under a different US presidency, given Iran’s actions.
However, the core of the UK’s reported decision appears to be about self-preservation and a strategic choice to avoid escalation. It’s about not wanting to be seen as complicit in a war that could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences. The UK is not necessarily defending the Iranian regime but is demonstrating a reluctance to be drawn into a conflict, especially when the US has other options available.
Ultimately, the UK’s refusal to allow Trump to use its RAF bases for an attack on Iran seems to be a calculated move rooted in a desire to avoid direct entanglement, potential retaliation, and to uphold a particular interpretation of international law, all while recognizing that the US possesses alternative means to project force in the region. It represents a clear signal of boundaries being set, even within the context of a long-standing alliance.