Thursday, February 19, 2026 l Dalena Reporters
The United Kingdom government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has refused a formal request from the United States administration led by President Donald Trump to authorise the use of British military bases for potential military strikes against Iran, marking a rare diplomatic divergence between the NATO allies and a contentious moment in global security diplomacy.
According to multiple international news reports, Whitehall has not granted approval for American forces to use Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in Gloucestershire a key location for U.S. heavy bombers or the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for operations targeting Iranian territory. The decision arrives amid escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme and ongoing diplomatic efforts to avert further Middle East conflict.
British officials are understood to have cited concerns that direct participation even by hosting U.S. aircraft in a prospective offensive could breach international law and undermine the UK’s long-standing legal commitments, particularly in the absence of clear United Nations authorisation or a defined defensive context. London has instead reiterated its preference for diplomatic resolution and legal clarity before facilitating any military action from sovereign territory.
President Trump’s administration, which has been drawing up contingency plans and repositioning military assets in the region, publicly criticised Britain’s stance. In a social media post, the U.S. president asserted that access to strategic bases such as Diego Garcia and Fairford might be “necessary … to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous regime,” directly linking the stalemate to broader defence cooperation concerns and raising questions about alliance unity.
The dispute has intersected with heated debate over the future of the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal between the UK and Mauritius an arrangement involving a long-term lease for Diego Garcia which Trump has publicly opposed following London’s refusal to greenlight U.S. use of the base for an Iran campaign. Opposition figures and commentators on both sides have described the issue as a test of transatlantic strategic cohesion and legal prudence.
International legal experts note that Britain’s reluctance reflects a careful interpretation of international humanitarian law and the risks of complicity in operations that may be perceived as offensive rather than defensive. Critics of the UK position, particularly within some U.S. political circles, argue it could hamper allied efforts to counter perceived threats posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
As diplomatic and military postures continue to evolve, the lack of UK approval for U.S. basing rights in a potential Iran operation underscores the complexities of coalition warfare laws, alliance politics, and the fine balance between national sovereignty and collective security obligations in an uncertain global security environment.