Britain’s level of involvement in the latest US air strikes on Yemen is for the moment unclear. But any involvement at all makes Britain complicit in an operation that seems calculated to provoke further conflict and protect Israel from the consequences of its illegal drive to starve Gaza.
US aircraft carried out a series of attacks on Yemen on 15 March, killing at least 32 people. The Yemeni news outlet Al-Masirah said the attacks were carried out by American and British warplanes. The basis for this claim is unclear. The BBC states that the UK did not participate in the strikes against Yemen but “it did provide routine refuelling support for the US.” The basis for this claim is also unclear. There has so far been no statement from the British Government.
The attacks follow the Yemeni Ansarallah (Houthi) movement’s announcement on 12 March that it was resuming its ban on the passage of Israeli ships following the expiry of the deadline it had given Israel to allow aid into Gaza. Ansrallah has not so far carried out any actions to enforce its ban. Israel has blocked all aid entering Gaza since 2 March, in violation of international law. On 5 March the foreign ministers of the UK. France and Germany issued a statement calling on “the Government of Israel to abide by its international obligations to ensure full, rapid, safe and unhindered provision of humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza.” If they were serious about this statement they might be expected to be sympathetic to Ansarallah’s position. But of course they are not.
Necessary and proportionate measures
When the US and the UK attacked Yemen in January 2024 they justified their actions as self-defence. Both countries notified the UN Security Council of their actions, as the UN Charter requires of any nation taking military action on the basis of its right to self-defence. The notification needs only to be sent. There is no template for what it should say, nor any requirement for the Security Council to approve it.
The notification from the UK stated: “These strikes were necessary and proportionate measures taken in exercise of the individual right of self-defence.”
The applicability of the right to self-defence to the situation created by the Houthis’ 2024 operations against shipping is disputed – see for example the analysis by legal scholar Leonie Brassat (19 March 2024). It is even harder to see how it can be invoked in the present situation, with the Houthis threatening – without having yet carried out – actions against shipping, and with those threats directed against Israeli – not US or UK – shipping. And it is impossible to see how Britain’s 2024 claim of “necessary and proportionate measures” can be squared with the statement with which Donald Trump announced Saturday’s strikes.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Donald Trump said:
“We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective.”
He added:
“To all Houthi terrorists, YOUR TIME IS UP, AND YOUR ATTACKS MUST STOP, STARTING TODAY. IF THEY DON’T, HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE!
To Iran: Support for the Houthi terrorists must end IMMEDIATELY! Do NOT threaten the American People, their President, who has received one of the largest mandates in Presidential History, or Worldwide shipping lanes. If you do, BEWARE, because America will hold you fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it!”
A White House statement says simply:
“Our economic and national security have been under attack by the Houthis for too long. Today, President Trump’s action and leadership are moving to end this.”
There has so far been no official US statement setting out the goals of the operation beyond “moving to end this”, or the means by which they will be achieved beyond an intention to “rain down hell”.
The silence from the UK Government has been even louder. The claim by Al-Masirah that British aircraft were involved in Saturday’s strikes may well be nothing more than a mistaken assumption. The BBC’s claim that British aircraft didn’t participate in the strikes, but that Britain gave “routine refuelling support” sounds like it came from a Government source (why didn’t they say so?). If that is true, it needs to be clarified.
What does “routine refuelling support” mean? Does it mean that US aircraft landed on British territory to refuel? Or that USAF tanker aircraft flying from British territory refuelled the strike aircraft mid-air? Or that an RAF Voyager aircraft refuelled US aircraft mid-air? Does “routine” mean that ministerial approval wouldn’t have been required? Is it likely, even if that were the case, that ministerial approval wouldn’t in fact have been sought?
Any of these circumstances would make the UK complicit in US military action of which the best that can be said is that the legal case has not yet been made out. A less kind characterisation would be that Britain has set out, without any parliamentary debate, on a path intended to provoke conflict with the Houthis and eventually with Iran.
British service personnel at risk
British support for the US air strikes makes it inevitable that the Houthis will see British naval vessels as a potential threat. If they act accordingly Britain will then have the pretext it needs to send British aircraft to join Trump’s next mission to rain down hell. Is Keir Starmer deliberately putting British service personnel at risk to smooth over the difficulties of working with Trump and Netanyahu? He needs to provide an explanation to the British Parliament and the British public.
This is all very odd – or would be, if we were not used to such shenanigans – because the UK Government appears to agree with the Houthis that the Israeli blockade of Gaza must end. It differs from the Houthis only over the question of whether meaningful pressure ought to be applied to Israel.
Photo: RAF Voyager refuelling aircraft about to land at RAF Akrotiti after completing routine operational flying sorties over the Middle East, 28 April 2022. By Cpl Wright RAF © Crown Copyright 2022