LONDON – Andy Burnham has approved the use of British military facilities for American strikes on Iran, according to a Bloomberg report published Tuesday, placing the new prime minister in direct continuity with his predecessor and confronting the Labour left with its first major disappointment of his administration.
The report, citing people familiar with the matter, said Burnham authorized the use of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and potentially Diego Garcia, the joint UK-US territory in the Indian Ocean, for operations the United States characterizes as part of its campaign against Iran’s nuclear programme. Burnham became prime minister earlier this month following Keir Starmer’s resignation, and his supporters had expected a materially different posture on the Iran war, one more consistent with the Labour left’s historic scepticism of British military entanglement in US operations.
That expectation has not been met. Burnham’s office declined to confirm or deny the Bloomberg account on Tuesday, saying only that the government was “engaged in ongoing discussions about shared security interests in the region” and that operational details of any use of British facilities would not be disclosed. That formulation mirrors the language Starmer’s government had used for months.
RAF Fairford, a United States Air Force facility in the Cotswolds used for European operations, has been at the centre of the base-use dispute since the US-Iran confrontation escalated in June. B-1B Lancer bombers, which carry conventional bunker-busting munitions capable of penetrating Iran’s hardened underground nuclear sites, have been staged through Fairford for exercises and, according to American officials, for operational missions. Anti-war demonstrators have maintained a protest encampment outside the base’s main gate since operations began.
Starmer had initially refused permission for Diego Garcia for Iran strikes, citing legal concerns about Britain’s treaty obligations. He subsequently permitted RAF Fairford to be used for what Downing Street called “defensive” operations, a characterisation that drew immediate scepticism from Labour’s left wing and from legal scholars who questioned whether the distinction was meaningful when the strikes were targeting a sovereign state’s nuclear programme. According to i24NEWS, American officials confirmed the UK base authorizations were already operative before Burnham took office.
Burnham comes from that left wing. As Greater Manchester mayor, he was among Labour’s most prominent critics of British military involvement beyond a strict UN mandate. His appointment of John Healey as Chancellor signalled continuity on economic policy, and his handling of the Iran base question suggests a similar pattern is emerging on defence. President Trump described his first phone call with Burnham as “a very good conversation.”
The political costs are accumulating. Jeremy Corbyn, now sitting as an independent after Labour removed the whip, wrote on social media that Burnham had “chosen the special relationship over the values he claimed to hold.” Within the parliamentary Labour Party, a group of around thirty MPs who had expected a change of course is now calculating how openly to express their opposition.
Anti-war demonstrators at RAF Fairford drew fresh crowds on Tuesday evening following the Bloomberg report. Stop the War Coalition and Peace Pledge Union called on the government to close the base to US military use. The protest camp outside Fairford’s main gate has been continuously present since operations against Iran began in June.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who as shadow foreign secretary had questioned the legal basis for using British territory for offensive operations against a state with which Britain is not formally at war, has not commented since the Bloomberg report. His silence has been noted by anti-war Labour MPs who had expected him to be a moderating force in the new cabinet.
What the Burnham decision does not resolve is whether Britain’s involvement constitutes a belligerent act under international law. Iran has warned repeatedly that any country permitting its territory to be used for strikes against Iranian targets will be treated as a co-belligerent. That declaration has not produced formal diplomatic action against Britain, but legal experts say the question of Britain’s status in the conflict remains live and unsettled.
The US campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites has run for more than ten nights, targeting Fordow and the Natanz centrifuge halls. Whether Britain’s formal acknowledgement of base use for those operations changes the legal or diplomatic calculus is the question Burnham’s office has so far declined to answer.
For Labour’s anti-war tradition, the unanswered question is whether this decision represents a tactical accommodation or a genuine conversion. The Fairford base is operational. The bombs have already flown. What no one in the government will say is whether that was Burnham’s choice, or one that had already been made before he walked through the door of Number Ten.
