PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Middle East - 2 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.

President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.

There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.

It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.

I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.

It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.

We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.

Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.

In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.

The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.

The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.

We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier.

This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at?

Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support.

We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country.

The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.

Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said:

“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies”

while forcing us

“to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”.

Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them.

What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.

The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.

Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.

I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.

I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.

Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.

We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?

Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.

We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?

In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.

On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.

I call the Father of the House.

Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.

I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.

I call the Mother of the House.

The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?

I thank the right hon. Member and assure her that we have learned the lessons of Iraq. That is why I have been so clear that there must be a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. In relation to our nationals, I think all our constituents would expect our Government to take action to protect British nationals. We have 300,000 British nationals in the region, and they are at risk. We have already seen strikes on hotels where our nationals have been staying, and on airports. We have seen strikes near military bases, within hundreds of yards of our personnel. It is our duty to take the action we can take, and will take, to protect them.

Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?

In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is co-ordination going on for that very reason. As I set out in my statement, there have been 20 Iranian-backed plots to take action on our streets, all of which have been thwarted—I pay my respects to our security and intelligence services and the work that they do. In relation to his first point, two separate decisions were made over the weekend. We are in the sky taking action defensively with our allies. Among the reasons we agreed to the request from the US yesterday was that it has the capability to take out the missile launchers in Iran. That is why we gave permission for the US to use our bases: in order to reduce the threat to our citizens.

The Prime Minister has spoken about repatriating British citizens in the region. Will that be through the Ministry of Defence? If so, who will foot the bill: the MOD, the Treasury or those being repatriated?

We are working across all Departments on repatriation. At the moment, we are simply focused on working with our allies to get a plan together to get people out in the first place, and to do it as quickly and safely as possible. There is no intention to charge people for that.

The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?

We obviously co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners. We were dealing with a specific request to take action, and it was important that we applied the principle, which actually has been applied by successive Governments, to ask and get legal advice on the question: is there a lawful basis for what is proposed, and does it have a viable, thought-through plan? [Interruption.] It is not a legal question; it is about making sure, before we ask our military personnel to engage in action that risks their lives, that that would be lawful. That is the duty of the Prime Minister. Previous Prime Ministers have taken exactly the same approach. I will, of course, read the shadow Attorney General’s advice, but I am very clear in the advice that I received. I will not commit our military personnel to unlaw action. That is not what they deserve or would expect; they are entitled to better than that.

Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump.

When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action. Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?

My right hon. Friend is right to urge caution—history teaches us that. This is why it is important that there is not only a lawful basis but a viable and thought-through plan. Obviously, we have had discussions at all levels with the US in relation to that. In relation to the decision I took yesterday, I am very clear what the lawful basis is and what the plan in relation to protection of our nationals is. On the question he raises about a vote, that is of course a vote on offensive action, deploying our troops or military, and that is not this situation.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that in 2003 this House voted to support George Bush’s war in Iraq, and that 10 years later we voted not to support Barack Obama’s intervention in Syria. I believed, and still believe, that on both occasions we made the wrong decision, but it was of critical importance for the political and even the social cohesion of this country that those decisions should be made in this Chamber. The people of the United Kingdom will not support an intervention that does not have a clear objective and a clear plan for the post-conflict period. Will the Prime Minister be guided by these principles, and will he ensure that this House is given its place in whatever is handed to us in the weeks and months to come?

Of course this House must hold accountability and debate this issue. In relation to the vote, there is no convention for a vote in relation to defensive action; only offensive action. And nor could there be: realistically, defensive action has to be taken at very swift notice. On Saturday morning, I had to take the decision to deploy our pilots to the sky in order to defend our UK nationals. There is no way we could have waited for a debate or vote in the House. Equally, last night I had to take a decision about the use of bases, and it was important that I did so as a matter of some urgency. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a full debate in the House, but the vote in the House is in relation to deployment of military personnel for offensive action, and that is something I have advocated.

I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

Can I be absolutely clear about the basis upon which the request was acceded to yesterday? It was the collective self-defence of our allies and the protection of British nationals. That remains the case. If it changes, I will of course make a different decision and inform the House. My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that that is, and will remain, the basis of the action we have taken.

British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?

Yes, we are working at speed on that. It is an important point, and it is important that we do so. I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out our armed forces. It was this Government that increased defence spending over the course of this Parliament.

Over the weekend, I passed through Dubai airport, along with thousands of other people and many of my own constituents, as it turns out, and boarded a flight home. Shortly after leaving, we heard the news that this attack had happened, and my immediate thoughts went to the people who were still in the airport, who were then grounded and stuck there, not knowing where to turn or what was going to happen. Rather than the blatant aggression and angry sneers that we see from some of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister agree that what we need in this situation is calmness and a clear and strategic plan? That is what our constituents want.

I am sure that is what our constituents do want. Can I also say how concerned I think we all are across the House at the attacks on hotels and airports in particular? These are hotels that British nationals and others are using and airports, of course, that civilians are using. This is the extent of the strikes by Iran and the reckless disregard for civilian life that come with the targets it is working through.

The people of Iran have suffered decades of atrocities under the rule of an oppressive regime. However, as we have seen from Iraq and Libya, the removal of an evil head of state without a future plan for governance can lead to countries becoming failed states. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s reluctance to involve the UK in another protracted war in the middle east, I remain unclear on the Government’s vision for the region. Does the Prime Minister want regime change? Have his officials contacted the leading opposition figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, to arrange such contingency plans, or does he wish to negotiate a diplomatic solution with the current regime?

The immediate plan is obviously to take the necessary measures to protect our nationals. Look, I do not think anybody mourns the death of the supreme leader. I firmly believe that, ultimately, the only way forward is a negotiated outcome. Whatever the conflict going on, in the end it will have to end in a negotiated outcome, and that has been the consistent position of both parties for a considerable period of time.

So far we have rightly focused on defending and protecting British citizens in the region. Can the Prime Minister confirm, though, that he believes that the future of the Iranian Government is a matter for the Iranian people and no one else? Can we focus our diplomatic efforts as soon as possible on de-escalation and peace, including identifying allies in a coalition of the willing to bring this to an end?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, and we must absolutely establish that as a founding principle, and that it is our duty to de-escalate in the region and globally. Of course, it is important that we are acting with our allies, and that is why I talked to both the Germans and the French over the course of the weekend on a number of occasions.

For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon.

Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.

Nobody is making the comparison with Iraq; there is a question of drawing lessons from Iraq. The lesson I draw is that there must be a lawful basis for the action we take, and there must be a viable plan. On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about operational matters, I will not go into that from the Dispatch Box.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Foreign Secretary, we have at all levels—including the Foreign Secretary—been talking intensively to our allies over the past few days. They have been extremely grateful for what we have done and the way in which we have engaged. I have spoken personally to all the leaders in the region, so I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making about our not being involved—they are very grateful for the way we have been involved. The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have worked around the clock over the past few days to ensure that all the necessary conversations are had, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect and as he probably knows has been happening.

I thank the Prime Minister for setting out clearly the reasons Britain did not join the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. I also thank him for ensuring the defence of Britain’s Gulf partners and for protecting the 300,000 Britons in the region. I agree with him that diplomacy and a negotiated settlement are the best path to peace. Will he outline the role that Britain is playing to ensure that the Iranian people are listened to and have peace and security ahead, not more war and chaos, not another murderous Iranian regime, and not another US-imposed regime change?

We have been very clear: the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, and in the end the question of nuclear weapons will have to be negotiated. We will always ultimately have to get to that point.

The Prime Minister will understand why the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy over the Chamber at times like this. On that basis, does he agree that the best rebuke to the murderers in Tehran and the Iranian regime is the maintenance of the international rules-based system? More than that, we owe it to the people across the region to learn from the instability in the aftermath of Iraq, so what is the long-term viable plan?

We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.

I thank the Prime Minister for his restraint so far in this operation, and for not heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition to get us embroiled in the reckless US and Israeli strikes on Iran. I still remember interventions in the region: colleagues not returning from Afghanistan, friends who were shot down over Iraq and tortured, and the massive destruction to civilians. Will the Prime Minister commit to limiting UK personnel to defensive operations to protect our citizens and allies, and not get us further embroiled in this unwise and dangerous war?

Yes, I will. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will always be a lawful basis for any action that we take, and there must be a viable plan for it.

Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?

In relation to the hon. Lady’s constituents, may I ask her to urge them, if they have not already done so, to register their presence as quickly as possible so that we can give them the necessary advice, because this is about how we get people out in the coming days? There are obviously wider questions in the region, but it is very important that we take the necessary measures in the coming days.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?

I give my hon. Friend and the House my assurance that I will always act in the British national interest. That is the basis of the two decisions I took this weekend.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the exact limits of defensive operations and guarantee that those limits will not change, and will the UK withdraw consent to use our bases if there is proof that they are being used by the US to carry out offensive missions?

The basis is collective lawful defence in relation to our allies. The purpose is to take out the ability of Iran to carry out the strikes that are currently being carried out across the region and threatening British nationals, and the actions from our bases will of course be monitored, as the hon. Lady would expect.

First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in giving thanks to our brave armed forces who are serving right now? I have constituents in South Derbyshire, as I am sure we all do across the country, who look at their TV screens and their social media and see some world leaders who appear reckless, both internationally and domestically, overseeing what looks like state-sponsored murder of people in their own country. So may I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his cool head in this engagement, and may I implore him to continue exactly as he is: taking all the evidence into account, making decisions that are within the law, and putting the interests of British citizens, both in the countries that are under attack and in the region and at home, first and foremost?

I have set out the principles on which I have taken the decisions that I have taken this weekend. We keep uppermost in our minds the protection of our citizens and nationals who are in the region. There are 300,000 of them; they are at risk, and it is very important that we do everything we can to keep them safe and secure.

The truth is that this dreadful Iranian regime has been a permanent threat to British interests and British citizens both domestically and abroad, attacking us and spreading its extremist ideology. Surely the Prime Minister understands that actually the United States and Israel have done the west a huge, huge favour in degrading the military capability of this terrible regime. Does he not understand that, after 10 years of negotiations that have failed, the west was left with no alternative? Does he understand also that in refusing to support the US, he has humiliated us on the international stage?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the regime is abhorrent, for all the reasons that I have already set out, but I think he is saying that because of that, it is perfectly right for a British Prime Minister to deploy and take action that would not be lawful. I simply and fundamentally disagree: I think it is a very important principle, when talking about our personnel, that we ensure that what we are asking them to do—and they are being asked to put their lives at risk—is lawful. I believe in that fundamentally; I am surprised if he does not.

In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the UK’s support for the security of friends and partners in Cyprus. How is the UK co-ordinating efforts with the Cyprus Government to ensure the safety of the whole island, including the bases?

I assure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the President of Cyprus yesterday, and I am hoping to speak to him again later today. I repeat what I said earlier, because it is important for reasons that he and the House will understand. The bases in Cyprus are not being used and are not going to be used by the US. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “Why not?” The answer is that they are not suitable. It is very important that that is made clear, because the President and I have been discussing that, as my hon. Friend will understand.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said:

“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?

I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.

I thank the Prime Minister for his careful response to this issue and his ongoing commitment to the international rule of law. My constituent’s parents, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, are currently serving an appalling and unjustified 10-year sentence in Evin prison in Tehran. Other Governments have given detailed instructions to their nationals as to what to do if Evin’s prison gates were to open and order break down. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a plan covering that situation will be communicated to them to ensure their safety? Have the Government impressed upon the US and Israel the importance of not targeting Evin prison, as Israel did last year, given that the lives of two British citizens are at stake?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. I assure him that we have been and will continue to take all necessary action to safeguard those interests in relation to this case.

RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I assure her and her constituents that all necessary measures are being taken to keep her constituents safe in relation to the use of the base in her constituency; that is a first-order priority for us, and that is what we are doing.

The Prime Minister is right to be clear that UK military action has to be in line with international law, and that we were not involved in the offensive action of Israel and the US. He is also right to act to protect British lives and British interests in the face of Iranian attacks. In rightly drawing lessons from Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that a failed state in Iran is not in the interests of the UK, nor in the interests of the wider middle east?

We have to learn the lessons. Collapsing and failed states have historically proved to be worse, so we do have to be careful.

If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?

I think I have made clear the basis for the second decision: we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to take out the ability of Iran to make those strikes. That is legal because it is collective self-defence.

Iran’s reckless attacks have fuelled further regional instability, putting British people at risk along with our allies across the region. The attacks have naturally caused concern about what they mean for our own national security due to rising oil prices and the cost of living. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK needs to act decisively in our own national interest, including on how this conflict could impact every household in our country?

We are very concerned about the wider impact. That is why it is important that we continue to argue for de-escalation and a return ultimately to negotiation.

My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?

We are not at war, and we are not getting involved in offensive action that the US and Israel are taking. We have published a summary of the legal advice in relation to the decision that we took last night. That is in accordance with practice. It is not practice to publish legal advice or summaries in relation to defensive action.

I think the diffidence that we have heard towards international law this afternoon is as unwise as, perhaps, it is unsurprising. For the sake of clarity, can the Prime Minister confirm what would have needed to have been true for it to be legal for him to have joined the offensive strikes last week? Surely that would have required an imminent threat to our national security, which was simply not present when the decision to strike was taken.

I will resist setting out the full international law test, but it is clear what the test is—I think that is not disputed. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the Attorney General’s advice, the summary of which has been published for all to see; I do not think anybody is saying that that is the wrong advice. [Interruption.] I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. I would be surprised if he advises that it would have been unequivocally lawful to have joined the initial action, but if the Leader of the Opposition will give me that advice, I will carefully consider it.

May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.

There are two separate considerations, obviously; the first was the decision on whether to join the US and Israel in the first place, and the second was the decision that we took last night. We started taking defensive action on Saturday by deploying our pilots to the skies in the region, so we had already taken that action. We added to that defensive action last night by permitting the US to use our bases to strike at the capability of Iran to issue the strikes in the first place.

It has been heartening to see the scenes of jubilation from Iranians, from Syrians and from British Iranians in this country at the death of the evil ayatollah. They hope that it will enable them ultimately to finally gain their freedom from this horrific regime. As the situation evolves, may I ask the Prime Minister to keep them in his mind’s eye? Will he engage and meet with some of the Iranian activists who reside in the UK? In addition, if it does look as if the regime is going to fall, can officials think about the ways in which we can support the Iranian people to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure, and to provide aid, just as we are currently doing in Syria?

We must be absolutely clear that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time, including through the terrible actions that were taken in January this year.

In his statement, the Prime Minister explained his disagreement with the US President about UK participation in the initial strikes, and I commend that decision. When the UK refused to participate in US interventions in Vietnam and Grenada, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher kept their disagreements private, but that is difficult to do with Trump. Crucially, though, in the cases of Vietnam and Grenada, the UK stayed out. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the case of Iran, the UK is not going to get dragged into this war on the basis of collective self-defence in support of allies in the Gulf?

I hope I have set out my position clearly, and the reasons behind my decision. That is the basis upon which we made the decision last night; we will keep it under review, and if it changes, I will come back to the House.

We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.

I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I will apply the same principles of whether there is a lawful basis and a viable case to the decisions that we take.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace.

West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?

I think we were all shocked by the actions of the deputy leader of the Green party—although perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction. It is important that we all set our face against antisemitism. I have to say that the Green party’s argument that now is the time to get out of NATO and negotiate with Putin over our nuclear weapons is also contrary to the British national interest.

There are direct flights from Newcastle to Dubai, and many Geordies in the region, including in the armed forces, so I thank the Prime Minister for the steps he is taking to support and protect them, and particularly for acting within international law. Iran is a murderous, despotic state that has frequently threatened, and does threaten, UK security, but the sight of bombs raining down across the Gulf will not make my constituents feel more secure, especially when the impact on democracy and human rights in the region—and, indeed, on the Iranian regime itself—is unclear, to put it mildly. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to help bring this conflict to an end and restore some semblance of security in the region?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents, and I understand just how worried they will be, as will all our constituents who are in the area. That is why it is important that we take measures in the region, as we are doing, to try to take the missiles out of the air. That is the reason we have given permission to the US to use the bases for the limited and specific purposes I have set out.

Last Friday, the talks in Geneva were apparently making good progress and there was hope that there would be some kind of agreement between the United States and Iran. Some 12 hours later, President Trump ordered attacks on Iran, the first victims of which were a group of schoolchildren attending school in the morning. They in no way can be held responsible for anything in Iran, whether human rights abuses or anything else.

In the Prime Minister’s statement, it is unclear to me under which circumstances US forces will be allowed to use RAF bases. Can they use bases in this country to attack Iran? Can they use RAF Akrotiri for that? Are we—this country—sharing information with the US to further its war aims against Iran? Could we not instead adopt a stance of trying to bring about an immediate ceasefire to prevent further dreadful loss of life across every country in the whole region and the danger of this escalating into a semi-global conflict?

The uses of the bases are for the collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British nationals—something I am sure the right hon. Member would agree with—and specifically to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes that are currently going into allied countries and putting our nationals at risk. Let me be clear that we are not using Cyprus for this purpose.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his leadership. My thoughts are with serving personnel in the region. May I also mention our armed forces families in Cyprus, some of whom are my constituents? Clear communications from the Ministry of Defence will be crucial in reassuring these families, who are feeling worried and uncertain at this time. In light of the growing threat, may I ask the Prime Minister about the UK’s preparedness commitment under NATO article 3? Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to preparedness, with every Minister in every Department clear on their role in meeting our obligations to ensure that the UK can face the pressures of this increasingly unstable world?

I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does. I know she has a lot of military families in her constituency, and she is right to be concerned for them. I am sure that they will be feeling concerned. We will ensure that we liaise closely with them, wherever they are in the region, and do all that we can to protect them. We of course thank them for what they are doing. On the wider point she makes, it is important that the whole of Government is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?

It is important that we all learn the lessons of Iraq, and they are that there needs to be a lawful basis for action if it is taken and that there needs to be a viable case.

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar. I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on compliance with the law. What discussions have the Government held with the Government of Qatar and other regional allies about co-operation to ensure the safety, security and support of British nationals? What joint measures have been agreed to assist British nationals in the region?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to all the leaders across the region in person, on the telephone, over the weekend, and that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others have been liaising very closely to ensure that we can take the best, swiftest and most effective action to protect our nationals.

The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake.

One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?

The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why I have proceeded on the basis that there must be a lawful case for what is done and a viable plan. For us, the immediate vision that is important is ensuring that we do what we can to protect our citizens and de-escalate the situation so that we can get to a negotiated outcome.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his reassurance about the principles for involving the United Kingdom in any military action. For those on this side of the House, it is important that, as well as having a viable plan, we stand by the rule of law. Has my right hon. Friend been able to have any discussions with the Arab states, and with Turkey, about how we might build that plan for de-escalation as quickly as possible?

I assure my hon. Friend that we have been having discussions throughout the weekend with counterparts in the region to that end, about how we rise to the challenge that is currently before us, what action we can take to protect our nationals and our allies across the region, and how we can de-escalate.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?

I clearly set out the two decisions that I made over the weekend, including the decision on Saturday to start taking defensive action with our pilots in the region, and the decision last night to permit the US to use our bases for collective self-defence in order to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes in the first place.

May I put on record my admiration for the skill and the bravery of our armed forces? We owe them a debt of gratitude now more than ever as they see action.

The Prime Minister was right to say that we must learn the lessons from Iraq, and all the other conflicts in which there has not been a viable end plan. Given that, can he reassure me that the decision to allow the United States to launch operations from our bases will be kept under constant review, so that the UK’s presence in this conflict remains a defensive one?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The decision will be kept under review, and I will update the House accordingly.

It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?

The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working at pace to deal with the drones and are working with our Ukrainian colleagues, who have been facing this for four years. We have been working with them on that, and we are working with them to help to protect allies who are under attack in the region.

Overnight, my constituents have lost the benefit—promised to them only last week—of savings on energy prices through the attacks on refineries across Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Oil prices have soared, and gas prices in Europe have surged by upwards of 52% in the last few hours. The longer this carries on, it risks escalation across the middle east. Closer to home, it impacts on the day-to-day lives of the British people through increased energy costs. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of energy prices to British households, and what efforts is the Prime Minister making to ensure that we can de-escalate sooner rather than later?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents. We are carefully monitoring that, as she would expect, and we are doing all that we can with our allies to de-escalate the situation.

As a veteran, I agree with the Prime Minister that the safety of our armed forces and of British citizens should come first in any decision made in the future. Given the rapidly evolving situation, will the Ministry of Defence now expedite the promised defence investment plan, so that our industry can get on and make the capabilities that this country needs?

Yes, we are getting on with that as quickly as we can.

We should all welcome the end of the Iranian regime—if it is the end of the regime. Those of us who were in this House for the decision on Iraq needed no convincing that Saddam’s was an evil regime. What we needed convincing on was that the attack was permissible in international law and that there was clarity about the exit strategy; it had neither of those, and nor does the US attack on Iran. The Prime Minister’s broadcast justification of the use of our bases spoke of enabling a defensive strike. Words have meaning: a “defensive strike” is a contradiction in terms. The usual phrase is “pre-emptive strike”, and in any language, a pre-emptive strike is an attack.

The use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out Iran’s ability to launch the attacks in the first place. I think that is relatively clear.

The Houthis in Yemen have declared their support for Iran but have so far taken no pre-emptive action. Given that the UK has previously been willing to take action against the Houthis, would we be willing to do so again if they become involved?

I will not get into hypotheticals, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when the last Government were in office and we were in opposition, we supported that action, as was the case when we were in government and the Conservatives were in opposition. He can see what the consistent practice is there.

The brutality of the Iranian regime is unquestionable, but does the Prime Minister agree with many of our constituents still in the region, who will be deeply concerned at the indication from the United States today that it will increase its airstrikes on Iran? Can he assure us that he will redouble his efforts to take forward the strategy, which he has rightly set out today, of de-escalation and action that is in accordance with international law?

I acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as many of our constituents will be concerned. That is why it is our duty to take measures to protect them first and foremost, and to de-escalate the situation.

I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?

The deal secures the islands so that they can be used for the important purposes that they are used for. It was vital that we got the deal; otherwise, we would not be able to carry out the operations in the same way.

This conflict has already cost lives. Civilians are caught in the crossfire, and hundreds of thousands of UK nationals are stranded in the region. If it continues for weeks, that will only make it more difficult to evacuate our nationals, and it will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and damage to the world economy. Can the Prime Minister say more about what he will do in the coming days to work with our allies in the EU and the middle east to try to bring an end to this conflict, and to return to diplomatic negotiations, so that we can secure peace and security and protect civilian lives?

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are talking to our allies in the region and to allies in Europe—we talked to France and Germany, in particular, over the weekend—to be clear about the principles we are applying, and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to de-escalate the situation.

I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?

The question I was asked and I was answering was: what would be the lawful basis for anything the United Kingdom would do? That is the question that I considered over the weekend, and that is what guided me in the two decisions that I had to make about the United Kingdom.

I had 40 constituents with me this morning, and they were very concerned about the creation of a regional vacuum, specifically in places like Lebanon and Yemen. What steps is the UK taking to prepare for targeted stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in the countries that will be most exposed if the Iranian regime changes?

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is very important that we take those measures in the countries that are most exposed, and we are talking to our allies about how we can do that.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Israel, where these actions were being anticipated, largely with some dread. The great sense I got from talking to both groups of people was of deep national trauma, caused in no small part by the actions of Iranian-backed terrorists. What does the Prime Minister know about the ultimate intentions of either the Israeli or the American Government? What is their exit strategy? What are their objectives? There can be no probability of regime change coming from all this, so how does it make the lives of the Iranian people any better, and the lives of those in the wider middle east any more secure?

I thank the hon. Member for raising the matter of the west bank; it is a cause of great concern, which is only intensified by actions in recent days, and I am not surprised that they have caused deep concern in the west bank. As far as the UK is concerned, I have clearly set out what our strategy is, and the basis for the actions that we are taking.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard multiple sets of evidence about the risk in our dependence on fossil fuels, given the volatility of prices. The way that oil and gas prices have gone up has been a salutary reminder of that evidence. Remember that gas sets the price for our electricity most of the time. Is not the energy transition not a matter of ideology, but a matter of national security importance, and economic importance?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Among the reasons for pushing ahead with renewables is that they give us energy security and independence, which is hugely important at a time like this.

Order. Can I please urge Members to make their questions significantly shorter? There is still a huge number of Members seeking to catch my eye. I know we are going to have an exemplary performance from Mark Pritchard, with a very short question, please.

When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.

I have been absolutely focused only on British nationals this weekend. That has been the total focus of my attention, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

A constituent who fled Iran fought back tears as she told me that she wanted an end to the regime in Iran that had targeted her and her loved ones. She also said that she wanted absolutely no illegal military intervention from external forces. Does the Prime Minister understand that enabling the use of military bases by the Government’s allies—in this case, the US—and Israel’s illegal actions are dragging our country into a wider conflict, but that the Government have no power to determine the conflict’s outcome, and that that risks making us all more, not less, safe?

No. Our decisions were made to protect British citizens and British nationals, and I stand by those decisions.

The Iranian regime is a murderous regime. It is an exporter of terrorism, and a threat to regional and national security, and its removal is good for British security and good for the Iranian people. However, what comes next is even more important than what has happened. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he wants a “viable, thought-through plan”. Does he think that President Trump has a viable, thought-through plan for what comes next?

We are obviously discussing all matters with the US, all the time. I am absolutely clear what our plan is, and what the basis for our decisions is, and I have set them out to the House.

Our primary duty at this time must be to ensure the safety of British nationals in the region—people like my constituents the Foreman family, who are trapped abroad and do not know when they will be able to come home. Their father’s medication runs out today, and they have no idea whether they will be able to obtain more drugs. What assurance will the Prime Minister provide that consular support will be there for families like my constituents, so that they get the medication they need and, ideally, come home as soon as possible?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?

We are using British personnel to defend Cyprus at this very moment.

No one should shed a tear for the Iranian leadership; this was a brutal and oppressive regime. However, there are other brutal and repressive regimes in the world. A brutal and oppressive regime is never, in and of itself, a reason to attack a country. Can the Prime Minister please assure me that any involvement of British troops or assets in this conflict will be purely defensive?

I have set out the principles on which I will act. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Any action will have to have a lawful basis, and a viable case for it.

As long as the Iranian regime exists, it will continue to pose a direct threat to our security, and to stability across the region, yet Cabinet Office figures show that non-official development assistance integrated security fund spending for the middle east is set to fall by a third in the coming years. Will the Prime Minister explain why funding to counter Iranian threats is being reduced, when those threats remain so acute?

We are taking a number of measures to deal with Iranian threats, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

The Prime Minister claims that lessons have been learned from Iraq, and I really hope that is true. Netanyahu and Trump instigated an illegal act of aggression, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people, including UK nationals and our military. Does the Prime Minister agree that diplomacy and de-escalation are needed if we are not to bring Britain into a reckless and catastrophic war, and can he provide details about this “viable, thought-through plan” to repatriate our nationals?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to apply the principles that I have set out, and will work to de-escalate across the region.

The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?

My point is simply that in the end, there will ultimately have to be a negotiated outcome when it comes to nuclear weapons. At what point that happens is obviously unclear, particularly after the past few days. That is why it has for years been the consistent policy of both our parties that this should be a negotiated outcome. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy until Friday of last week.

Door-knocking in Ealing yesterday, I met a student whose parents fled Iran in 1979, and who told me how overjoyed they are to get rid of this despotic, tyrannical regime. Yet the methods used surely risk undermining the rules-based order. A girls’ school was hit, with 150 kids killed; we appear to have normalised the bombing of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and universities in Gaza by one of the two instigators of this action. What does the PM see as the end game of this war, and how will he stop Operation Fury turning into Operation Futility?

I have clearly set out the basis for the decisions I have taken, and my view that we should all do all we can to de-escalate the situation.

I thank the Prime Minister for his measured statement and restraint. The illegal action by Israel and the USA over the weekend, taking out admittedly a very repressive and brutal regime leader, has left the region and the world in turmoil, which is creating real fear, especially for our children. In fact, my 14-year-old asked me over the weekend, “Dad, are we all going to be okay?” I ask the Prime Minister this, as a father: what assurance he can give my son, and all the children in this country and the middle east, that he will do everything in his power to prevent the outbreak of world war three, which Donald Trump and Netanyahu are driving us towards?

The protection and security of British nationals is my foremost duty. I take it very seriously—that is why I took the decisions that I did over the weekend—and will continue to do so.

Like many people in my constituency, I said prayers over the weekend while watching the events unfold. It is clear that the region is in a perilous state, and we need to de-escalate, follow the rule of law and get peace back on the table.

I have a related question on the region for the Prime Minister. As he will know, many in the House were passionate about ensuring a ceasefire in Gaza and ensuring that aid and humanity got in. We know that there have been closures of ways into the west bank and Gaza over the weekend. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give us that while we look towards Iran, we will not lose sight of the humanitarian need in Gaza and on the west bank?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The ceasefire in Gaza is welcome but fragile, and not enough aid was getting in even under the circumstances before this weekend. We are working with others to ensure that we can alleviate the situation as quickly as possible.

Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?

This is the Government who have increased defence spending. I can assure the hon. Lady that our service personnel are working very hard as we speak to keep us safe and to protect the region, and we thank them for doing that.

May I commend my right and learned hon. Friend for his resolute stand? It cannot have been easy to stand up to the President and not get dragged into this war, which has no apparent plan for its end. We made that mistake in 2003, and the result was disastrous. The President of the United States has made it clear that he wants to see regime change. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has seen evidence of any plan to achieve that in our negotiations with the United States?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are talking to the US at all levels, and there is real clarity about the action that we have taken and the basis and reason for that action.

No one here is an apologist for the cruel Iranian regime, but the escalation initiated by the US Administration and the Israeli Government is illegal, and I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. Hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are directly affected and at risk, and they include people from Dwyfor Meirionnydd. While there must be questions anon about a vote in this House as we fear that these defensive actions will slide into offensive ones, but we do not know how we will track that process. None the less, the question for today that people want us to ask is this: when will people be coming home, especially from Doha and Dubai?

I know that the right hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, will be very concerned, particularly since there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. We want to make sure that the answer to her question is that we will get them home as quickly and as safely as we can, and we are working with our regional allies on this as we speak.

I thank the Prime Minister for his measured response so far. I have spoken to former constituents and friends who are British expats in the UAE. While they feel confident that the local Government there are doing all that they can to protect them, for clarity, will they too be considered for evacuation by the FCDO should it become necessary?

We are working with all our allies to ensure that all those who need our help get our help and are safely and swiftly removed from a region that is dangerous for them.

I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?

I am not going to disclose the full advice. International law does not just have an important role to play; it is vital if we are taking action that involves our personnel. That is why I took advice, and I have published the summary of that advice. I said that I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. if he is setting out a lawful basis, I would be very interested to read it.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his clarity on our adherence to international law. From Somalia to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, history shows us that military interventions do not always lead to peaceful political transitions and often have wider regional and global repercussions. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that his focus will be on encouraging a peaceful transition for the people of Iran and de-escalating the situation regionally and globally?

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also underscore her point that the future of Iran must be for the people of Iran, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time.

We must not conflate the appalling actions of Iran with those of the Iranian people, who have spent years fighting at great risk for change—and intensively over the last couple of months. The severe repression under the ayatollah has led many of them to actually welcome the actions of Trump and Netanyahu, but how are this Government going to ensure that Iranian voices are heard when decisions are being made about their future once military action finally subsides?

It is very important that we are clear on the principle that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed, particularly but not only in recent months. We must consistently make that case, and we are doing so.

This is an extremely dangerous moment, and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show where it can end up: with death, destruction, terror and chaos impacting tens of millions of people. Given that, should the Government’s focus not be on pushing Trump, Israel and Iran towards diplomacy, de-escalation and a ceasefire? Instead, by siding with Trump, has the Prime Minister not risked dragging us into a wider conflict, which leaves us all less safe? Mission creep would erode the distinction that he is attempting to make between offensive and defensive actions and would lead us to become fully embroiled in an illegal US war in the middle east.

My focus has been on the protection of the 300,000 British nationals in the region, who are at risk. It is our duty to take steps to reduce that risk and bring them to safety and security.

A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree with the way that he puts it. It is important that we acknowledge that the Iranian people have been brutally repressed for so many years.

May I express my support for the Government’s handling of the events this weekend? I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s clarity today that international law is paramount and that priority is being given to the safety of UK citizens. Does he agree with me, however, that this will end only when Iran, the US and allies get around the table and talk about nuclear de-escalation, and when Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions? Will the Prime Minister tell us what conversations he has had with allies to ensure that happens?

We are having conversations with allies about de-escalating the situation and about how we get back to negotiation. In the end, at whatever stage it is, that will have to be part of the process.

We should welcome the actions of America and Israel in trying to destroy a regime that, as the Prime Minister described, has exported terror all over the world, but why the weak-kneed response from the Government that we are limiting our bases to defensive actions. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by “defensive actions”? For example, are attacks on factories making drones that are used to deliver bombs defensive? Are attacks on the leaders planning the war against our allies in the middle east defensive? Would attacks on nuclear facilities be regarded as defensive? Would attacks on the infrastructure that is used to mobilise these weapons be defensive? What are the limits of this defensive action?

Let me be absolutely clear that the action that we have authorised from our bases is to take out Iran’s capability to launch these attacks, which of course means taking out the launchers and the infrastructure that sits behind them.

I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and measured approach and for his reassurance today. As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the mum of a serving personnel member currently deployed overseas, my first thought is always for the men and women we ask to stand in harm’s way. The Iranian regime’s reckless attacks are not abstract; they are direct threats to British service personnel and British citizens in the region. Will the Prime Minister, first, confirm that every measure is being taken to protect constituents on the ground? Secondly, will he assure the House that when we pursue de-escalation and democracy, operational decisions will be grounded firmly in one overriding principle: the safety of our British servicemen and women?

I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are deployed abroad. We are doing everything we can to protect them, and we thank them for the work that they are doing in the region.

I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?

To ask our servicepeople to act when we do not have a lawful basis would be a dereliction of moral purpose.

There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is abominable, but it is clear that the initial joint strikes on Iran were neither defensive nor lawful. As the situation dangerously escalates, hundreds of innocent civilians are now dead across the middle east and UK personnel and citizens are at risk. The Prime Minister has outlined that his aim is a negotiated settlement. Will he outline the tangible action that he and his international counterparts are taking now to secure a ceasefire so that negotiations can resume?

I reassure my hon. Friend that the actions we are taking are to protect British nationals, and we are working with others to de-escalate the situation.

Since we came to the Chamber, a senior Iranian commander has said that they would seek to bomb Cyprus to force out US aircraft from our sovereign bases. As a guarantor of Cyprus’s security and as a sovereign presence on the island of Cyprus, what concrete military devices and measures do we have in place in Cyprus to ensure that no further successful drone attacks can happen on the airfield? What assurances can the Prime Minister offer to Cyprus that no attacks will take place in Cyprus as a whole as a result of our presence there?

I will be absolutely clear again, because it really matters, that the US is not using Cyprus; it is our base. I will not go into operational details, but as the hon. Member would expect we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that Cyprus and the base are safe. I spoke to the President yesterday, and I hope to speak to him again later this afternoon.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Given the comments yesterday from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the IRGC is adopting a decentralised mosaic defence to fragment command and control structures and create even more unpredictable flashpoints, will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on what steps he is taking with allies, including partners in the region, to mitigate such developments that threaten to escalate and prolong the conflict?

We have already put extensive sanctions in place, and we keep the situation under constant review.

I would like to come back to the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the alarming ease with which the Iranian regime was able to penetrate our defences and strike the airfield. That very much suggests that it has little by way of counter-uncrewed aerial systems capability and nothing by way of No. 2 Counter UAS Wing squadrons to deter such attacks.

Will the Prime Minister confirm what type of drone struck the airfield? Will he also confirm the origin of that drone? Did it fly from Iran all the way across Israeli airspace to strike Cyprus, or did it come from Hezbollah in Lebanon? Given that we have been attacking Daesh targets this year via Operation Shader, will he strike back at Hezbollah if it proves that the drone came from Lebanon?

I reassure the hon. Member, and through him everybody in Cyprus, that protective measures are in place. His description was not right, and it is not helpful to those living in Cyprus to cast it in those terms. [Interruption.] It really is not. As he would expect, extensive measures are in place—both US measures and UK measures—for the defence of Cyprus and the airbase there. It is very important that I make that absolutely clear.

I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. I did mention it in my opening statement, but she is quite right that we must be clear that we will protect all those who need our protection. Obviously, where people need to get out, we are working with all of them to get them out as quickly and as safely as possible.

After the fall of the regime in Iraq, there was no long-term plan and civil society collapsed. In 2004, I was in Op Telic 4 in Iraq, retraining the Iraqi police service. One day I asked my lance corporal, “How do we know if the recruits are former Ba’athist regime supporters or not?” He said, “We don’t. We’ve no idea who we’re training.” The US has attacked Iran with no clear strategy, and now this Government have agreed that UK bases can be used for defensive attacks. I am seriously concerned about the potential for mission creep when there is no clear understanding of Trump’s military objectives. In deciding to allow the US to use UK bases for defensive actions, UK military and civilian lives have been put at risk. Military operations with no clear objectives tend to fail, so can the Prime Minister explain how such a decision—which could lead to mission creep—was made when we have no understanding of Trump’s long-term military aim or post-conflict plan?

The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.

Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?

The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under review, and we have already put in place a considerable number of sanctions.

The Prime Minister has set out the threats posed by Iran with some clarity. Taking that into account, does he not recognise that treating international law as a rigid instrument as opposed to a flexible one, as he appears to do, risks binding our hands when it comes to national security?

I have made the point a number of times that it is important that there is a clear legal basis. I am not actually sure what the Conservative party’s position is. Are they saying that they would have joined the original strikes, irrespective of whether that was lawful or not? I have not heard a clear answer to that question. It would be very helpful to have one.

Iranian action in the strait of Hormuz and the attacks on energy infrastructure risk driving up energy prices here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister, in the coming days and weeks, make it clear that the blame for any rising energy prices lies with Iran? Will he also hold all possible discussions to support people in this country, including in my constituency, with any ensuing rising bills?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a concern for his constituents, and for so many of our constituents, and we will take every measure to protect them.

People in Northern Ireland are entitled to be British, Irish or both. As such, many have travelled to the middle east on an Irish passport. We know that the FCDO has asked people to register. However, those Northern Irish citizens who have an Irish passport and are also UK nationals cannot register. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will work to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern Ireland will not be left behind?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I will get to the bottom of it and make sure that the concern she has raised is properly, fully and swiftly addressed.

I thank the Prime Minister for raising the spectre of Iraq. We on the Labour Benches remember how a bloody invasion can lead to a brutal civil war. We know that the aftershocks of now will last years, not days. We are also seeing energy prices spiking, with oil up by 10% and gas up by 50%. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will act to restore peace in the region and to keep life affordable for our citizens?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that he has raised that point and I thank him for doing so.

The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?

It doesn’t. It is the simple use of bases operationally that has been agreed, as of last night.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave service personnel, who every day work incredibly hard to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to him for his leadership on this matter. A number of people from my constituency of Harlow are trapped in Bahrain and Dubai, including one who is pregnant. What advice can the Prime Minister give to my constituents who are worried about their safety?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituents; I am sure they are very anxious about the situation. I assure them and him that we are working at pace with our allies to get a safe and swift route for them to come out of the region, which is what they all want.

I want to go back to the original attacks. Last year, Trump told us that he was attacking Iran to destroy any possibility of it getting a nuclear weapon, and told us afterwards that he had “obliterated” the threat for years to come. Given that was the justification for the attacks last week, and now that Israel has said that they had been planned for months, their urgency seems questionable. What can the Prime Minister tell us about determining the facts around the justification and around the presence of nuclear materials, so that the basis of any future action is clear?

As I said, I took two decisions over the weekend. The second was to allow the bases to be used because of the actions of Iran and the need to protect our citizens, our nationals.

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?

I assure the hon. Member that we are taking measures with our allies to safeguard the supply and to do all we can to ensure that we have the energy we need where we need it.

While the ayatollah has been toppled, the IRGC remains intact, and it is indeed the head of the snake as the sponsor of global terrorism. Despite many urgings, the previous Conservative Government failed to proscribe the IRGC. The Prime Minister’s Government have made the promise to do so. Nothing has happened yet—if not now, when?

As the right hon. and learned Member will know from her time in office that this is kept under review, but we have put extensive sanctions in place, as the previous Government did.

Putting aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday morning, the BBC is in a unique position: running BBC Persian language broadcasting into Iran. Given that and given President Trump’s wishes for the Iranian people themselves to take control, will the Prime Minister put on the record whether he will work with the BBC over the coming days to ensure that there is more Government funding, wherever necessary, to broadcast what is required to the Iranian people?

It is very important that the BBC reports and broadcasts in the way that it does, and we support it in doing so.

A 23-year-old Eastbourne lad, Cameron, is currently lying stranded in a Dubai hospital bed after falling very ill during a minutes-long stopover in Dubai over the weekend. During this window, the airspace closed. Cameron’s hospital bills are £1,000 a day, which he is being forced to pay up front despite having insurance. Cameron, who is watching, urgently needs to know the following. First, when will the Prime Minister outline his repatriation plan, if there will be one? Secondly, will he prioritise British nationals who are clinically vulnerable for repatriation, if it is medically safe? Thirdly, will the appropriate Minister meet me and Cameron’s family to ensure that he gets the treatment he needs before money runs out and to make sure that we get Cameron back to Eastbourne safe?

Cameron and his family and loved ones must be extremely worried. If the hon. Member would pass me the full details of that particular case, I will make sure that we do whatever we can to assist Cameron and his family.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks there was insufficient imminent threat to justify our going with our allies in the initial strike. But this is now after the act of war—after the attack on UK citizens across the middle east, many countries of which were not participating, and on British sovereign territory. That means we can join in and we could be involved in offensive actions if the Prime Minister so chose. Why is he choosing not to, and why is he pretending it is for a legal reason when that legal reason has disappeared?

We started taking action on Saturday morning, with our pilots in the sky across the region, and they have been working ever since. We added to that yesterday afternoon by acceding to the request of the Americans to use our bases for the attacks on Iran’s capability to launch strikes in the first place.

I thank the Prime Minister for accepting that the reason the British Army is not involved is that it would be unlawful and illegal. Thereby, what America has done is illegal—an illegal attack that has led to the death of 167 girls aged between seven and 11. There are people sitting in this Chamber who oppose refugees coming to this country; they are the very same people who are asking for war. Would he be surprised if we had a sudden influx of refugees as a result of what has happened?

The actions I have taken have focused on our need to protect British nationals. It is in all our interests, including British nationals, that we do all we can to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.

I welcome the removal of the abhorrent Iranian regime, having seen its beginnings 47 years ago, when my father was a serving officer in the British embassy. We knew the Americans who were taken hostage. I add my thanks to our serving personnel, who are putting their lives at risk. Since the pre-emptive strike, there has been a sad but inevitable escalation in hostilities, so what can the Prime Minister do to persuade Donald Trump to go to negotiations—that is where we have to be—given that he believes only in win-or-lose situations?

We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.

I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?

We are not equivocating. Pilots have been in the sky since Saturday morning, hours after the attack, risking their lives. I am grateful to them for doing so. They went straight up there, and they have been up there ever since. There was no equivocation; they went up straightaway, and it was the right thing to do.

This conflict has grounded travellers at Doha, including a constituent who has three young children waiting at home. Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with Qatari leaders, can he explain how evacuations will be prioritised, and what support is being provided on the ground to those who were expecting simply to pass through?

May I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Qataris and others to ensure that we are able to get everybody to safety and security as quickly as possible? They are evolving plans, as she will appreciate. It is a difficult situation, but I can assure her that we are doing everything we can to get people out safely—they are our first priority.

As the Prime Minister admits, following the illegal pre-emptive strikes and the killing of Iran’s leader, Iran has become more aggressive and more unpredictable in the region. How can we possibly be assured that further strikes, further attacks and further aggression will somehow calm the situation? Britain must not contribute to another conflict whose legality is in serious doubt. Will the Prime Minister now commit unequivocally to upholding international law, to publishing the Government’s legal advice, and to pressing for an immediate ceasefire and a return to diplomacy rather than allowing the United Kingdom to be drawn into another unlawful war?

It is my duty to protect British nationals—300,000 of them are in the region. The hon. Member will have heard the anxiety from various Members about their constituents being trapped in that situation, only too aware of the danger that they are facing. It is my duty to ensure that the risk to them is reduced. That is why we took the action that we did over the weekend.

British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by an Iranian ballistic missile in Iraq in 2020. When I arrived as a soldier three months later, our base came under attack from Iranian proxy militias eight times. The Iranian regime has gunned down tens of thousands of protesters in recent weeks. Morality is complex. I entirely support the Prime Minister’s view on the need for a negotiated settlement, given, sadly, the risks of regime change, but does he agree that any negotiated settlement needs to include protections against reprisals for protesters?

I very much agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. It is really important that we approach this with clear principles about what we are trying to achieve and having learnt the lessons of history in terms of what happens after such conflicts.

Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that the Prime Minister has drawn, I am very grateful for the reverence and caution that he shows, and for the respect for human life that he has been trying to demonstrate. The limited time he had over the weekend to make decisions on how best to act reveals that he was not involved in all of the pre-planning, so may I ask why the UK is no longer at the decision-making table?

We talk to our allies all the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows and would expect, and we talked to them extensively over the weekend in response to the situation as it developed.

We are doing everything we can as quickly as we can. I will pick up the issue the hon. Gentleman has raised specifically, and will he please reassure his constituents that, he having raised it with me, I will do whatever I can to respond very quickly?

US congressional staff were told on Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike American forces or bases unless Israel attacked Iran first. In other words, there was no intelligence indicating an imminent threat. Yet we have already seen pre-emptive strikes attacking a girls’ school, killing over 100 children. This has been condemned by UNESCO as a grave violation of humanitarian law, yet the Prime Minister did not bother to mention it. Continuing such actions is unlawful, and allowing them to take place from UK bases is unlawful, so I ask the Prime Minister: is the genocide of the Palestinian people not enough for this Labour Government? Is he proud to be another Labour Prime Minister obediently following Washington into yet another illegal war in the middle east, making us all less safe? Finally, how much does he enjoy being Donald Trump’s poodle?

I have set out the decisions I made over the weekend and the reasons for them. My first duty is to protect British nationals; it is the most important duty that I have, and I will continue to discharge it.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime have denied religious minorities their freedom of religious belief for years—Christians, Sunnis, Shia’s and Baha’is. They killed 30,000 protesters in January 2026. Girls are abused and victimised regularly. Today the ayatollah is deservedly dead and burns in hell, and I for one put a shovel of coals on his head and hope his damnation will be a long one. The IRGC and the Basij paramilitary groups have the guns while the protesters have none, so what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the USA and Israel to destroy the murderous IRGC? And what discussions has he had with Madam Rajavi and the national Iranian Government in exile on their 10-point plan for a solution and a transparent way forward?

There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.

I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?

We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.