The Daily Populous Tuesday April 7th, 2026 evening edition
Authored by inews.co.uk and submitted by theipaper

close Cancel email WhatsApp link share Share bookmark Save

Britain will refuse to allow Donald Trump to use RAF bases for any strikes on Iranian bridges or power plants, The i Paper understands.

The US President has threatened to unleash “Hell” on Iran’s key civilian infrastructure on Tuesday unless Tehran reopens the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously made clear that American military access to UK bases must be restricted to the degrading of Iran’s defensive capabilities, such as missile silos or storage depots, that could be used to threaten British interests or its allies in the Gulf.

New Feature In Short Quick Stories. Same trusted journalism.

The i Paper has been told that US targeting of bridges and power plants would not come under this definition and if Washington requests use of UK bases for such operations, it would be denied.

Trump takes another swipe at Starmer

The US requests permission to use RAF bases on a case-by-case basis, and it is understood that no such request has yet been made for the potential strikes on Tuesday – which Trump has called “Power Plant Day” and “Bridge Day”.

Some international law experts have warned that targeting civilian bridges and power plants would constitute a war crime.

While Starmer has not changed his position on the use of UK bases for defensive purposes, a refusal for assistance in the potential operations on Tuesday risks worsening the already icy relations between the Prime Minister and the President.

In his latest comments on the war on Monday, Trump took another swipe at Starmer – saying the UK has a “long way to go” and compared the PM to his predecessor who appeased Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

The President said: “We won’t want another Neville Chamberlain, do we agree? We don’t want Neville Chamberlain.”

Trump also reiterated his threat towards Iran’s civilian infrastructure, saying unless Tehran gave in to his demands “they’ll have no bridges. They’ll have no power plants. They’ll have no anything.”

He added that he “won’t go further, because there are other things that are worse than those two.

“If I had my choice, what would I like to do? Take the oil. Because it’s there for the taking. There’s not a thing they can do about it.

“Unfortunately the American people would like to see us come home. If it were up to me I’d take the oil, I’d keep the oil […] make plenty of money and I’d also take care of the people of Iran.”

UK has given permission for defensive missions

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “The UK authorised the United States to use British bases for defensive missions to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities which are threatening British people, bases, and our partners in the region.

“The United States is using British bases for specific defensive operations to prevent Iran firing missiles into the region, which is putting British lives at risk. This is alongside the defensive action the UK is taking to protect British people across the region.

“We won’t be providing a running commentary on our allies’ operations, including their use of our bases.”

On 1 March, Starmer announced that the UK would give permission for the US to use British bases in Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, for defensive missions, saying: “The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source – in their storage depots or the launchers which used to fire the missiles.”

He said this activity was part of “the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives” and was “in accordance with international law”.

On Tuesday, British military chiefs will host a virtual conference in London to discuss planning to free up the Strait of Hormuz, alongside defence officials from more than 40 countries.

It will explore “appropriate measures” for an international coalition to get merchant shipping through the strait, including the practicalities of making it accessible and safe once hostilities have ceased.

‘Rules of engagement exist for good reason’

A senior MP has raised concerns about the US refusing to adhere to rules of engagement and risking flouting international law.

Richard Foord, a Liberal Democrat member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a former British Army officer, said: “Rules of engagement exist in war for very good reason.

“They link the tactical decisions made by soldiers on the ground to the operational intent of their most senior commanders.

“Rules of engagement also serve to maintain the law of armed conflict, and stop disciplined use of force from becoming unmitigated blood-spilling, motivated by bloodlust.”

Foord said without them, the US risked turning the Iranian people against them. He said: “When the bombardment stops, Iranians are less likely to see what the US has presented them with as an ‘incredible opportunity.’

“Instead, there is a real risk that many Iranians will see the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – their enemy’s enemy – as their friend.”

Darkone539 on April 7th, 2026 at 14:03 UTC »

Holy shit. That's actually massive.

Ah. Having read the article it's just for the bridge strikes. I thought we withdrew their use altogether.

jigen3 on April 7th, 2026 at 11:21 UTC »

Can't Trump just lie and say he's using the bases to attack some military target and then just destroy some more bridges and schools?

Hungry_Horace on April 7th, 2026 at 10:19 UTC »

> Article 54(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention provides: It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

> Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the 1998 ICC Statute provides that “[i]ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.

What Trump has announced may well fall under the category of War Crimes under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and similar actions have been used by the ICC to issue arrest warrants.

So yeah, no civilised country wants to touch this with a barge pole.