The most alarming claim in this piece isn't that the US is bombing Iran — it's that Britain is actively helping them do it, and the British government doesn't want anyone to know what's happening at its own bases.
The Iranian Warning
Iran's foreign minister has warned the UK directly: letting the US use British bases constitutes participation in aggression. In a call with UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron, Abbas Arraghi demanded that Britain cease cooperation with the United States. Downing Street has repeatedly claimed that British bases are only being used for defensive action — but evidence is mounting that this may not be true.
The Evidence Britain Wants Hidden
An investigation by Declassified UK at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire reveals a significant presence of heavy US bombers. Around a quarter to half of America's entire B-1 fleet is stationed there. Investigators actually watched one B-1 taking off, presumably heading to bomb Iran. They've also documented thousands of 2,000-pound bombs dotted around the airfield — and US soldiers photographed moving those munitions.
Most tellingly, fencing has been erected around the airfield to prevent journalists and the public from seeing what's happening inside. The message is clear: this isn't a defensive operation.
RAF Fairford is reportedly the only US air base in Europe with a runway long enough for launching B-1 bombers. Britain's base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean can accommodate B-2 stealth bombers — used to bomb deep inside Iran. Both bases are currently being used by the US, and Britain has not publicly acknowledged this.
The US forces controlling these bases are hiding what they're doing behind a fence.
Public Sentiment and Green Party Response
This isn't just a diplomatic issue — it's a political one. A YouGov poll found that only 13% of British adults strongly supported allowing the US to use British bases for attacks on Iran. Nearly half — 50% — opposed the move, with 29% strongly opposed.
The Green Party has seized this opening. Five MPs and two peers have written to Prime Minister Starmer demanding answers: whether an assessment has been made of how many Iranian civilians were killed in bombing missions launched from UK bases. They've also called for withdrawing all permission for the US to use British military bases, ending arms sales to Israel, imposing sanctions on officials responsible for breaches of international law, and refusing further complicity in what they call this illegal war.
Britain's Unexplained Role
Declassified UK editor Phil Miller explained the situation: Trump is using two British air bases — RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia. From these bases, heavy bombers take off daily and fly across the Atlantic, through the Mediterranean, over Israel and Saudi Arabia before reaching Iran.
The French have put restrictions on US overflight of heavy bombers. The UK has not. When Declassified asked the Ministry of Defence whether they approve targets before US planes take off — and whether they audit after strikes to confirm what was hit — they refused to comment. They also declined to say whether banned cluster munitions are being used, or how many civilians have been killed.
Miller pointed out that Iran has a right to self-defense and to retaliate against both US bases and Israeli military sites. The UK government has not explained how it distinguishes between civilian and military targets in Iran — which suggests they may not be trying to make that distinction at all.
The Economic Consequences
Britain's complicity isn't just a legal or moral question — it's about ordinary people's wallets. Iran's retaliation against gas fields in the Gulf has already driven up energy prices. Britain has invested minimally in gas storage and its own energy security, meaning higher costs for consumers are now baked in.
We've seen the consequences of not standing up to Trump: Israel and the US destroying gas fields in Iran, Iran retaliating — and ordinary British families paying more for everything.
How Britain Compares to Europe
France has maintained a tradition of independent foreign policy. It left NATO for years and maintains greater independence from American military operations. The UK, by contrast, has moved in lockstep with the US for decades, operating overseas bases side-by-side with American forces — making it nearly impossible to disentangle British involvement from America's war.
Critics might note that framing this entirely as an illegal war without acknowledging the genuine security threats Iran poses to the Gulf region misses part of the picture. Iran's ballistic missile program does threaten civilian infrastructure in the Gulf, and some analysts argue the US response was proportionate given those risks — though whether 2,000-pound bombs on civilian sites constitutes a proportionate response remains debatable.
Bottom Line
This piece's strongest argument is its documentation — photographs of bombers, refuse-to-answer questions from the Ministry of Defence, polling data showing overwhelming public opposition. Britain's vulnerability isn't just diplomatic: it's that they're actively facilitating attacks while simultaneously refusing to explain what those attacks target or who dies. The most important question this piece raises isn't about international law — it's whether ordinary British families will soon be paying for a war they didn't vote for.