Starmer stands by decision not to join US-Israel strikes on Iran but warns regime must never get nuclear weapons
It comes after US President Donald Trump said he was 'very disappointed' in Sir Keir for initially refusing to allow the use of the UK-US Diego Garcia base to target Iran
Sir Keir Starmer has defended his decision not to join US and Israeli strikes on Iran as he declared the country "must never get its hands" on nuclear weapons.
Listen to this article
Speaking from the Commons today, the PM insisted his decision not to get involved in the initial strikes on Iran was in Britain’s national interest, adding: “That is what I’ve done, and I stand by it.”
Sir Keir said around 300,000 British nationals are currently in the Middle East and his Government is looking at “all options to support our people” in the region.
He added: "We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible.”
It comes after US President Donald Trump said he was "very disappointed" in Sir Keir for initially refusing to allow the use of the UK-US Diego Garcia base to target Iran
The PM granted permission on Sunday for the US to use British bases to target Iran’s missile launchers and stores to help protect countries targeted by Tehran.
But the US president said he was “very disappointed” in Sir Keir for initially refusing to allow the use of the UK-US Diego Garcia base to target Iran.
Mr Trump said it “took far too long” for the Prime Minister to change his mind.
Speaking to MPs Sir Keir said: “President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest.”
Defending his decision not to join strikes, Sir Keir continued: “It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they’ve been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source, in their storage depots or at the launches.”
He said yesterday evening the US requested permission to use British bases “for that specific and limited defensive purpose”, which the Government accepted.
He added: “To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes; we are not joining the US and Israeli offensive strikes.
“The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies and protecting British lives.“It is in accordance with international law, and we produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.”
The aim of preventing the Iranian regime from getting their hands on nuclear weapons “will have to be achieved at the negotiating table”, he added.
“Be in no doubt, the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, they murdered thousands of their own people. The full horror of which is still hidden from the world.
“For decades, they have sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Their proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red Sea, they facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine.
“The regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community
.“Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled.
“So it’s clear the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.”
Lessons have been learned over the UK's involvement in the invasion of Iraq, the PM added.
He said: “I’ve spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, bringing anxiety and fear. That’s why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
“We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan.
“I say again, we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region, and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people.
“It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, to prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests, and British lives. That is what this Government is doing.”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Government of “dither and delay” as she reiterated the Conservative Party’s support for US strikes against Iran.
She told the Commons: “It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases, despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat…
“Unbelievably in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not. Today, the president of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying he took far too long to grant access.
“We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that explanation simply does not hold.
“International law didn’t prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on. You don’t need international law to say whose side you’re on. It has not prevented British governments in the past from supporting strikes, which we knew to be right.
“As the shadow attorney general has said, if the doctrines of international law are unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, if they tie the hands of democracies while forcing us to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law.
“Why is it that, under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest?”