A US Army helicopter gunship was apparently struck by an Iranian Shahed drone before going down near the Strait of Hormuz—but it's unclear whether the one-way attack drone was deliberately aimed or achieved more of a lucky accidental strike.
Axios correspondent Barak Ravid first reported an unnamed US government official’s comments that an Iranian drone had hit the US Army AH-64 Apache helicopter before the latter went down on June 8. The New York Times later confirmed that reporting through more anonymous US officials, including one official who said US military investigators were still evaluating whether the Iranian drone strike on the helicopter was intentional or accidental.
Iran has fired thousands of such Shahed drones against a wide range of military and civilian targets in the Gulf region since February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel began the war by jointly attacking Iran with a barrage of bombs and missiles. But Shahed drones have mainly struck stationary targets such as Amazon data centers and energy facilities, sometimes hitting slow-moving commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
A drone boat picked up two US Army pilots from waters near the Strait of Hormuz after their helicopter gunship went down, US military officials said. The incident apparently represents the first time the US military has used a drone for such a rescue mission at sea.
The two crew members from the US Army AH-64 Apache were “rescued by American forces” at 7:33 pm US Eastern Time after their helicopter went down off the coast of Oman on June 8, according to a US Central Command press release. That press release mentioned support from US Navy units including the US 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59, which is charged with integrating uncrewed aerial, surface, and underwater vehicles, alongside AI, into 5th Fleet maritime operations.
Anonymous US military officials initially told CBS News that the Apache air crew was rescued by an uncrewed surface drone operated by Task Force 59 from the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. The officials also described the incident as the first time the military had used a drone to rescue people from the water.
It’s no fun living through the global energy shock and growing economic crisis that has ensued since the conflict choked off shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. But it can be enlightening to play through the new game Bottleneck that forces players to choose among the 2,000 ships still stuck in and around the strait—all while actual news reports and real maritime transit data help tell the story of the unfolding events.
The free browser-based game challenges players to act as a fictional maritime coordinator by selecting a handful of ships that get to pass through the strait each day. Most decisions come with serious costs or trade-offs, whether it’s paying the toll imposed by the Iranian government that has claimed authority over the strait or antagonizing Iran or the United States while pushing either side toward widening the war. Failure to push through enough specific shipments can spark individual crises involving the price of oil, food, and water security, and a countdown to famine in many countries.
“The game does not ask whether you are smart enough to solve the crisis,” said Jakub Gornicki, the journalist and artist who developed the game, in a post. “It asks what kind of damage you choose when every option has a cost.”
The Iran crisis has not created a new problem for Britain’s energy system. It has exposed an old one, again. We tend to remember it only when prices move.
That is the nature of exposure. It is easy to ignore while markets are calm. It becomes impossible to ignore when a narrow strip of water half a world away starts to shape what British households and businesses pay for energy.
We remain a price taker in global fossil fuel markets. When instability passes through the Strait of Hormuz, it reaches British homes and industry soon afterwards.
This is not chiefly the failure of any one government. It is the reality of a system still anchored, at the margin, by gas. And the issue is not price alone. A large share of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows through that narrow, vulnerable chokepoint. Even with diversified imports, disruption there tightens global markets and feeds directly into UK costs.
Ministers are right to focus on immediate stability and consumer protection. But the strategic question is not how we respond to this shock. It is how we reduce our exposure to the next one.
There is now broad agreement within government that expanding domestic generation is the right direction, even if that consensus is not yet shared across the political spectrum.
Offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and nuclear are not simply climate instruments; they are tools of economic security. By the time of the next general election, much of this infrastructure will already be contracted into the system. Whoever forms the next government will inherit a power system shaped by these choices and will have to manage the consequences.
The second phase of the energy system is less developed, and it needs shaping now. A power system led by renewables still requires dispatchable capacity, power that can respond when demand rises or renewable output falls.
Today, gas performs that role. It is flexible and reliable, but it also sets the marginal price. That means volatility in global gas markets still passes straight through to the domestic system. As long as gas remains the default backstop, geopolitical risk will continue to translate into domestic cost.
There is a further problem. Britain’s existing gas fleet is ageing. Much of it will need replacing or retiring within the next decade, just as the system will need reliable backup to support renewables.
The question, therefore, is not whether we build more clean generation. It is how we build a system that can operate reliably without leaning so heavily on gas when conditions turn against us.
That brings us to system flexibility, and to a technology that can provide it: hydrogen to power.
Hydrogen to power uses hydrogen as a fuel to generate electricity on demand through gas turbines, performing the same system role as today’s gas plants but without relying on unabated fossil fuels. When renewable generation is higher than we need, rather than curtailing it, the surplus electricity is used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis.
That hydrogen can then be stored at scale in underground salt caverns, drawing on Britain’s geology, and converted back into electricity when needed. Batteries play a critical role in managing short duration flexibility, but they are not designed to cover longer gaps in generation. Hydrogen stored in salt caverns can provide energy over days, weeks or longer, making hydrogen to power one of the few credible options for longer duration system flexibility.
It is also worth remembering that Britain has used hydrogen at scale before. Town gas, which supplied homes until the 1960s, contained a high proportion of hydrogen. That does not mean we should recreate the old system. But it does remind us that hydrogen is not alien to British energy infrastructure. Its most effective modern role, though, is in the power system rather than domestic heating.
Green hydrogen supports a renewables led system and reduces reliance on imported gas when conditions turn against us. For consumers, that means a system less driven by volatile gas prices.
There is also an economic benefit. Building hydrogen power stations and storage at scale would support skilled jobs across engineering, construction, operations and maintenance, particularly in industrial regions with strong energy and manufacturing capability.
This is where government needs to be clearer, and faster.
If we are not expanding further into the North Sea, and are serious about reducing dependence on imported gas, including LNG exposed to Middle Eastern supply routes, then ministers, and Ed Miliband in particular, need to explain how these transitional technologies will be supported at pace and at scale.
UK policy on hydrogen to power is starting to take shape through the proposed business model, transport and storage frameworks, and wider strategic energy planning. But it is not yet clear enough to unlock investment.
Capital does not move on ambiguity. Without a clear position from government, the UK risks a real gap in its energy system. If clarity for investment comes now, it begins to solve that problem before it becomes a crisis.
If it does not, we will face a simultaneous challenge: decarbonising the power system while scrambling to replace the dispatchable capacity that gas currently provides. That is a significantly harder task.
Government’s role is not to build these projects. It is to make them investable. That requires stable revenue arrangements and a planning and grid regime that recognises the strategic importance of hydrogen to power and geological storage in a flexible energy system.
None of this requires a change in direction. It requires a sharpening of focus.
The events in Iran remind us that energy policy is, in the end, about exposure to risk. We cannot control instability in global markets. But we can decide how exposed we choose to remain.
We have the technology. We have the industrial capacity. What is missing is the policy certainty needed to unlock investment. Without it, we drift further from real energy security.
Energy security is not a slogan. It is a design choice. The longer we delay that choice, the more exposed Britain remains.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
News of a ceasefire between the United States and Iran was broadly welcomed across Europe. But while leaders such as Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron expressed relief tempered with restraint, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez delivered a response that stood apart for its directness and conviction.
Speaking from Saudi Arabia’s Al Taif airbase, Starmer described a “sense of real relief” while warning that it remained “early days,” with a lot of work still required to secure lasting peace and stabilise energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
Macron, meanwhile, welcomed the ceasefire but urged that it be expanded to include Lebanon and Hezbollah.
Sánchez, however, went further. While acknowledging that any ceasefire is positive, he refused to separate the agreement from the destruction that preceded it. In a message posted on X on April 8, he wrote:
“Ceasefires are always good news. Especially if they lead to a just and lasting peace. But this momentary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, the destruction, and the lives lost. The government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket. What’s needed now: diplomacy, international legality, and PEACE.”
As leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, Sánchez has been among Europe’s most outspoken critics of military escalation in the region, as well as a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. While other European governments hesitated, trying to work out if they should support the military action, Sánchez was clear from the offset, banning the US from using its military bases.
When Trump responded with predictable personal attacks, the Spanish PM didn’t waver. He reiterated Spain’s “clear and consistent” position, the same as its response to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine.
He compared the action in Iran to the Iraq war, saying he didn’t want to repeat “the mistakes of the past,” and criticising leaders who exploit the “fog of war” to obscure their own failures.
Public reaction to Sánchez’s comments has been widely supportive. Many praised him for articulating what others hesitated to say and other described his intervention as a “voice of sanity” and a call for dialogue over destruction.
“Thank you, Prime Minister. For being the voice of sanity amid this bloody madness unleashed by Netanyahu and Trump. And for not staying silent or looking the other way, as others are doing out of fear and servility,” was one comment.
There is little doubt that Donald Trump will seek to present the ceasefire as a triumph of his negotiating skills, a narrative already echoed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who has described it as a “victory for the United States.”
In reality, however, the agreement can just as easily be seen as an attempt to contain the fallout from a crisis largely of his own making.
As the London Economic posted: “Ceasefire agreed for stupidest war in history. Donald Trump looks set to give Iran everything they want in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz – which was open before he started bombing Iran.”
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has demanded that the government impose robust sanctions on Israel after at least 254 people have been killed by Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon.
Polanski dedicated part of his speech at the Greens’ local election campaign launch in Deptford to talking about the situation in Lebanon and Iran.
Speaking about Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon over the last 24 hours, he said: “What is it going to take for this government to actually put robust sanctions on Israel?”.
In addition to those who have been killed, over 1,000 people are estimated to have been injured.
Polanski said it was “outrageous” that “Israel are still enjoying diplomatic and trade privileges from the international community.”
The Green Party leader said that the government must impose more “robust sanctions” and withdraw the UK-Israel trade agreement.
Polanski added: “We know it’s not just Lebanon. We also see this going on in Iran.”
He said that Keir Starmer “not being entirely truthful” with the country by saying that the UK is not involved in Donald Trump and Israel’s war in Iran.
Referring to the fact that the US is still using UK bases to fly over to and bomb Iran, he said that the government must ban the US from using British airspaces.
“What we need to do is distangle [sic] the UK military and the US military. Ban the US from using our airspaces and do exactly what other European allies like Pedro Sánchez in Spain have done and say this war is not in our name and we want nothing to do with it,” Polanski said.
Polanski also slammed Nigel Farage’s initial support for the UK to get more involved in the Iran war, which he said “would not just be a humanitarian disaster” but would mean “higher bills” and rising rents.
He said that the Greens will make housing a focus of its local election campaign, advocating for rent controls and the total abolition of leasehold, a policy which Labour committed to in its 2024 manifesto, but has since watered down.
Polanski said that the Greens will also push to deliver more social and affordable housing, claiming that “failing Labour councils” aren’t delivering enough.
He pointed to the Greens’ record in Lewes and Mid Suffolk, where he said Green-led councils have built hundreds of new council homes in recent years.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Former RMT general secretary Mick Lynch has taken apart President Trump, slamming him as ‘out of control’ for ‘waging illegal wars’.
Lynch made the comments during an appearance on Newsnight, after Trump threatened Iran and claimed ‘a whole civilisation will die tonight’.
Although Iran and the U.S. agreed a two-week ceasefire yesterday mediated by Pakistan, the President had threatened massive strikes against Iranian energy and transportation infrastructure unless a deal was reached.
That led to warnings by some that such attacks could amount to war crimes.
His threats to target energy and transportation infrastructure have led to widespread concern, with many praising Prime Minister Keir Starmer for refusing to join the war.
Asked on BBC Newsnight whether he thought the UK has alienated the U.S. with its stance, Lynch replied: “He (Trump) would be alienated no matter what, depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on.
“We cannot follow Donald Trump into illegal wars, he’s invaded more countries than he’s aware of exist at the moment, he will do anything that he thinks he can get away with and the rest of the world has got to tell him he’s got to stop.
“We were being told for the last 15 years that China was going to invade Taiwan, before that’s happened, America has invaded at least two countries and has got some more on its agenda. We don’t know what he’s going to do with Cuba, a few weeks ago he was saying he was going to take over Greenland.
“This is a man who is out of control and the rest of the world have got to take control.”
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Green Party MP Siân Berry was applauded on BBC Question Time yesterday (March 12) for her comments on the US and Israel’s war in Iran.
Responding to aquestion from the audience as to whether Donald Trump is ‘winning’ the war in Iran, Berry said: “Let’s be clear, this war from Donald Trump is an illegal war and both Reform and the Conservatives were completely wrong to be so gung ho in supporting it.”
Her initial remark was met with applause from the audience. She then went on to say following the applause: “Listen to that: the polling shows about 60 per cent of the British people are opposed to this because we learned the lessons from Iraq that getting involved in American aggression – which is what this is – doesn’t end well, particularly when it is without a plan.
Berry continued by adding: “And the Iranian regime is horrific, it’s despotic, it’s murderous, it needs to end. But so far, this war has been no help at all to the people of Iran. They must be wondering what they’re supposed to do.”
This comment was again met with applause from the audience. Berry concluded her contribution by saying: “They will be stuck in a destabilised country with a regime that is worse than ever before. It is incredibly worrying what is going on. And I think it is right that our country was cautious at first. I’m worried that we are getting dragged into this now. I don’t think that’s what people want.”
Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
British opposition to the US military action in Iran is rising, according to new YouGov polling.
Polling carried out on 9 March found that 59% of Brits now oppose or strongly oppose the US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
This marks a 10-point increase from last week, when 49% of Britons said they opposed US military action against Iran.
On the tenth day of military action, support for the strikes on Iran has also fallen by three points, from 28% to 25% since 2 March.
Support for the US attacks is highest among Reform voters, with 57% saying they somewhat or strongly support the war.
Opposition to the war is strongest among Green, Labour and Lib Dem voters. The poll revealed that 87% of Green voters somewhat or strongly oppose the war, while 81% of Lib Dems and 76% of Labour voters are against it.
As opposition to the attacks on Iran grows, senior Reform figures appear divided on the issue, though Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have expressed support for the strikes.
Robert Jenrick MP has said that Reform would not send UK troops to join in the strikes, and that the party wants to “see the war come to an end as quickly as possible”.
By contrast, Farage said the UK “should do all we can” to help the Americans.
Asked if Reform would instruct the RAF to take part in bombing Iran, Tice said if Reform were in power “we would be helping the Americans and the Israelis in any way they saw appropriate”.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
A number of Labour MPs have criticised former Prime Minister Tony Blair after he chose to back Donald Trump over Keir Starmer on the US-Israel war on Iran.
While the US-Israel strikes on Iran enter their 10th day, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has differed from U.S. President Donald Trump on his approach to the war, saying that UK troops would not be joining unless there was a lawful basis. He also told the Commons in a statement that he did not ‘believe in regime change from the skies’.
However, Former PM Sir Tony, who took the UK into the Iraq war in 2003 at the US’s urging, reportedly told a private event: “I think we should have backed America from the very beginning.”
He went on to say: “If they are your ally and an indispensable cornerstone for your security… you had better show up when they want you to.”
However, his critics accused him of failing to learn the lessons of the Iraq war.
Labour MP Jon Trickett is quoted in the Mirror as saying of Sir Tony: “A prolonged period of silence would be most welcome, particularly on matters to do with war and peace in the Middle East, where his record is disastrous.”
Fellow Labour MP Clive Lewis said: “This is the Prime Minister who led Britain into an illegal war whose consequences are still unfolding today. He’s the last person the current prime minister should be turning to for advice.”
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has rejected Tony Blair’s assertion that the UK should have supported Donald Trump’s initial airstrikes on Iran, saying Britain had to “learn the lessons” of mistakes made in Iraq.
Asked about Blair’s comments, Cooper told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips on Sky News: “I just disagree.”
The foreign secretary added: “There are some people in politics who think that we should always agree with the US whatever. There are other people in politics who think we should never take action with the US again whatever the circumstances. I don’t think either of those positions is in the UK national interest, and it is the responsibility for Keir Starmer to act in the UK’s national interest for British citizens.”
Asked if she was calling Blair “a poodle”, she said: “I think the point is to make sure that, actually, we learn the lessons from some of the things that went wrong in Iraq, and I think that is exactly what Keir Starmer has done.”
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Comments made years ago by Donald Trump accusing Barack Obama of planning to start a war with Iran for political advantage have resurfaced online, drawing renewed scrutiny amid escalating tensions with Tehran.
Between 2012 and 2013, when Obama was seeking re-election, Trump repeatedly suggested that the then-president would initiate military action against Iran to distract from domestic challenges and boost his standing in the polls. In a video widely shared again this week, Trump declared:
“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So the only he figures that he’s going to get re-elected, and as sure as you’re sitting there, is to start a war with Iran. Now, I’m more militant and more militaristic than the president. I believe in strength, but to start a war in order to get elected, and I believe that’s going to happen, would be an outrage.”
He reiterated the claim months later, writing in October 2012 that Obama’s falling poll numbers would prompt him to “launch a strike in Libya or Iran,” calling the president “desperate.”
No such war with Iran materialised during Obama’s presidency, a fact many online commentators have been quick to highlight in light of recent events.
Now, as Republicans brace for a difficult midterm election cycle, Trump has launched a military strike on Iran and escalated rhetoric against the country’s leadership. In an eight-minute video released last weekend, he outlined a number of objectives: the dismantling of Iran’s theocratic regime, the total capitulation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and an end to Tehran’s nuclear programme, warning of severe consequences if those demands are not met.
Addressing Iran’s population directly, Trump urged citizens to rise and form a new government. “For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it,” he said. “Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.”
The strategy, which is coordinated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, carries geopolitical risk and no guaranteed outcome.
Critics pointed to the irony of Trump’s past warnings and current actions.
“For a man who hungers for the Nobel Peace Prize, this war of choice borders on delusion,” wrote the New Yorker.
Online reactions were similar.
“Trump thinks we all forget what he says. No. We don’t. And his remarks are all on record,” one commenter wrote.
Others called the resurfaced clips a reminder that “the writing is on the wall,” while another simply mocked:
“This aged well.”
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Writer and journalist George Monbiot tore into Donald Trump on BBC Question Time when discussing America’s attacks on Iran, slamming the President as a ‘global chaos creator’.
Following the U.S. strikes on Iran, the region has been thrown into turmoil, with Iran launching ballistic missiles at neighbouring gulf countries. With no clear end to the war in sight, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has also put distance between himself and Trump, telling MPs during a statement in the Commons that he did not ‘believe in regime change from the skies’ or in military action without a legal justification.
Asked about the war, Monbiot told the Question Time audience that we were being dragged into a war with ‘no clear objectives’.
He went on to say: “We’ve seen Trump say it’s regime change, then ‘oh no it’s not regime change’, it’s because of nuclear weapons, oh I wiped those out in June there are no nuclear weapons, oh it’s because of an imminent threat, no evidence whatsoever of an imminent threat.
“The real reason for this attack is spectacle, that’s what Trump trades in that’s what he loves, he wants to be the centre of attention in making global headlines, that’s his happy place.”
He warned that some had not learnt the lessons of interventions in the Middle East, whether that be Iraq and Libya and said that Trump was acting as a ‘global chaos generator and the further we stay away from that the better off we will be’.
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
British campaign groups have warned Keir Starmer that Britain has become complicit in the US-Israeli attacks on Iran and that he must stand up to Trump and other “bullies” in defence of international law.
The US and Israel began bombing Iran on Saturday 28 February, killing the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the attacks. They also bombed a girls’ school, killing more than 160 children.
Starmer has said the UK will not get involved in the attacks, which he has said have no “lawful basis”, but still gave the Trump administration permission to use RAF bases to launch strikes on Iran.
The PM justified this decision, saying that the British air base in Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri, had been attacked, and that allowing the US to use UK military bases was an act of self-defence.
Commenting on Starmer’s response to the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Zoe Gardner, spokesperson for the Stop Trump Coalition, said: “Trump’s illegal war of choice is almost as unpopular in the UK as Trump himself – which is saying something. The UK should be taking a leaf out of Spain’s book and standing up strongly against bullies in defence of international law.”
Pedro Sánchez, the prime minister of Spain, has refused to give Trump access to Spanish military bases to carry out attacks on Iran. In a speech yesterday, he said “we must learn from history” and that “the Spanish government’s position can be summed up in four words: no to the war”.
Gardner added: “Iranians will not be bombed into democracy and we are rightly wary of the destruction, displacement and immense cost of another poorly planned US-led military campaign. The UK government should be deyankifying our defence capability so that it serves our safety, instead of lining the coffers of US private companies”.
Geoff Tibbs, Remembrance Project Manager at the Peace Pledge Union, said: “We, along with most people in the UK, US and elsewhere, condemn the US and Israeli aggression against Iran. Not only is this attack a flagrant breach of international law, founded on lies, it threatens to plunge Iran and the wider region into catastrophe.
Tibbs added: “We likewise condemn the attacks in response by Iran and Hezbollah, which have rapidly broadened the conflict, with scant regard for civilian life. We call for an immediate end to the violence. Civilians must be protected. All parties must commit to dialogue rather than entrench a cycle of violence that could continue for many years to come.”
He warned that the UK “is rapidly becoming complicit in this illegal and disastrous war”.
“Whilst Keir Starmer initially distanced the UK from the assault, British aircraft have been deployed over the region and British bases are being used for US military operations, risking Iranian retaliation.
“Starmer should be clear that this is an illegal and immoral intervention, in which the UK will play no part. Instead, the UK government is already shielding the US and Israel, just as it did during Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.”
Lindsey German, founding member and convenor of Stop the War, said: “The special relationship is over. Trump wants a Reform government, not Starmer.
“It’s about time he woke up to that fact and broke with US foreign policy and the gangster running it by opposing this war.”
German said it was clear that this war is illegal, and that “even Starmer knows that”.
However, she said that by “assisting the US with bases and engaging in ‘defensive’ operations means Britain is complicit”.
She added: “That’s why Jeremy Corbyn’s bill demanding parliamentary oversight of the use of British bases for foreign countries’ wars is urgent and necessary.”
She urged everyone who opposes the war on Iran, which she said “is most people in this country”, to join Stop the War’s march from Westminster to the US Embassy this Saturday, or to participate in a demonstration in a city near them.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Kemi Badenoch sided with Donald Trump at PMQs today and urged for the UK to launch offensive action against Iran, despite saying nobody wants the conflict to escalate.
The Tory leader argued that since UK military bases in Cyprus and Bahrain have been attacked, the UK should follow in Trump’s footsteps and allow the RAF to carry out offensive action.
Keir Starmer said that “the whole country is worried about the potential for escalation” and said that the government must act with “a cool head”.
He added: “What I was not prepared to do on Saturday was for the UK to join a war unless I was satisfied there was a lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan. That remains my position.”
Badenoch said “nobody wants to see an escalation”, but then claimed “We are in this war whether we like it or not, what is the prime minister waiting for?”.
Starmer read out a list of actions that the UK government is taking to protect UK citizens, including providing weapons and helicopters.
Badenoch said: “The prime minister has read out a long list, it is not enough.”
The Tory leader then went on to say that yesterday the chancellor could have given more money to defence in her spring statement, but that the government pledged more money to welfare.
The government committed to increasing welfare spending to 5.8%, and 2.5% of GDP on defence.
“Their priorities are all wrong,” Badenoch said.
Starmer hit back, reminding her that after 14 years of Conservative rule, defence budgets were cut and army recruitment targets every year.
The Tory leader continued to attack the government’s decision to invest in the welfare budget, claiming “because they spent money on welfare, there is no defence investment plan”.
She added: “Because there is no defence plan, they are not ordering enough missiles.”
She said the government was “pathetic” for spending money on welfare instead of defence.
Starmer said he had spent all week protecting British lives in the Middle East, he added: “Moments like this define a leader of the opposition, they can either step up… or expose their utter irrelevance. She has chosen the second.”
Commenting on X, Labour MP Justin Madders said: “After that #PMQs we should all be grateful Kemi Badenoch is not the Prime Minister.”
Commentator Gerry Hassan wrote: “Kemi Badenoch does not seem to know how to do seriousness & depth even at a time of war.
“What we get is her “attack dog” style even as she ties herself to Trump’s America & its lack of any war plan. All lacking political judgement while clinging to Trump.”
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Your Party MP Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a Bill in the House of Commons to require parliamentary approval for the foreign use of military bases.
The Bill has been tabled in response to Keir Starmer’s decision to allow the US to UK military bases in its war against Iran. Among the bases the UK has allowed the US to use is the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
The Bill has been co-sponsored by Labour, Green and independent MPs.
Following the news that Starmer would be allowing for the US to use British military bases for its war, Corbyn said: “Starmer’s decision to drag Britain into another illegal war will prove to be a catastrophic, historic mistake.”
The full title of Bill is: “Bill to require parliamentary approval for the deployment of UK armed forces and military equipment for armed conflict; to require parliamentary approval for the granting of permission by Ministers for use of UK military bases and equipment by other nations for armed conflict; to require the withdrawal of that permission in circumstances where parliamentary approval is not granted; to provide for certain exemptions from these requirements; to make provision for retrospective parliamentary approval in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.”
Alongside Corbyn, the full list of co-sponsors of the Bill are:
Diane Abbott (Independent)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour)
Brian Leishman (Labour)
John McDonnell (Labour)
Adnan Hussain (Independent)
Ayoub Khan (Independent/Your Party)
Richard Burgon (Labour)
Kim Johnson (Labour)
Apsana Begum (Labour)
Ellie Chowns (Green)
Hannah Spencer (Green)
The Bill has been submitted as a Presentation Bill. This means that there will be no vote taken on it, and there is not yet any vote or debate timetabled for it. Instead, it is a formal indication that the MPs intend to bring a Bill forward on the issue.
Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
UK voters oppose US military action against Iran, a new poll has found, as the U.S. and Israel’s war against the country enters its fourth day.
According to a poll carried out by YouGov, 49% of Britons are opposed to US military action against Iran, compared to 28% who support the attacks.
It comes after Prime Minister Keir Starmer put distance between himself and U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday, telling MPs during a statement in the Commons that he did not ‘believe in regime change from the skies’.
He said: “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,” he said. “That is the principle that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend.”
He went on to add: “I will not commit our military personnel to unlawful action. That is not what they would expect and deserve. They are entitled to better than that.”
The Prime Minister has defended his decision to permit the US to conduct defensive strikes on Iranian missile sites from RAF bases, saying that was “the best way to protect British interests and British lives”.
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Keir Starmer is facing criticism from figures on the left after he announced that he has given the US government permission to use UK military bases to strike down Iranian missiles.
Starmer said that Britain was not involved in the US and Israeli strikes on Iran over the weekend, and that the government had not given Donald Trump permission to use British military bases.
In an announcement last night, the prime minister said the government had now given the US permission to use UK military bases, for the “specific and limited defensive purpose” of destroying Iran’s missiles “at source”.
Starmer said that Britain will not join offensive action against Iran, but that British planes are in the sky in the Middle East as part of a defensive operation.
The US and Israel’s attacks on Iran have been described as “neither preemptive nor lawful” under international law.
When Israel and the US launched the attacks on Saturday, Washington and Tehran were around the negotiating table discussing Iran’s nuclear programme.
Responding to the UK government’s decision to give the US access to UK military bases, Jeremy Corbyn MP said: “Allowing British bases to be used in an illegal war of aggression is a catastrophic and historic mistake. Britain has been dragged into another war because our Prime Minister would rather appease Donald Trump than stand up for international law.
“War is not a game. This shameful decision makes Britain complicit in the devastating consequences ahead – and jeopardises the safety of us all.”
The leader of the Green Party, Zack Polanski, also said that the decision shows “Keir Starmer’s utter inability to stand up to Donald Trump” which he said “could have serious consequences for the safety of British people”.
Polanski added: “We now face being dragged into another illegal war in the Middle East which has now pulled in multiple countries. People in this country do not want this and it must not be allowed to happen.”
He concluded: “Starmer must withdraw permission for the US to use UK bases to launch airstrikes on Iran and parliament must be given a vote on any UK involvement.”
Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, told Left Foot Forward: “I am deeply concerned by the escalation of violence in the Middle East, when there would be no exit or de-escalation plan. While I have long condemned the suppressive regime in Iran, its human rights abuses, its execution of civilians and its treatment of women, I do not believe that igniting a military assault is the way to secure peace and freedom for the Iranian people. We have only witnessed the retaliation and the rise in tensions.
“While the RAF Akrotiri is reported to have been used for defensive measures to prevent weapons from causing further devastation, I am also alarmed that it is being reported that the US is using the base. Clarification is needed to know if any of its operations are of an offensive nature.”
“I am clearly concerned for the safety of constituents who have now found themselves in the midst of this war,” Maskell added.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Login
