Diplomacy
Starmer blocks US access to British bases for potential Iran strikes citing international law
Prime Minister Keir Starmer is blocking a request from US President Donald Trump to utilize British sovereign bases for potential aerial strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such an operation would violate international law.
According to reports from The Times, a deepening diplomatic rift has emerged as the Prime Minister informed President Trump that the United Kingdom will not grant permission for US assets to launch from the sovereign base on Diego Garcia or from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. These strategic installations serve as critical hubs for the US fleet of heavy bombers across Europe and the Indian Ocean.
Under the terms of long-standing bilateral agreements with Washington, these facilities may only be utilized for military operations against third-party nations with the prior explicit consent of the British government.
This refusal has reportedly prompted President Trump to withdraw his administration’s support for a landmark deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands from the UK to Mauritius.
The President addressed the escalating tension regarding Iran and the United Kingdom’s role via a post on the social media platform Truth Social. He suggested that British support would be “legal under international law” because of the inherent threat an Iranian strike could pose to the UK itself.
“If Iran decides not to make a deal [regarding its nuclear program], the US may need to use the airfield located at Diego Garcia and Fairford to eliminate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous regime,” the President stated.
On Thursday, President Trump indicated that the world would learn “probably within the next ten days” whether the US would reach a diplomatic accord with Tehran or pivot toward military intervention.
“We may or may not have to go a step further now. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. It is very simple. There can be no peace in the Middle East if they have nuclear weapons,” Trump asserted.
Government sources suggested that Britain remains unlikely to support a preemptive military strike, following London’s refusal last summer to participate in a presidential plan targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. In the wake of previous discussions regarding military action against Iran, ministers have repeatedly declined to confirm whether UK government lawyers believe such strikes meet the threshold of international legality.
The White House is understood to be drafting comprehensive military contingencies for an assault on Iran that would incorporate the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford. Defense officials have reportedly briefed President Trump that following the largest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US forces will be combat-ready by Saturday, Feb. 21.
“A political process supported by the UK continues between the US and Iran,” a government spokesperson said. “Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and our priority remains security in the region.”
When questioned specifically on the use of British bases, the government maintained its standard protocol: “As a matter of routine, we do not comment on operational matters.”
Information obtained by The Times suggests that British officials fear granting base access would implicate the UK in a breach of international law. Specifically, they are concerned with statutes that do not distinguish between the state carrying out an illegal act and a supporting state that is “aware of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.”
President Trump spoke with Starmer on Tuesday night to discuss his ultimatum to Tehran regarding the nuclear program. The following day, the President issued a statement criticizing the Chagos sovereignty agreement.
In 2021, John Healey—the current Defense Secretary—sought clarification from the then-Conservative government while in opposition regarding the “red lines” for US forces using British bases. He was informed at the time that any proposed military operation must align with both UK domestic law and the British government’s interpretation of relevant international law.
The Conservative opposition is now urging Starmer to grant the US access. Shadow Defense Secretary James Cartlidge stated:
“Iran’s nuclear program poses a grave threat to the UK and our allies. If the US determines that further measures are required to deal with this specific threat, and we believe that such action is in our national interest and intended to protect the vital security interests of the UK, we should permit the use of our bases.”
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, then-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith argued that international law only permitted the use of force in self-defense during an actual or imminent attack. Goldsmith later contended that a UN resolution regarding Iraq rendered that specific conflict legal.
The government has repeatedly emphasized that the handover deal with Mauritius—which is projected to cost taxpayers £35 billion—is essential for security and would prevent a protracted and costly legal battle over the territory.
While President Trump initially appeared receptive to the plan, his stance shifted during recent debates concerning the future of Greenland. Senior government officials have described the current situation as “bleak,” noting that the Chagos agreement cannot feasibly proceed without American endorsement.
RAF Fairford and other British military installations were most recently utilized by the US last month during a military operation to seize the registered tanker Bella 1. However, that operation was conducted with the full support of the United Kingdom, with ministers affirming its justification under international law at the time.
On Thursday, Alex Davies-Jones, the Victims’ Commissioner, insisted that Starmer would “deliver” the deal and return the necessary legislation to Parliament as swiftly as possible.
Speaking to Times Radio, she said: “We will continue to work with our allies on this, including the Americans, but national security must be the priority above all else, and this government is committed to ensuring that. Only two weeks ago they supported the deal, and the US supported the deal this week. Discussions will continue with the Americans and other allies, but as I said, the priority is our base and our national security.”
Diplomacy
India’s Russian oil imports hit record high as Middle East tensions disrupt markets
India is increasing imports of Russian oil and coal as supply chain disruptions and rising prices linked to tensions involving Iran reshape global energy flows.
According to a Reuters report citing data from analytics firm Kpler, shipments from Russia to India reached record levels in June.
Kpler estimates that Russian oil deliveries to India will rise to a record 2.55 million barrels per day in June.
That would surpass both the 2.13 million barrels per day recorded in May and the previous high of 2.16 million barrels per day registered in May 2023.
Russia’s share of India’s total oil imports in June is expected to come in at just under 50%. Before the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East, the figure averaged 23% during the three months preceding February 28.
India’s shift toward Russian crude followed the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and a temporary suspension of sanctions on purchases by the administration of US President Donald Trump in an effort to increase market supply.
However, the sanctions waiver expired on June 17 and was not extended by the US Treasury Department.
Reuters noted that this could lead to a decline in purchases of Russian crude, although the outcome will depend on the willingness of Indian refiners and government officials to return to sourcing shipments from Middle Eastern suppliers.
According to Kpler forecasts, imports from Saudi Arabia are expected to remain at 349,000 barrels per day in June. That compares with an average of 832,000 barrels per day during the three months before the conflict.
A similar trend is visible in coal imports. Imports of Russian coal across all grades are expected to reach 3.16 million tonnes in June, compared with 3.27 million tonnes in May.
Both figures would rank as the second and third highest on record, respectively, behind the peak of 3.76 million tonnes registered in May last year.
Russia is also expected to overtake Australia in June to become the second-largest supplier of coal to India, the world’s second-largest coal importer after China.
According to Reuters, Russia is likely to maintain its role as one of India’s key coal suppliers. Future purchases of Russian oil, however, will depend on whether Washington moves to tighten sanctions against Moscow.
New Delhi says oil shipments will not be affected by sanctions
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in mid-June that the country had increased purchases of Russian oil since 2022 at Washington’s request in order to help contain global energy prices.
Jaishankar criticised US restrictions on Russian commodities and urged policymakers not to present such measures as matters of grand principle.
Sujata Sharma, a representative of India’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, also said in May that shipments from Russia were continuing and would do so regardless of US decisions concerning sanctions waivers.
Indian refiners reduced imports from Russia in 2025 and turned to suppliers in Saudi Arabia and Iraq amid pressure from the United States and threats of a 25% tariff on Indian goods.
However, Reuters data show that following the outbreak of war in the Middle East and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Indian companies began increasing purchases of Russian crude again in early March.
Russia’s ambassador to New Delhi, Denis Alipov, said at the end of April that Moscow was prepared to supply as much raw material as India was willing to accept.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later confirmed that Moscow remained committed to its agreements on energy shipments to India.
Diplomacy
EU, US and China intensify competition over Africa’s strategic minerals through Lobito Corridor
Africa is becoming an increasingly intense arena of competition among China, the US and the European Union over access to strategic raw materials.
According to an analysis by German Foreign Policy, the Lobito Corridor, a rail link connecting the copper belt of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Atlantic port of Lobito in Angola, is playing a pivotal role in that contest.
The infrastructure project is regarded as one of the flagship initiatives of the EU’s Global Gateway strategy and is also viewed by Washington, which is investing in the region, as a means of reducing dependence on China.
In the future, copper, cobalt, lithium and other raw materials essential for the production of batteries, electric vehicles, digital technologies and military equipment will be transported westward via this route.
The initiative builds on infrastructure originally constructed during the colonial era to facilitate the export of African raw materials.
Critics argue that the expansion of the Lobito Corridor perpetuates existing patterns of resource extraction under new conditions.
Global Gateway as a counter to the Belt and Road
The European Commission approved the Global Gateway programme in September 2021.
Under the programme, nearly €300 billion is to be invested in infrastructure projects across Africa, Asia, Oceania, Southeast Europe, and South and Central America by 2027.
The programme is widely viewed as a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
One of its central objectives is to diversify Europe’s imports of critical raw materials, particularly by reducing dependence on supplies from China.
During a visit to China in late May 2026, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche of the CDU underscored the importance of secure access to critical raw materials and rare earth elements. This is the area in which Germany remains most dependent on China.
Colonial-era infrastructure remains intact
One of the clearest examples is the 1,300-kilometre Lobito Corridor, which runs from the edge of the Zambia-Southern Congo copper belt to the port of Lobito in Angola.
The core infrastructure of this trade corridor was established through the Benguela Railway, which was built as early as 1902 at the height of European colonial expansion. The railway extended eastward from the port city of Lobito through what is now Angola, providing access to the mineral-rich regions of southern Congo and Zambia.
In 1931, following completion of the initial railway line, the British mining and railway company Tanganyika Concessions transferred its 99-year concession rights to Portugal’s colony of Angola.
The concession expired in 2001, after which the infrastructure, previously controlled by Portuguese authorities, was transferred to the Angolan government.
By 2030, annual copper shipments through the route are expected to reach one million metric tonnes.
Both the EU and the US are relying heavily on the Lobito Corridor in an effort to counter China’s dominant position in Africa’s raw materials sector.
Estimates indicate that roughly two-thirds of global cobalt production originates in the Congo, where Chinese companies are particularly active in mining operations.
China also accounts for approximately 75% of global cobalt processing capacity.
The colonial-era rail line leading to Lobito is intended to redirect exports of copper, cobalt and other raw materials, which have until now largely been shipped eastward via Tanzania, toward western markets, enabling processing in Europe or North America rather than China.
Europe seeks to reduce dependence on China for the green transition
In addition to copper and cobalt, the region holds substantial deposits of lithium, coltan, nickel and rare earth elements, giving it significant economic importance.
These materials are used in electric vehicle batteries, stationary energy storage systems and alloys required for military aircraft production.
Until now, the EU has sourced much of these materials from China. Strategic investment in a new logistics hub in Luau, Angola, located along the Lobito Corridor, is intended to reduce that dependence.
The railway line along the corridor is already operated by a European consortium.
The consortium includes Swiss commodities trader Trafigura, Portuguese construction group Mota-Engil and Belgian rail company Vecturis.
However, the majority of the mines remain under Chinese control. In the Congo, 24 of the country’s 33 cobalt-exporting companies are Chinese-backed.
The Lobito Corridor is being developed through an EU-US partnership
EU efforts to secure influence over the Lobito Corridor are advancing in parallel with similar initiatives by the United States.
In early 2022, the US signed a memorandum of understanding with the EU and other G7 members to mobilise more than $600 billion for infrastructure projects worldwide over the following five years as part of the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).
The Lobito Corridor is one of five key trade, transit and development corridors in Southern Africa designed to improve transport efficiency.
During the administration of President Joe Biden, financing for the Lobito Corridor was launched under the G7’s PGII framework as a flagship project in cooperation with the Global Gateway initiative.
The EU also regards the expansion of the Lobito Corridor as a critical project and has committed more than €2 billion in funding.
That support could increase further. The next EU budget cycle beginning in 2028 envisages nearly doubling spending on development and external assistance, from €108 billion to €200 billion.
EU officials present the strategy as an effort to offer a more comprehensive approach to infrastructure financing than China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
‘America First’ in Africa
The US has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars for the expansion of the Lobito Corridor.
In the final quarter of 2025 alone, it provided $553 million in loans for the project’s expansion.
An additional $200 million in support came from the Development Bank of Southern Africa.
Unlike the Biden administration, which frequently described the initiative as development assistance, the second Trump administration openly characterises the project as an effort to weaken China’s influence, strengthen US control over critical raw materials and diversify supply chains.
For example, Frank Garcia, a former naval officer appointed in late May as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, praised the Trump administration’s continuing engagement on the continent.
Highlighting the Lobito Corridor in particular, Garcia said the project aligns key US interests in Africa with the “America First” approach.
Germany in Africa for the energy transition
Last autumn, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier travelled several kilometres on the newly restored railway line along the Lobito Corridor and described it as “a strategic infrastructure project of enormous economic importance.”
The German politician added: “Of course, this infrastructure connection also creates investment opportunities for European and German companies along its route.”
Portuguese construction company MCA is currently building solar energy parks in 60 municipalities across Angola at a cost of just under €1.29 billion.
The client is Angola’s Energy Ministry, while the German government is supporting the project through export credit guarantees.
Should Angola fail to meet its payment obligations, Germany would step in. A total of 95% of the project value is guaranteed by the Federal Republic of Germany.
In return, Angola agreed to allow German companies to participate in the project. For example, the battery storage system is being supplied by SMA Solar Technology, based in Niestetal near Kassel.
German solar technology provider Gantner Instruments Environment Solutions is supplying the digital control system.
Critics of the Lobito Corridor expansion warn that the project will primarily benefit the EU and the US.
In their view, the initiative promotes the export of African raw materials rather than strengthening intra-African trade.
Although the EU presents these measures as a development project aligned with African interests, critics argue that they ultimately represent a continuation of Western exploitation of African resources.
Diplomacy
EU presses Türkiye for non-Russian gas supplies under future energy contracts
The European Union is insisting that natural gas delivered to member states via Türkiye under new supply agreements must not be of Russian origin.
German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said after an official visit to Ankara that “Türkiye understands that the EU attaches great importance to ending the supply of raw materials originating from Russia and accepts this reality.”
Reiche added that Turkish officials had made it clear that replacing supplies from Russia could not be achieved overnight, either economically or in terms of available alternative sources.
As of June 17, a ban on pipeline natural gas imports from Russia under short-term contracts signed more than a year ago entered into force across the European Union.
The measure was approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament at the end of last year. In January 2025, EU member states also voted to phase out Russian gas completely by 2027. Under that decision, member states are required to verify the origin of gas supplies before authorizing deliveries.
Meanwhile, Swiss-based company Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, has launched legal action challenging the regulation imposing the ban on Russian gas imports.
Türkiye, for its part, is continuing negotiations with Gazprom on natural gas supplies for the period after 2026, as existing contracts are approaching expiration.
Energy and Natural Resources Minister Alparslan Bayraktar previously said the parties had yet to reach agreement on potential shipment volumes and the duration of any new contracts.
In December 2025, Ankara extended by one year two agreements with Gazprom covering gas deliveries through the TurkStream and Blue Stream pipelines.
Türkiye is seeking to reduce Russia’s share of its gas supply mix. Russia’s share of Türkiye’s natural gas imports has already fallen below 40%.
As part of its energy diversification strategy, Ankara plans to replace part of Russian gas imports with supplies from the United States and Central Asia.
Bayraktar previously said that despite US calls to abandon Russian energy resources, Türkiye would continue purchasing natural gas from Russia.
“We cannot tell our citizens there is no gas available. We have agreements with Russia. Winter is approaching. We need gas from Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan,” Bayraktar said.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
