In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Alfie Howis
Britain’s role in the recent machinations of the US empire has been central, despite going underreported and little criticised. Britain has played a significant part in the ongoing US war of aggression against Iran and the recent invasion of Venezuela. Britain’s empire, overseas bases, and associated intelligence and surveillance capabilities are cornerstones of its contribution to these ongoing wars. Just as Britain’s colonial bases in occupied Cyprus served an intelligence and surveillance role in the Gaza genocide, so too did they help surveil Iran and prepare intelligence for US attacks, and they are now being used as a staging post for those attacks. The ongoing UK–Mauritius Chagos Islands deal and the subsequent US–UK rift over Diego Garcia’s use in the attack on Iran show the potential for decolonial practice in international law and offer lessons for the US–UK Bases Off Cyprus campaign.
RAF Akrotiri has been very important in the US attacks on Iran to date. It provided a base for air‑refuelling planes that refuelled the bombers striking Iran’s nuclear sites in June last year, and the bases likely provided intelligence and surveillance support for that operation as well. Between March and May last year, the base also refuelled US bombers that attacked Yemen—an attack in which the RAF directly participated. The base is used for all UK bombing of Iraq and Syria, which still happens occasionally, and it was almost certainly an intelligence hub for American support for the successful counter‑revolution in Syria. British F‑35s are currently stationed in Akrotiri, reportedly to conduct ELINT (electronic intelligence) against Iran, using their advanced sensors to gather intelligence on Iranian air defences as part of the current war. Any strike on Iran would begin with SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) operations, necessitating detailed mapping of those air defences beforehand, which is what the F‑35s are doing. The British government has now allowed the use of the bases on Cyprus for attacks on Iran, despite earlier denials. GCHQ and the NSA’s main Middle Eastern intelligence base is located in the British base area, and it is extremely important to any military operations in the region. The NSA controls part of these bases more than GCHQ does, meaning there is no UK oversight of US intelligence operations—let alone democratic accountability for the people of Britain or Cyprus.
Britain’s role in US wars during the Trump administration has been much more significant than many people realise. Britain actually suspended Caribbean‑ and Eastern Pacific‑related intelligence sharing with the US in November 2025 because of US strikes on fishing boats that killed civilians. The British state briefed journalists anonymously that this was because the strikes were illegal murders that Britain did not want to be implicated in legally—which was, of course, a self‑interested position rather than a moral one.
Yet by the start of this year, Britain had begun contributing directly to the Southern Spear mission, this time in relation to the oil blockade of Venezuela. Essentially, the UK drew a line between different parts of US actions in the region, even though the tanker seizures are clearly illegal as well. There were at least four examples demonstrating direct British involvement in the seizure of tankers. Britain helped the US seize three tankers in the Caribbean—carrying a total of 2.5 million barrels of oil: the M Sophia, the Olina, and the Sagitta—between January 7th and January 20th. Britain contributed to this with surveillance flights, likely operating from British colonies in the Caribbean, from Florida, and from the Azores.
Once again, we see the intelligence and surveillance role that Britain plays in the imperial alliance; in lieu of a powerful navy, Britain seems to have specialised in this role. This type of activity is inherently secretive—it would have been politically difficult to send navy ships to interdict vessels off Venezuela. But the surveillance contribution, enabled by the remaining empire’s geographical footprint, has not been picked up by the media at all, and it is largely unaccountable to Parliament and subject to almost no democratic oversight. This mirrors Britain’s role in the Gaza genocide, where its surveillance contributions have been shrouded in secrecy and the details hidden even from MPs who are supposed to have oversight of the military or at least its participation in foreign wars.
Another case is that of the ship Bella 1, renamed the Marinera, which the US seized in the North Atlantic between Iceland and Scotland on January 7th. This was a Russian‑flagged tanker sailing from Venezuela to Russia. What happened here was more direct: US special forces flew to Britain—tracked by flight watchers following known special‑operations aircraft—and then undertook the seizure operation after flying from Britain in helicopters to meet US Navy ships. Britain provided more intense logistical and surveillance support in this instance, as it occurred so close to British territory. The ship was seized and brought to Scotland, and the 26 crew were detained and unlawfully held in Scotland, with most eventually released after the US determined they were “allowed” to leave.
The captain and first mate, the captain being a Georgian citizen, were not permitted to return home by the US once detained in Scotland. The captain’s wife appealed to the Scottish courts, arguing that her husband was being illegally detained without proper extradition procedures. A Scottish court granted an interim interdict—an emergency injunction—prohibiting the removal of the captain from Scotland while the case was heard. However, immediately after that court decision, that same night, the two men were taken from Scotland to a US Navy ship, which then set sail for the US. A couple of days ago, the captain had his first court hearing in Puerto Rico, where he will be transferred to DC and put on trial for allegedly “preventing a lawful seizure” and failing to stop the vessel during the Coast Guard chase. The Scottish government condemned the US actions, but the Green Party of Scotland led a more serious analysis in the Scottish Parliament, arguing that the US had effectively kidnapped people from Scotland and ignored the courts.
There are a few things to note here. First, as with all US actions around Venezuela and the tankers, there was no legal basis for any of this. A ship is not “illegal” or part of a “dark fleet” simply because it is sanctioned by one country. Venezuela and Russia are, in theory, sovereign nations that can conduct trade and sail ships between them; no state has the authority to unilaterally declare such trade illegal. There is a pretence that these sanctions represent international law, but they are merely edicts by one country, with no relation to international law, treaties, the UN, or any multilateral decision‑making body. In fact, Bella 1 was not even sanctioned by the UK, so what possible legal justification existed for the UK’s involvement?
The second issue is the US flouting Scottish and British law. Scotland has its own judicial system, separate from the rest of the UK. It is under the UK Supreme Court and the British Parliament, but it exercises its own judicial authority. Likewise, the Scottish government has a high degree of autonomy within the UK, with its own elected parliament and government. The US violating the laws of places where its troops are based is nothing new—consider the long record of abuses associated with US bases abroad, especially in Japan and Korea. A US diplomat’s spouse killed a young man in a car crash near a US base in England a few years ago and flew back to the US, never facing consequences.
So, regardless of UK law and international law, the US is allowed—and even invited—to do whatever it wants in Britain, and can commission the British military to help. The British military is helping the US commit crimes in Britain—crimes under British law—in the case of the kidnapping of the sailors from Scotland. The British military is literally helping a foreign power defy civilian courts. In the UK, we are witnessing the subordination of our own government and legal system to US imperial diktats, and our military—and certainly this government—are choosing to actively promote it. It is a serious crisis of sovereignty for the UK. It is more important to focus on the imperial violence Britain is inflicting on others rather than dwell too much on the implications of that violence in the metropole, but there are the seeds of a domestic political and legal crisis here that could one day undermine Britain’s role in all of this.
There was relatively big news in mid‑February about the UK denying the US the use of its bases for the coming renewed war on Iran—specifically bases in England and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Trump publicly complained about this and again withdrew his support for the Chagos Islands deal. To summarise the current situation: the British Indian Ocean Territory is a UK colony in the middle of the Indian Ocean. After WW2, the US leased the main island, Diego Garcia, as an airbase, and it is now one of the most strategically important US bases in the world. It was one of the CIA’s black sites and has supported attacks on the region before, including on Iran. Mauritius went through international courts to force the UK to return the territory and won, so in 2025 the UK government agreed to hand over the territory but lease the base back from Mauritius for 99 years, keeping the base’s status essentially unchanged.
This rift between Britain and the US is good news, but it raises important questions—and the denials have already been rescinded. Can the UK always exercise this right of denial? If so, it must have proactively approved US use of bases for attacking Iran last year. Did it approve the torture black site on Diego Garcia? Does it approve the use of UK bases as transit points for equipment destined for attacks on Iran? Trump posting that he “may have to use” the Fairford and Diego Garcia bases to attack Iran, despite being told he cannot, should be a major scandal. Again, the question of UK sovereignty arises: can Britain even say no to the US? And will this government do anything if its refusal is ignored? Highly unlikely.
It appears the issue may have originated in an order to the Foreign Office telling civil servants to act as if the Chagos Islands deal had already gone through. In this case, the UK government seems to have asked Mauritius about the US request, and Mauritius must have said no—so Britain said no. Alternatively, the Foreign Office may have refused based on the specific wording of the deal, which requires Britain to consult Mauritius on any attack on a third state from Diego Garcia, and judged Trump’s intended actions to constitute an attack on Iran rather than self‑defence, which would not require consultation.
This makes the situation appear far less benevolent. This government and the previous one, which began negotiations with Mauritius, have faced attacks from the right for “giving away” British land and “throwing away” an important base. The government has justified the deal not because it is right or because it accepts the principles behind it, but because it claims it is the only way to keep the base operating. They argue that because of the ICJ ruling, they would soon be forced to cede the territory, so it was best to make a deal first. There is little reason to place much faith in these organs of international law, as they were set up to enforce the imperial order. However, it is possible for the subjects of that order to assert agency and use the system in an insurgent manner. In this case, Mauritius—and much of the world supporting it—forced this reckoning, indirectly causing the rift and potentially preventing the base from being used for these attacks. I do not think this will ultimately work, and the US would probably use the base anyway, but these are important considerations in the base question. It seems the UK is now allowing the use of Diego Garcia for attacks on Iran that it deems “defensive,” even though that definition includes strikes on ground targets. The potential utility of this handover model—despite keeping the base open—does seem to restrict its uses in line with aspects of Mauritian sovereignty, disrupting the base in some way, which is a significant decolonial win the left has not yet fully grasped.
Alfie Howis is an activist and writer with CODEPINK London.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.