It is undoubtedly the case that the Iranian regime has long posed a threat to the UK and its allies.

Iran has sponsored international terrorism and conducted assassination plots on British soil, as well as brutally repressed and killed its own citizens.

Iran's nuclear programme, ballistic missiles and repeated cyber attacks are of significant concern, and the consequences of the war that has now followed are being felt across the world, including here at home in the price of fuel at the pump. 

I believe also that successive governments have been right to maintain the position that the UK should only take, facilitate or support military action where it is justified and in accordance with international law.

It has often been said that the recent military action against Iran undertaken by the United States and Israel is illegal under international law, but this is not a straightforward question.

International law permits a nation state to use force in defence of itself or of another state and it does not have to wait to be attacked (or for the other state to be attacked) in order to act in self-defence.

If such an attack was imminent, then military action could legitimately be taken to prevent it. We know of course that Iran has attacked Israel in the recent past.

However, general enmity is not sufficient to justify the use of force in self-defence or in defence of another state, so if the United States or Israel have evidence of imminent attack by Iran it is important that they set out their case.

advertisement

They have not done so. 

As a former Attorney General, I have wrestled with the challenges of a system of international law that lacks the rigour of binding judicial determinations and sanctions and which is based instead largely on state practice, but I still believe that international law is essential to the maintenance of basic standards of behaviour between nations.

Military action of this type is not always illegal, but it always requires justification under the principles of international law. 

Some of these international law judgments are complicated and difficult, but others are more simple.

It is clearly wrong under the laws of armed conflict to target civilians and threats to destroy an entire civilisation are profoundly shocking and unacceptable, especially from the leader of a democracy, let alone of the world's most powerful democracy.

Had they been acted upon, there would have been an evident and serious breach of international law and of many other ethical standards besides.

Words like these should never be used by an American President and I have been pleased to see many US politicians, including in the President's own party, say the same. 

Aside from considerations of international law, it is vital that any military action has clear objectives and a properly considered exit strategy.

advertisement

As neither are evident in this instance, I find it hard to criticise the UK Government's reluctance to actively engage in this operation. However, I am critical of the government's apparent lack of preparation for what has happened in response to US military action.

That action was not unexpected as there had been a US military build-up over several weeks.

Equally predictable were Iranian reprisals which endangered UK interests in the region, including in Cyprus, yet the movement of UK military assets to protect those interests seems to have been unforgivably slow.

The UK government did not need to endorse US military action in order to prepare appropriately for it, which it appears not to have done. 

Taking military action to defend our interests once they have been attacked is of course entirely appropriate, both politically and legally, and I do not criticise the government in that regard. 

Many will also be concerned about pump prices following the oil price spike caused by the war and its disruption to trade routes and Gulf refineries.

The government cannot unilaterally lower the oil price, but it can avoid raising fuel duty when the effects of an energy crisis are still likely to be felt. The fuel duty increase scheduled for September should not happen.