On Tuesday, March 24, Drone Wars UK, an anti-drone NGO based in Shaftesbury, England, issued an 8-page paper analyzing the British government’s position on allowing the U.S. to use British bases to launch strikes on Iran, a position which it finds doubtful.
“The U.K. has shown a reluctance to recognise Iran as the target of illegal acts of aggression under international law or to criticise attacks by the U.S. and Israel,” it says. “At the same time, anti-Iran rhetoric from Ministers has led some to question whether the government is refraining from ‘wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict,’ as it claims, or is instead quietly providing material support for U.S. offensive operations.”
It notes that 18 B-1B and B-52 bombers arrived at RAF Fairford—"RAF” in name only, the paper says—between March 6 and March 13. Strike operations began on March 10.
The paper notes the ambiguity of the government’s claim that it gave the U.S. permission only for “defensive” strikes. “The classification of strikes on facilities ‘involved in launching strikes’ is open to broad interpretation….” it says, adding: “Without a clear, public definition of the targeting criteria, the distinction between a ‘defensive’ strike and a strategic campaign to degrade Iran’s military infrastructure—a classic offensive objective—becomes blurred.”
The classification of strikes on facilities “involved in launching strikes” is open to broad interpretation. Is an empty missile depot, a command and control node, or a research facility “involved” in the same way as an active launch crew? Is the U.K. government permitting attacks on facilities located in civilian areas, where there may be a high risk of civilian deaths? Without a clear, public definition of the targeting criteria, the distinction between a “defensive” strike and a strategic campaign to degrade Iran’s military infrastructure—a classic offensive objective—becomes blurred.
Associated with that is the lack of independent verification of what targets the U.S. is hitting. “The U.K. is reliant on U.S. assurances regarding the nature and target of each bomber mission from Fairford,” the paper says. “It is unlikely that the U.K. has independent intelligence capabilities which are able and available to cross-check U.S. assertions about what is being targeted or to match individual bomber missions to attacks on specific targets.”
And finally: “U.S. and Israel are known to employ advanced artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems for rapidly identifying targets. The rapid speed at which these systems can generate targets compounds shortfalls in rules of engagement, quality of intelligence information, and human oversight of targeting decisions, resulting in a high risk of civilian deaths. By their nature such systems do not operate in transparent and reproducible ways, and it is not possible to validate the accuracy and currency of their decision-making…. The risk is exacerbated by the apparently casual approach that the U.S. is taking to selecting targets in Iran, with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stating that the war will be fought with ‘no stupid rules of engagement.’”
In other words, even though the government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has officially “distanced” the British government from the U.S. war in Iran, it could still be complicit in war crimes committed by the U.S.
