Early on Monday, a suspected Iranian drone crashed onto the runway of the UK’s RAF Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus. British and Cypriot officials said the damage was limited. There were no victims.
Hours later, two drones heading to the base were “attended to in a timely manner,” according to the Cypriot government.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The incidents came as Prime Minister Keir Starmer signaled on Sunday that the United Kingdom was ready to support the United States in its confrontation with Iran, raising the prospect of being drawn further into a war not of its closest ally’s choice.
In a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, Starmer said the European group was ready to take “proportionate defensive measures” to destroy threats “at their source.”
Later, in a televised speech, he confirmed that Westminster approved a US request to use British bases for the “defensive purpose” of destroying Iranian missiles “at their storage depots, or the launches that are used to fire the missiles.”
But their agreement did little to appease US President Donald Trump, who said the decision came too late.
UK-based military analyst Sean Bell cautioned against reading too much into the Akrotiri incident.
“My understanding is that the projectile that hit Cyprus was unarmed, hit a hangar (with no) casualties and appears to have been fired from Lebanon,” he said, citing sources.
Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the claim.
The broader context, he argued, is more consequential.
The United States has taken action “and everyone else has to deal with the consequences,” he said.
Iran’s military strength lies in its extensive ballistic missile program, he said, adding that while some have the range to threaten the United Kingdom, they do not extend far enough to attack the United States.
“I don’t think (US) President Trump has made any legal arguments to attack Iran, and… international law does not discriminate between a nation that carries out an act of war and a nation that supports that act of war, so they are both equally complicit,” he said.
Bell said Washington probably reframed the issue and conveyed to London that whatever triggered the escalation, American forces were now effectively defending British personnel in the region.
That change, he suggested, provided a legal basis for “not attacking Iran, but protecting our people”, allowing the UK to approve US operations from its bases under a “very, very clear set of instructions” linked strictly to national interest and defence.
UK officials ‘tying themselves in knots’
However, concerns of complicity were reported to have influenced earlier decisions, according to Tim Ripley, editor of the Defense Eye news service, who said the British government initially concluded that the US and Israeli attacks on Iran did not meet the legal definition of self-defense under the United Nations Charter.
When Washington requested the use of bases such as RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, UK, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Starmer is understood to have consulted government lawyers, who advised against participation.
Until Starmer’s televised speech approving the US request, the UK had not considered the campaign a war of self-defence, Ripley said. While Washington’s legal reasoning has not changed, the trajectory of the war has.
Iranian retaliatory attacks – in which drones and missiles have been launched against the Gulf States – have put British expatriates and treaty partners under direct threat.
“The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and the protection of British lives. This is in line with international law,” Starmer said.
According to Ripley, several Gulf governments, which maintain defense relations with the UK, sought protection, allowing London to focus on protecting British personnel and partners rather than supporting a broader campaign. However, with memories of the Iraq war hanging over Westminster, British ministers have stopped short of explicitly backing the US bombing campaign.
British officials are “getting tangled up” trying to describe a position that is neither fully participatory nor objective, he said.
United States-United Kingdom: a tense relationship
Starmer told Parliament on Monday that the UK does not believe in “regime change from heaven” but supports the idea of defensive action.
But Ripley warned that any deal allowing US fighter jets to operate from British air bases carries significant risks.
Iran’s missile systems are mobile and the launchers are mounted on trucks, he said. From RAF Fairford or Diego Garcia, US aircraft face flight times of seven to nine hours to reach Iranian airspace, requiring patrol missions.
Once in the air, pilots may have only a few minutes to act. The idea of an American crew pausing mid-mission to seek new British legal approval is unrealistic, he said.
London must rely on Washington’s assurance that only agreed categories of “defensive” targets will be attacked. If the opportunity arose to eliminate a top Iranian commander in the same operational area, the temptation could be strong. However, such an attack could fall outside Britain’s stated defensive mandate. The plane would have taken off from British soil and any escalation could implicate the United Kingdom, Ripley said.
Bell highlighted another weakness: Britain does not have an internal ballistic missile defense system.
If a ballistic missile were fired at London, he said, “we wouldn’t be able to shoot it down.”
Intercepting these types of weapons after launch is notoriously difficult, reinforcing the argument that the only reliable defense is to attack before launch.
The UK therefore occupies a gray area: legally cautious, operationally exposed and strategically dependent on US decisions, it is not in full control.
Beyond the legal and military dilemmas, Starmer must also face a skeptical public.
A YouGov poll conducted on February 20 found that 58 percent of Britons oppose allowing the United States to launch airstrikes against Iran from bases in the United Kingdom, including 38 percent who are strongly opposed.
Only 21 percent support such a move, underscoring limited domestic support for deeper participation.
