Connect with us

Diplomacy

Starmer blocks US access to British bases for potential Iran strikes citing international law

Published

on

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

Vance leads indirect push for US-Iran ceasefire and nuclear talks

Published

on

US Vice-President JD Vance has been personally involved over the past two weeks in indirect talks with Iran aimed at securing a fresh ceasefire and restarting nuclear negotiations.

According to Axios, Vance’s intense engagement indicates that he has taken it upon himself to extract the US from the conflict, which he views as responsible for the Republican Party’s shocking losses in this week’s elections.

This elevates the latest round of indirect talks to the highest echelons of the administration.

US officials and regional sources state that Trump is currently willing to let diplomatic efforts run their course to see whether any agreement is achievable.

Asked by reporters on Friday what his message was to Iran, Trump said, “We are talking to them.”

According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Vance speaks almost daily with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, and other mediators regarding the negotiations with Iran.

White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, are also involved in the process.

Sources say Vance and the Qatari and Pakistani mediators have been discussing the possibility of holding a working-level technical meeting between the US and Iran in the coming days, though this has not yet materialized.

Before the war began in late February, Vance was among the most sceptical voices in Trump’s inner circle on the issue, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution.

In April, he led the US negotiating delegation at the Iran summit held in Islamabad and was personally involved in the talks that yielded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the US and Iran in June.

Vance subsequently headed the US delegation during a series of direct talks with Iran in Switzerland.

Two weeks ago, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing that direct negotiations resume.

Rezaei is one of the closest advisers to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Iranian officials noted that Vance’s letter generated positive momentum toward restarting talks.

On Wednesday, Vance said the war was the primary reason for the Republicans’ repudiation at the polls.

Sources involved in mediation efforts report that while progress is being made, the process is moving very slowly.

On Friday evening, the prime minister of Qatar said, “Over the past few weeks, we worked with our colleagues in the US administration who have a sincere intention to contain the situation and de-escalate. Thanks to them and the voices of reason in Tehran, we prevented the situation from spinning out of control.”

The prime minister added that discussions with the Trump administration continued following the midterm elections, though they were not as active as in previous days “because there are other matters.”

Nevertheless, he noted that the US intention to find a diplomatic resolution “remains ongoing” and emphasized that an agreement is possible.

On Friday morning, Trump and the Emir of Qatar discussed Qatari efforts to bridge differences between the US and Iran as part of an accord.

According to a statement from his office, Sheikh Tamim emphasized the necessity of “pursuing dialogue and diplomatic channels to resolve differences, prevent the region from facing further escalation, and ensure freedom of maritime navigation as well as the security of energy supplies.”

Separately, Trump confirmed on Friday that the US military conducted a strike on an anti-aircraft missile launcher on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz after it fired a missile at a US fighter jet.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Ukraine faces demographic collapse as fertility rates slide

Published

on

British magazine The Economist reported that mobilization, conflict casualties, and pervasive uncertainty have left Ukraine confronting the threat of demographic collapse.

According to data cited by the magazine, Ukraine’s fertility rate has declined from 1.2 children per woman in 2020 to between 0.8 and 0.9.

This rate marks a lower level than that of any major nation except South Korea.

In the first half of 2026, the number of deaths in Ukraine surpassed the number of newborn babies threefold.

The report noted that ever since independence was gained in 1991, the number of births in the country has lagged behind the number of deaths every year.

The Economist emphasized that the demographic collapse driven by the ongoing fighting constitutes an “existential threat.”

The magazine identified mass refugee migration as the principal driver of the population loss.

More than 5 million Ukrainians reside abroad, predominantly in Europe.

The proportion of those wishing to return among those who left the country is also steadily shrinking.

According to data from the Centre for Economic Strategy (CES), the share of those seeking to return dropped from 74% in 2022 to 43%.

The fact that the majority of refugees consist of Ukrainian children and women under the age of 44 further aggravates the demographic picture.

The Kyiv government decided to exempt men under the age of 25 from mobilization to alleviate the demographic decline.

The magazine reported, however, that many young people have fled the country, while those who remain do not plan to start families.

Projections cited in the report indicate that even if hostilities cease in the coming years, Ukraine can, at best, expect merely a deceleration of depopulation.

Olga Duhnich, an expert at the Ukraine-based think tank Frontier Institute, stated that the generation born in the 1990s and 2000s is the least populous in Ukraine’s modern history, meaning the country cannot expect a post-conflict baby boom.

The United Nations (UN) projects that Ukraine’s population will decline by 0.7% to 0.9% each year over the next two decades.

Under this projection, Ukraine’s population will fall to approximately 25 million by 2040.

If hostilities drag on, people are expected to abandon plans to have children, deepening the crisis even further.

Beyond exempting men under 25 from mobilization, the Kyiv government is rolling out various support packages to boost birth rates.

Under legislation enacted in the country, parents who have children receive a direct payment of 50,000 hryvnias (around $1,100).

Parents are also paid 7,000 hryvnias each month during the first year.

Other state programmes subsidize childcare costs, while Ukrainian soldiers are granted free freezing of egg and sperm cells.

Ukrainian Minister of Social Policy Denis Ulyutin said in May to the Livyi Bereh media outlet that roughly 22 to 25 million people lived in government-controlled territories.

Ulyutin characterized the prevailing picture by saying: “This is a catastrophe.”

Ella Libanova, Director of the Institute for Demography and Quality of Life Research, estimated the population at 29 million during the same period.

Libanova attributed the steep fall from a population of 30 million in 2025 to high death rates and the demographic crisis.

In a statement in October, Libanova announced that Ukraine’s population had slipped to 28.5 million.

Institute Director Libanova said: “The population is already at 28.5 million; we lost half a million people. We lost them, but thankfully this was still caused by migration rather than casualties.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Armenian opposition urged to form joint front against constitution

Published

on

Narek Karapetyan, a lawmaker and head of the Strong Armenia faction in the Armenian parliament, has urged opposition parties to unite around four core principles set out in a joint declaration.

The key points of the declaration include resisting territorial concessions and blocking the adoption of a new constitution, which the opposition has termed the “Aliyev constitution”.

According to a report by Aysor.am, Narek Karapetyan stated that the opposition meeting was originally planned to be led by his uncle, businessman and Strong Armenia movement leader Samvel Karapetyan.

“We initiated the meeting, but the authorities took preemptive steps to prevent Samvel Karapetyan from launching the national unification process,” Narek Karapetyan said.

Noting that, despite these events, opposition representatives convened and signed a joint declaration based on four agreed articles, Narek Karapetyan invited other opposition forces and members of the public to join the alliance.

“We will not allow them to implement the Aliyev constitution in Armenia. We must unite,” Karapetyan said.

Ahead of these developments, Armenian National Security Service personnel detained Strong Armenia Party leader Samvel Karapetyan following a search of his home.

The party’s press secretary, Agavni Sukiasyan, announced that on the morning of the same day, the Investigative Committee of Armenia searched the homes of both Samvel Karapetyan and Narek Karapetyan.

In a report citing the Investigative Committee, Armenpress stated that Samvel Karapetyan was detained as part of a case involving allegations of causing large-scale financial damage to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company, embezzling entrusted property, and money laundering.

According to committee figures, the total damage inflicted on the company exceeds $179 million.

Narek Karapetyan’s home was also searched at the end of July as part of a criminal case.

On 22 July, Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission approved the Prosecutor General’s request to strip Narek Karapetyan of his parliamentary immunity, and Karapetyan was charged with large-scale money laundering.

According to information reported by Sputnik Armenia, the investigation is linked to charges brought against Strong Armenia supporter Aleksan Aleksanyan.

Investigative authorities allege that Aleksanyan received approximately $4.4 million and €230,000 from the Karapetyan-owned Tashir Foundation under the guise of gifts and loans.

Several criminal cases had previously been opened against Samvel Karapetyan.

In 2025, Karapetyan was charged with publicly calling for the violent seizure of power after backing the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had been criticized by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

In January, legal proceedings were also launched against Karapetyan on charges of large-scale tax evasion and money laundering.

Separately, in early July 2025, the Armenian parliament approved a bill enabling the nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia company.

In March, Armenia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the nationalization process in question complied with the law.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey