JJP lobbies the Foreign Office and the National Security Adviser
On 16 June, JJP wrote to the Foreign Office and the National Security Adviser about the war that Israel started by attacking Iran. We advocated that, under no circumstances, should the UK assist Israel in its aggressive war, either offensively or defensively. We also put Israel’s attack in the context of its determination to brook no opposition from any surrounding country to its plan to create Greater Israel at the Palestinians’ expense.
Letters were also sent to the German and French embassies, suitably amended to cover the slightly different situations regarding arms deliveries and helping Israel’s missile defence.
Letter to the FCDO and the National Security Adviser
Jonathan Powell, National Security Adviser 16 June 2025
Stephen Hickey
Director, Middle East & North Africa, FCDO
Dear Mr. Powell and Mr. Hickey,
The much predicted and feared major Israeli attack on Iran, with obvious support from Donald Trump, has occurred, and war is now raging. We are extremely concerned about the transfer of further UK fighter planes and air-to-air refuelling planes to the region, and by the lack of clarity as to what they will be used for. We believe the UK should under no circumstances assist Israel in its aggressive war, either offensively or defensively.
All efforts should be concentrated on working with like-minded countries to secure a ceasefire as soon as possible.
It is essential to keep in mind the long-term context of this war.
Iran was abiding by the terms of the JCPOA, signed in 2015, for a full year after Donald Trump took the United States out of the agreement in 2018 and reimposed US nuclear-related sanctions. Iran only stopped abiding by the terms in 2019, when American pressure stopped western countries buying Iranian oil as part of Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy.
Since then, Iran has been enriching uranium beyond the stipulated limits for civilian use, although not to the level necessary for a weapon, and also breaking the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement in other ways. Nevertheless, the remedy is for the IAEA Board to report the issue to the Security Council, not for Israel to attack Iran.
Despite Iran being very nearly able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb, it would take another year for it to create the required delivery system. Therefore, there isn’t even the justification of urgency for the Israeli attack.
In March 2025, the American intelligence community assessed that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, nor had the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei authorised restarting the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.
The repeated Israeli claim that Iran having a nuclear weapon is an “existential threat” to Israel does not stand up to examination. It is well known that Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s. It also has the “nuclear triad” delivery capability. One would have to believe that Iranian leaders are certifiably insane to believe they would risk a nuclear first strike against Israel.
Israel’s motive in being determined to be the only nuclear power the Middle East stems directly from its determination to continue occupying Palestinian land, preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state, and eventually creating Greater Israel. That policy has created Palestinian resistance, sometimes terrorist attacks, two intifadas and several wars against Gaza. The possibility of Arab countries, or Iran, being motivated to attack Israel in support of the Palestinians is ever-present. Israel therefore wants to hold the whip-hand of being the sole nuclear power so that it will never have to negotiate with the Arab countries or Iran and agree to end the occupation.
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s policy has always been to support Palestinian resistance to Israel, and therefore to support Hamas and Hezbollah through its Axis of Resistance. Therefore, the key to Iranian acceptance of Israel lies in Hamas accepting Israel. Hamas leaders offered that several times, providing Israel accepts a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. The last offer was made by Khaled Meshal in April 2008. He said “We agree to a [Palestinian] state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognising Israel. We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.” In 2017, Hamas created the new Principles and Policies document, which explicitly accepts that there can be a separate Palestinian state along the 1967 lines. It also, inter alia, identifies Israel only with Zionists, not Jews.
The right-wing Israeli governments in power since March 2009 never responded to either gesture. The Hams-Islamic Jihad attack on 7th October 2023 was a war crime and a crime against humanity as it was mainly against Israeli civilians, but its roots lie in that refusal to respond and in the five previous bombing assaults on Gaza. Eventually, the hard-line faction in Hamas gained ascendency over the moderate faction. As António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, said, to the Security Council on 24 October, “the deadly assault by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum… the Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation…”
The entirety of the terrible and dangerous situation we are now in – the Hamas assault on 7 October, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the war between Israel and Iran, and whatever unforeseen consequences there may yet be – has its roots in Israel’s long repression of the Palestinian people. Very strong sanctions will be necessary to compel Israel to change course. Recent experience with a few piecemeal sanctions against individuals has shown the world that much stronger action will be required.
Sanctions should include suspending tariff-free status of all Israeli imports; immobilising all Israel’s foreign exchange reserves held in London, as has been done to Russia; suspending all arms exports to Israel; restrictions on business services; and refusing entry to all Israeli government ministers and senior military officers. Continued failure to apply them will badly erode the credibility of the U.K.’s commitment to international law, perhaps fatally.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur Goodman
Parliamentary and Diplomatic Officer