British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has approved the US use of some UK bases for “defensive” air strikes on Iran, in a continuation of a policy introduced by his predecessor Keir Starmer, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday.
According to sources who spoke to Bloomberg on condition of anonymity, Starmer held a meeting of senior ministers and officials on Friday, in which it was decided that US planes could continue to use bases at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
The sources said that Burnham was briefed on the discussion and agreed with the decision, confirming that he would likely continue Starmer’s policy throughout the renewed US operations.
The decision comes as US bombardment targeted cities across Iran for the 11th consecutive night, with Iranian media reporting explosions in cities including Bushehr, Tabriz and Chabahar and in the provinces of Kurdistan and Ilam.
[…]
But Burnham’s continuation of Starmer’s policy of allowing American use of British airbases is likely to face backlash, as UK rights groups previously warned that the move could violate international law.
Starmer announced his policy in early March, arguing that the bases were to be used for defensive purposes.
He later confirmed that the agreement would be expanded to allow for the US to launch strikes from UK bases on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz - also invoking “collective self-defence” of Gulf state allies as a legal basis for the decision.
Human Rights Watch’s UK director, Yasmine Ahmed, wrote to the prime minister, highlighting that the government’s legal justification for the move failed to mention issues related to international humanitarian law (IHL).
She cited a number of instances which have raised questions around US compliance with IHL, including an air strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab, at the start of the US-Israeli assault on 28 February. Over 150 people were killed in the attack, most of them children.
It’s permissible by the letter of the rules, but it absolutely is not what people expect to be happening with their democratic say.
Most people vote for whichever MP is in the party they want to vote for, run by the leader they want to run the country. Most people expect some stability, at least until the next opportunity to have their say.
And Labour party members are supposed to vote on the party leader, it isn’t supposed to just be a decision by MP’s. Because Burnham stood uncontested, there was no vote, and effectively the only people who got to decide were the MP’s at the nomination stage.
And Starmer had no good (publicly known) reason to leave. His controversies were never that damning, and they were contrasted with quiet competent successes.
You dismiss this as “all right and proper” according to British election rules, while ignoring that it is all dripping in slime.