The UK government’s ability to support military action in Iran may be limited after Attorney General Richard Hermer raised concerns about the legality of "Israel’s" actions against Iran, according to a source familiar with internal discussions.

While Hermer’s full legal opinion remains unpublished, a source told Sky News that his conclusions could restrict British involvement in "Israel's" war on Iran unless UK forces are directly targeted.

The legal advice is expected to weigh heavily on whether the UK can support "Israel" or the US in any potential assault or escalation against Tehran.

“Unless our personnel are targeted, UK involvement is limited,” the source stated.

US President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing options for US military action, which could include deploying B-2 stealth bombers to strike Iran’s fortified nuclear site at Fordow.

These bombers could launch from Diego Garcia, a UK-owned island hosting a strategic US base, or potentially use RAF bases in Cyprus for refueling.

By long-standing convention, the UK must approve US use of these bases for offensive operations. Any legal reservations from the attorney general could delay or restrict such permissions, posing diplomatic complications between London and Washington.

'Israel's' justification under scrutiny

The Israeli government maintains that its strikes are defensive, citing an "imminent" and "existential" threat from Iran. Occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pointed to undisclosed intelligence alleging Tehran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon.

However, international legal experts note that "Israel" has not presented public evidence of an imminent Iranian attack. That ambiguity may be central to Hermer’s legal analysis, especially in evaluating whether "Israel’s" military actions meet the legal threshold of “necessity” and “imminence.”

Legal frameworks and historical parallels

Under international law, three main interpretations guide the use of force in self-defense:

• Preventive strikes against general future threats (widely rejected)
• Preemptive action against imminent attacks (accepted but contested)
• Responsive action only after an attack has occurred (viewed as too narrow by most states)

The ICJ and multiple UN resolutions have warned that armed attacks on nuclear facilities “devoted to peaceful purposes” are violations of international law and the UN Charter.

Observers have compared the current legal uncertainty to the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, when legal advice from the UK’s then-attorney general shifted in the days before British forces joined the US in an invasion based on false claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

As with that case, Hermer’s current legal advice could evolve depending on the scope of the UK's involvement and what "intelligence" is brought before him.